In 1959, as the tensions of the Cold War seethed into their second decade, Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev paid a visit to the United States. His stops included New York, Washington, Los Angeles, and, much to the head-scratching of the CIA, a little stop in between: Iowa (and yes, a 50th anniversary commemoration exists).

Russia had stolen the formula for the atomic bomb. She could send satellites into space. But the one area where we the capitalists had her beat wasn't in a secret smuggled around in briefcases handcuffed to wrists but in a practice as old as civilization itself: agriculture.

Get the new
PD toolbar!

In Iowa, Khrushchev's eyes confirmed what his spy planes had probably already told him: corn fields sprawled unbroken in all directions like great sheets of Siberian snow. He believed that he could replicate the American agricultural model to break his reliance on an unsustainable and inconsistent supply of imported grain.

Back in the USSR, a perfect storm of inadequate resources, overstretched reforms, and sparse infrastructure left the inept Soviet premier's massive corn fields as withered as his plans to save the famine-plagued masses. Khrushchev had instead sown the seeds of his country's implosion.

Here in the United States, farming constitutes a large part of our national identity, and it is largely misunderstood. The ideal of the family farm has been foreclosed upon by great agribusinesses that replace the amber waves of grain we idealize with regimented row upon regimented row of subsidized corn.

Where Khrushchev's corn grew to endanger the Russian people by not growing, our hulking system of corn subsidies threatens us because of its amazing success. Subsidized corn is fed to our cattle, and subsidized corn gets processed into high-fructose corn syrup (whose producers benefit from the subsidies). The cheapness of corn means the foods that are made with corn – hamburgers from corn-fed cows as well as soda, cereal, and countless foods sweetened with high-fructose corn syrup – are also cheap, and they are everywhere.

The effect is news to no one. We Americans gorge ourselves on fast food and sugary drinks to such a prodigious degree that nearly one-third of us tip the scales into obesity. While government corn subsidies make it cheaper for us to munch our way to obesity, type 2 diabetes and high blood pressure, the situation actually bears enormous costs for our country. As Michael Pollan, author of "The Omnivore's Dilemma," recently pointed out in a New York Times op-ed piece: "We're spending $147 billion to treat obesity, $116 billion to treat diabetes, and hundreds of billions more to treat cardiovascular disease and the many types of cancer that have been linked to the so-called Western diet. One recent study estimated that 30 percent of the increase in health care spending over the past 20 years could be attributed to the soaring rate of obesity, a condition that now accounts for nearly a tenth of all spending on health care."

A healthy population is better for everyone – the government and, of course, the citizens themselves. As the government trudges through health care reform and looks to cover more of our population, it will certainly want to encourage healthier eating habits. The yearly health care costs for a person with type 2 diabetes? $6,600. Over a lifetime that's $400,000-plus.

So what to do? Obama has tossed around the idea of a sin tax, which would ideally impose an extra cost of a few cents per unit of volume in sugary soft drinks. (Some have talked about levying a uniform tax on each bottle of high-fructose corn syrupy beverage purchased, which would only encourage people to buy their drinks in larger quantities.) Sin taxes can be hard to pass given the power wielded by the big names in soft drinks – Coca Cola, maybe you've heard of it? – and the fact that many consider them a tax on the middle and lower classes. That's a big no-no these days.

For me, though, the biggest problem with a sin tax on sodas would be its relationship with our old friend, the corn subsidy. Using taxes to disincentivize something we have already incentivized through subsidies is a less than perfect solution. It would be as if the government gave every college student a generous grant to attend public universities while also hiking up tuition. It's like a happy hour where the drinks cost more.

New York State was unable to muster support for its soda tax, so New York City, whose commitment to its residents' health is such that its health commissioner is considering banning smoking outdoors, has developed a wonderfully off-putting anti-soft drink ad campaign. Subway riders engaged in the jostle of their morning commutes will be treated to the additional jolt of seeing liquid fat cascade from a soda bottle and into a glass.

Although taxing a subsidized sin may be contradictory, if it gets our nation on the road toward better health, then it is worth it. People should not be able to buy soft drinks and other sugary treats in such great quantities for so little money. Together, the New York ad, which pleads "Don't Drink Yourself Fat," and the sin tax -- backward as it may be -- are steps in the right direction toward encouraging better eating habits. More awareness of the ills of consuming greater amounts of foods and drinks containing high-fructose corn syrup may create a backlash against the corn subsidies whose agribusiness roots run deep enough to stymie any meaningful reform.

Should our system of corn subsidies be reconsidered, I would hope the money left over would not just go toward ads and initiatives telling us what not to eat, but smarter subsidies that encourage healthier habits. Subsidize farms that provide fresh and local fruits and vegetables. Taxes and subsidies work because we are so sensitive to price. You can tell me to buy healthy greens, but I can only be expected to eat what I can afford. If the government is serious about our health – and the ongoing health care overhaul suggests that it is – legislators should subsidize better lifestyle choices. My parents can afford wholesome farmers' market produce, but as a college student, the idea of spending $20-$30 on vegetables is not just out of the question – it makes McDonald's look awfully appealing.


Follow PoliticsDaily On Facebook and Twitter,
and download the new Politics Daily toolbar!