'Stimulus' Dollars At Work…Paying Lobbyists for the Nanny State

Last month, Phil Kerpen wrote an insightful piece here at BigGovernment.com about “The Stimulus Bill’s Hidden Attack on What We Eat, Drink, and Smoke.” In it, he detailed yet another absurd (and angering) use of so-called “stimulus” funds to help lobby for restrictions and higher taxes on the nanny state’s favorite targets: unhealthy foods, sweetened beverages, tobacco, and other disfavored products that your friendly bureaucrat doesn’t think you ought to enjoy. Digging through the Health and Human Services Department’s stimulus website raises some serious questions about the $650 million in taxpayer money being spent on this program, called “Communities Putting Prevention to Work” (CPPW).

Several grant descriptions suggest that this funding may be in violation of guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control, through which the CPPW program is administered. The CDC’s lobbying restriction guideline states in part that, “no part of CDC appropriated funds, shall be used…to support or defeat legislation pending before the Congress or any State or local legislature.” And yet, that’s exactly what several of the grantees plan to use the money for.

For example, Jefferson County, Alabama plans to spend $7 million on a “tobacco use prevention and cessation initiative [that] will promote changes in policies to reduce smoking opportunities and reduce access to tobacco products.” Pretty straightforward, that. They plan to lobby for more smoking bans and restricting access to legal tobacco products.

New York City, for its part, plans to spend $15.5 million “work[ing] to set policies and create environments that reduce consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages and overly salted foods.” One New York legislator is already trying to “create an environment” where restaurants are prohibited by law from using SALT in their food. Yes, salt, the substance without which virtually every food on Earth would be inedible.

Perhaps my favorite, our nation’s capital is spending $4.9 million on a program called “LiveWell DC,” which will “explore limiting tobacco access through zoning/license restrictions, restrict point-of-purchase advertising of tobacco products, support the elimination of price discounts, and provide social support through quitline and other cessation services.” Quite the laundry list there.

If we can agree on a general definition of lobbying as “attempting to influence government action,” then these programs would certainly seem to qualify. And the outrages don’t end there.

In addition to possibly violating lobbying restrictions, several grantees plan to use the money for, ahem, questionable projects like “signage for bike lanes,” and other similar efforts. (It’s rather doubtful that LaCrosse, Wisconsin will look like Beijing with a few extra signs) In San Diego, the County is using taxpayer money to create a “food distribution center,” which they claim will “link local food demand to supply.” (Apparently the media has dropped the ball in reporting on the mass starvations happening in the area) In Colorado, they’re spending money to create “community gardens,” which sounds fascinating…and wasteful.

If that wasn’t enough, the whole program just oozes with Orwellian language. CPPW calls their programs “interventions,” which makes it sound like anyone who has ever smoked a cigarette or wolfed down a Big Mac is in for a tearful “education” (another oft-used term) session with government agents. Several grantees plan to employ “evidence-based pricing strategies” with regard to disfavored products, which is just a fancy way of saying that they plan to raise taxes on them.

There’s a lot to be angry about with the stimulus, but spending millions of dollars that we don’t have to lobby (possibly illegally) for policies that will further restrict our choices and increase government’s control over our lives is one of the biggest outrages yet.