Hicks applauds the First Lady Michelle Obama’s ‘Let’s Move!’ anti-obesity initiative, one that our member companies support with the “Clear on Calories” initiative.  As part of this effort, our member companies will clearly display the calories on the front of cans or bottles as well as on vending and fountain machines.  This means that within two years, every time consumers touch one of our beverages, they will have calorie information they need right at their fingertips.

Also, America’s leading beverage companies have delivered on the national School Beverage Guidelines commitment, which removes full-calorie soft drinks from schools across the country.  Beverage calories shipped to schools have declined 88 percent!  We’re proud to say that this voluntary commitment is having a meaningful impact in schools across the country.

Finally, and as proof to Hick’s point that industry will respond to the incentives and demands of consumers, beverage companies continue to create more zero-calorie, low-calorie and reduced-portion size products.  In fact, since 1998, there has been a 21 percent reduction in beverage calories in the marketplace.

We support solutions that work.  We think that we all need to counter challenges like obesity with programs that improve nutrition education and expand healthy options for people, like the ones above.  Taxes have proven to be ineffective and miss the mark on obesity, and Marybeth Hicks’ op-ed certainly tells it like it is.

A few months ago, a national poll released by Rasmussen Reports also found that a majority of Americans oppose a tax on soft drinks.  And respondents strongly believed that lawmakers are far more interested in raising money for more government than in using tax revenue for public health.

Across the board, respondents have clearly stated in no uncertain terms that they do not support a tax on soft drinks that will inevitably go to paying for more government.

The facts remain that taxes such as those being talked about by some activists and policymakers are highly regressive, hurting the most those who can least afford it.  As lawmakers look for ways to address public health issues like obesity, we encourage them to focus on meaningful and lasting solutions – not simplistic solutions that will only fill budget gaps on the backs of their hard-working constituents.

Today, we thought it was a perfect time to share some timely news coverage with you from a few media outlets in places where beverage taxes have been – and perhaps still are – on the table:

• Yesterday, the Baltimore Sun reported that Baltimore City Council Members presented an alternate revenue plan to fill the city’s budget gap, setting a way forward that does not include Mayor Rawlings-Blake’s proposed 4-cent beverage container tax.

• “D.C. soda tax likely dead,” at least that’s the headline on “The Breaking News Blog” on the Washington Post as of just before 4:00 p.m. ET today. According to this post, “a majority” of District City Council members are opposed to Council Member Mary Cheh’s idea to tax sugar-sweetened beverages at a penny per ounce and Council Chair Vincent Gray is asking for other possible ways to fund the Healthy Schools Act.

• New York Gov. David Paterson proposed a beverage tax earlier this year, for the second year in a row, as a way to fill the state’s budget gap. Although a tax was not included in either the Assembly or Senate versions of the budget, the New Yorkers Against Unfair Taxes coalition has been hard at work educating people about why a soda tax is the wrong approach.  This afternoon, the Albany Times-Union “Capitol Confidential” blog reported that, while Gov. Paterson today suggested giving a state sales tax exemption to bottled water and diet sodas, the Senate Democrats just aren’t going for it.

• And in Philadelphia, the City Council convened once again today to pass a budget, which they did without inclusion of a soda tax.  Mayor Nutter held a press conference shortly thereafter, announcing $20 million in budget cuts.  You can read some reactions from members of the City Council on Philly.com.

We hope that policymakers in these cities and states truly follow through and do the right thing for their constituents.  After all, the last thing anyone needs right now are any more taxes, especially on items in their grocery carts.

This new tax on beverages would be highly regressive, and is clearly nothing more than a money grab. In today’s troubled economic times, it’s not the right time to raise taxes on hard-working families. Philadelphia is already experiencing double-digit unemployment rates. The beverage industry supports more than 2,000 good paying jobs in the Philadelphia area. It makes no sense to put even more local jobs at risk.

We, along with many others in the City of Brotherly Love, believe that now is not the time to raise prices on the items in our grocery carts. Families can’t afford to pay another penny.

We understand that Philadelphia’s budget shortfall is not to be taken lightly. But there is a better way to balance the budget than to place the financial burden on the backs of hard-working citizens. This off-season has been tough enough for Philly fans.

Colorado gubernatorial candidate Scott McInnis highlighted the problem with the tax while at a Pepsi Bottling Company plant this past weekend in Denver. McInnis noted that a tax like this would negatively impact families and jobs in Colorado. In addition to impacting the consumers, the tax will also hurt the suppliers, retailers and vendors.

It’s not fair to put the burden of government’s reckless overspending on the backs of hard-working families. This tax is discriminatory in nature and would arrest development and growth in an economy in need of both. And, the disadvantages of taxing soft drinks and other beverages are amplified during an economic downturn.

