The Washington Post has a story, excerpted below, about people who think the tanning tax is racist because it targets a service used overwhelmingly by white people. And while some critics make a good point about how that would be the story if there was a tax on a product used overwhelmingly by blacks or Asians, I think it is silly to think that racism played a role in the imposition of the tax. First of all, my recollection is that the push for the levy came from Capitol Hill, where the Democrats who hold power are almost all white. Second – and more important, I don’t sense any racism in Obama. To the extent he discriminates, it is against green – at least when that color represents money that you have that he hasn’t figured out how to grab.
When an article about the fallout from the tax — which took effect last week — appeared on the Washington Post’s Web site Wednesday, dozens of commenters questioned the tax’s legality. The case can seem deceptively simple: Since patrons of tanning salons are almost exclusively white, the tax will be almost entirely paid by white people and, therefore, violates their constitutional right to equal protection under the law. But does the argument have any merit? Not remotely said Randall Kennedy, a professor at Harvard Law School specializing in racial conflict and law. “There is no constitutional problem at all, because a plaintiff would have to show that the government intended to disadvantage a particular group, not simply that the group is disadvantaged in effect,” he said.
We tax tobacco, yes?
To me this is a practical tax. Just as studies have now proven the link between tobacco consumption and cancer, many recent studies have demonstrated that there is a direct link between the regular use of tanning beds (by anyone of ANY race) and the development of skin cancer.
You may be right, Dan, but look at the argument of the Harvard Law prof: “There is no constitutional problem at all, because a plaintiff would have to show that the government intended to disadvantage a particular group, not simply that the group is disadvantaged in effect,” he said.
When in the last 40 years has this been the constitutional requirement in regard to all kinds of employment situations? To the left, the fact that “too few” of a certain group are being promoted is de facto evidence of racism or sexism. The intent of i.d. checks, or tests, or all physical requirements has meant nothing when the perceived discrimination has been against “protected minorities.” But now that the perceived discrimination is against whites, suddenly the intent of the law must be considered.
Typical of liberals, don’t you think?
I would have to agree with this, tanning causes cancer, this tax is only around to help pay for the extra health care costs associated with this. I doubt this will make a difference when we all use the Income Tax Calculator next year
It may be true that Obama is not racist, but he is letting the DOJ act in a racist fashion. I can think of no other explanation for the Julie Fernandes, Ike Brown and Philly Black Panthers stories.
The DOJ under Obama is doing what Attorneys General did for 100 years (though they no longer do it), namely, not prosecuting police officers. It’s just that the Panthers are the beginning of Obama’s “civilian defense force,” the one he promised during the campaign.
How many SEIU members were prosecuted for assault during some of those town meetings last year?