At least 20 states are fighting obesity (and raising revenue) by taxing soft drinks “sold in stores at a higher rate than other types of food.” But two new studies conducted by researchers at Yale and Rand seem to suggest that the relatively low tax rates (the average rate, net of taxes on other food, was 2.08% in 2008) may be doing little to decrease obesity rates.

Both studies conclude that the current beverage taxes are neither large enough nor “transparent enough to lead to meaningful behavioral change” and recommend that states jack up their rates. The Yale researchers also find that states need to remove soda from school cafeterias and vending machines if they hope to reduce child obesity:

Policy Recommendations These results also suggest specific ways to revise future policies to better affect children’s weight outcomes. In particular, we make two recommendations based on our results. First, if states or schools implement policies aimed at reducing access to soft drinks, these restrictions must be comprehensive. Soft drinks should be completely removed from schools for this policy to have a greater chance of being effective—no vending machines, no cafeteria sales, no access anywhere. It is important to note, though, that continued access to soft drinks from homes, convenience stores, and other outlets may still serve to reduce the effects of completely removing soft drink sales from schools.

Second, our findings suggest that incremental changes in taxes on beverages will be largely ineffective. This finding does not preclude the effectiveness of very large increases in taxation on these products, as have been proposed in New York, for example. To date, we know of no evidence that could forecast the likely impacts of substantial changes in soft drink taxes with certainty, but we speculate that an environment of high taxes on soft drinks (as well as unhealthy substitutes), combined with informed consumers, may lead to weight reductions in children.

So a small soda tax may not trip the waistline, but so long as any revenue is dedicated towards funding public health programs, the people who choose to consume ridiculous amounts of Diet Coke or Mountain Dew are paying some part of the extra medical costs associated with that behavior. It’s a good way to raise money and discourage unhealthy behavior (to some degree). Too bad it’s not part of how we’re financing health reform..

Over at the Hill’s Blog Briefing Room, Jordan Fabian is reporting that Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), one of the earliest and most vocal advocates of repealing the health care reform law, is now backing a new plan “that he says would allow the Republicans to avoid a presidential veto while negating the effects of a new healthcare law.” “The 2008 GOP presidential nominee backed a plan that would strip funding from the healthcare law, which he says would not take an override to a veto to accomplish”:

“When I say repeal, people say you’re not going to be able to do it,” he said on KQTH FM Radio. “I am confident we will get majorities in both houses in the fall. And that means the power of the purse…If we cut off the money, it doesn’t take an override to a veto.”

As Fabian notes, “Eliminating funds for the health law would likely be done through the appropriations process in Congress, but it is unclear how Republicans would accomplish their goal by sidestepping a veto. Under the constitution, the president has the right to veto any bill that is passed by Congress.” Indeed, it’s also unclear how much damage the Republicans could actually do, since most of the reform legislation is funded through mandatory spending, which is harder for Congress to control than discretionary spending.

Mandatory spending, such as Medicare and Medicaid, continues from year to year unless Congress passes new legislation to reduce it; discretionary spending, which covers most of the day-to-day operations of federal agencies, is appropriated every year in annual appropriations bills. It’s far easier for Congress to adjust an appropriations mark than muster the political support to pass new legislation to defund the new Medicaid expansion or affordability credits to middle class Americans.

The CBO has identified “at least $50 billion in specified and estimated authorizations of discretionary spending that might be involved in implementing that legislation,” with most the costs associated with implementing the new policies established under the legislation and “a variety of grant and other programs.” You can read the entire breakdown here, but I suspect that the GOP’s effort to defund the bill will be just as politically popular as their short lived campaign to repeal the entire legislation, including protections against pre-existing condition exclusions. McCain has had to backtrack from that and I wouldn’t be surprised if he’ll reverse himself here as well.

Just days ago, Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) was condemning the “government takeover” of health care, cheering on Tea Party protesters, and denouncing the law’s “special deals” on the floor of the House and on news shows across the country. Kingston joined the Republican effort to repeal the law in Congress and co-sponsored two separate bills to “repeal and replace” the bill.

But yesterday, during a town hall at College of Coastal Georgia in Brunswik, Kingston did what’s quickly becoming a popular trend for Republicans. He walked back from his repeal rhetoric and highlighted some of the benefits of the new law:

Instead Kingston, who had joined all other Republicans in the House in voting against the overhaul, focused on changes he thinks should be made to make it better. He said lawmakers have “unfinished business” and both parties should work together to improve the nation’s health care system….At one point, he assured the crowd there are no “death panels,” a charge made by some conservatives over the course of the year-long debate and echoed by at least one citizen in attendance Wednesday. He also said it is too early to tell if the new law violates the U.S. Constitution.

“There are a lot of things in this bill I think you and I certainly like,” Kingston said and called for more provisions to be added that would “end frivolous lawsuits, which increase medical costs, allow people to purchase insurance across state lines and increase the transparency in cost for medical procedures.” “I think as a practicality you’re going to have trouble repealing the whole deal,” Kingsdale said at a different Town Hall on Monday. “But there ought to be areas where Democrats and Republicans can come together.”

Kingston may be directly acknowledging the centrist nature of the health care bill in his district, while still calling for the act’s repeal to national media. On Sunday, just one day before he admitted that repeal was impractical, Kingston appeared on Fox News to tout the effort.

Republicans responded to passage of the health care law by promising to build a new movement to repeal the measure. Maverick Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) led the charge against the bill and Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), Rep. Steve King (R-IA) and Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) introduced gimmicky legislation to rescind the law. With the help of Fox News, Republicans built up the state-based constitutional challenges and reassured their base that could undo the damage. “If we can get to 218, we can force Nancy Pelosi to bring a repeal to the floor for a vote. If the Senate can do that…we have a chance to put a repeal on President Obama’s desk and make him veto that bill,” King explained. “Repeal and replace will be the slogan for the fall,” Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) told CNN’s John King just last week.

But after fewer than 10 days of staying on message, the GOP is now moving “away from trying to repealing the bill and toward focusing on the law’s impact on businesses and jobs.” Several prominent lawmakers have since come out against the knee-jerk repeal strategy:

- Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN): “The fact is that’s not going to happen, OK?” Corker said today at Vanderbilt University. He also said last week that repeal is “probably not going to be practical.”

- Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC): “It may not be total repeal at the end of the day,” said Burr in a radio interview. “It may be a series of fixes over the course of this bill getting enacted that allow us to change and possibly bend that cost curve down.”

- Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX): “The focus really should be on the misplaced priorities of the administration…Candidates are going to test the winds in their own states. … In some places, the health care bill is more popular than others”

- Rep. Mark Kirk (R-IL): promised to lead the charge on repeal just two weeks ago, he now refuses to answer when reporters “asked repeatedly “if he wanted to repeal health care reform.

Moving towards jobs and the economy would make sense, particularly since most of the major provisions in the health care bill don’t kick in until 2014, while some of the immediate benefits — like eliminating life time caps and ending the common insurer practice of denying coverage to children with pre-existing conditions — are too popular for conservatives to openly oppose. They’ve now settled on repealing provisions that would cut into corporate profits.

For those who have covered health care reform for the last 17 months, the Republican confusion is a bit surprising. Throughout the debate, the party maintained a unified message of opposition, arguing that the legislation represented a government take over of the health care system, no matter how conservative the bill actually became. Post reform, they’re scrambling for a message, but I suspect they’ll find one soon enough. They’ll settle on exploiting the fall out from the legislation, with the retiree drug benefit and the Medicaid payment fall off as exhibits one and two.