We at Sip & Savor hope Mr. McInnis’ call on government will reverberate beyond Colorado as other states and municipalities attempt to tackle budget issues.

“Philadelphia just went on this wild ride last year of having to ask the state to change the sales tax and it pushed us on the verge of bankruptcy of not being able to have the money to pay our bills,” Butkovitz said. “Under state law, Philadelphia would have to ask permission for a soda tax. It’s a bad idea after going through the experience so recently to go on that roller coaster ride again.”

We couldn’t agree more. A discriminatory and regressive tax on sugar-sweetened beverages is nothing more than a money grab. It proved unpopular in Maine when voters repealed a similar tax on beverages in 2008, and in New York where the Governor himself withdrew the proposal early last year.

In today’s economy, hard-working families are already struggling to make ends meet. Adding the additional burden of plugging a hole in the budget with a tax to people’s grocery bills just isn’t right.

And this past week, we read pieces by writers from seemingly polar opposite perspectives come together in agreement that lawmakers should nix any thoughts of pursuing a discriminatory and regressive tax on sugar-sweetened beverages.

On Sunday, the Washington Post published an insightful piece titled: “Five Myths We Need to Can About Soda Taxes.” As the title suggests, author Katherine Mangu-Ward uses reason to shoot holes in many of the tax advocates arguments. Ms. Mangu-Ward is senior editor at Reason magazine.

But earlier this week, the left-of-center digital site Slate actually ran two separate posts by their writers taking the tax to task. The first is by Daniel Engber, a senior editor, and takes an interesting turn on the “redistributing wealth” argument to make a point that a regressive soda tax would “redistribute pleasure” in a not-so-fair way.

A second piece in Slate was written the next day by national correspondent William Saletan. Mr. Saletan takes on the growing ambitions of the food police and the dangers of a slippery slope with these kinds of taxes. (Not to mention a defense of his editor’s fondness for Fresca.)

For those who read and follow the perspectives written by those on the left and the right, you know that it’s not every day that writers from Slate and Reason get to the same place. But if leading writers from these two outlets are able to drive Mack trucks through the arguments of the tax advocates (and their “science”) and converge on the notion that a soda tax is just plain wrong-headed…maybe it’s time for lawmakers to give up on the idea. It’s time to move on.

New York’s governor proposed a tax hike on soft drinks and other beverages in December. It received such a backlash from New Yorkers that the governor and legislative leaders held a news conference to pull back the proposal just months later.

Now, the pro-tax activists are trying to persuade federal lawmakers to raise taxes on soft drinks and other beverages. You may have read about the Senate Finance Committee roundtable today that is looking at ways to finance health care reform.

Well, we hope the federal leaders don’t take the bait.

Because taxes won’t make a dent in addressing health care. And it makes no sense singling out one set of products for taxation when obesity is such a complex problem with a multitude of contributors. In fact, the data undermines the critics’ entire premise: soft drinks sales have declined annually since 2000, while obesity rates have risen throughout this decade.

Look, the beverage industry knows that childhood obesity is a serious problem. And it’s going to take comprehensive and thoughtful solutions to reduce it and prevent it.

This is why our industry stepped up years ago with the national School Beverage Guidelines that we developed with the William J. Clinton Foundation and the American Heart Association through their Alliance for a Healthier Generation.

Through the guidelines, our industry is taking all full-calorie soft drinks out of school. And we’re capping calories and portion-sizes on the beverages that remain. A pretty tough policy with real financial consequences for our industry, but the right thing to do.

Why? Because schools are unique places – places of education. It is here that students should learn the one full-proof equation for maintaining a healthy weight: balance calories consumed from all foods with calories burned through exercise. And we believed it was important that the beverages we sell in schools help reinforce calorie balance. We also know that schools are places where parents aren’t around to watch what their kids eat.

And our efforts are delivering results. In two years, we’ve already cut calories by 58 percent in schools, and nearly 80 percent of schools under contract are already in compliance.

Lawmakers need to focus on more common sense solutions like this. Solutions that do the hard work of teaching our children how to balance calories and, by doing so, give them the skills to maintain a healthy weight throughout their lifetime.

A tax won’t teach children any skills, nor will it have a lasting, meaningful impact on reducing childhood obesity. A tax is just the wrong public policy for such a complex problem.

Plus, people believe government is overreaching when it uses the tax code to tell people what to eat or how to feed their children. That’s not government’s role.

So where do things stand? There are already two strikes on the beverage tax idea in the past six months. We hope that Congress makes this strike three.

While that will do right by families and their children, it unfortunately won’t eliminate the food police like CSPI, the Rudd Center or others who make their living – literally, their income – by bashing foods and beverages. There’s too much money at stake for them to take a seat after striking out…. or at least working towards more reasonable solutions that would actually make a difference. Just keep their self-interested motives in mind, too, as you consider these tax proposals.