Another week, another attempt by Republicans to present the new health care law as the costly government takeover they said it was. Republicans are all over a new report from the conservative National Center for Policy Analysis that “shows that tax credits in the new healthcare law could negatively impact small-business hiring decisions“:

The new law provides a 50 percent tax credit to companies offering health coverage that have fewer than 10 workers who, on average, earn $25,000 a year. The tax credit is reduced as more employees are added to the payroll. The NCPA study finds the reduction in tax relief to be a cost concern for companies looking to hire additional workers, but operate on slim profit margin yet still provide employee health coverage.

The study has been tweeted by House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH), SenateDoctors (Sens. Tom Coburn (R-OK) and John Barrasso (R-WY)), and Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) but its source and message are somewhat suspect. First, the National Center for Policy Analysisis “a right wing think tank with programs devoted to privatization” of “taxes, Social Security and Medicare, health care, criminal justice, environment, education, and welfare.” The group is funded by conservative Bradley, Scaife, Koch, Olin, Earhart, Castle Rock, and JM Foundations.

Moreover, the argument itself makes little sense. The credit operates on a sliding scale and was designed to aid the businesses that face the biggest obstacles in providing affordable coverage — small businesses that don’t have the advantage of large risk pools. Throughout the health care debate, Senators incorporated amendments from Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME), improving the structure of the credit, but legislatures remained aware of the reality of limited resources. Democrats were coming under daily bombardment for presenting a bill that cost too much and were constrained by the president’s price tag ceiling of $900 billion. Now, the very same individuals who claimed that the bill spent too much, are seemingly suggesting that it did not spend enough on small business tax credits.

Stripping the argument of its health care context and extending it to any kind of sliding scale structure only underlines its weakness. Under this logic, any program that caps eligibility is flawed because it encourages individuals to make less so they can continue to receive a government benefit. Rather than help millions of Americans access affordable health care and other social services, all social aid programs actually discourage upward mobility and the progressive tax system pushes Americans into lower paying jobs.

If you believe that people’s decisions center around federal aid guidelines and nothing else, then I suppose have to discount not only the growth of America’s middle class, but also all other small business benefits of the new health care law.

As a growing number of cities and states are considering plugging budget shortfalls with a tax on soda, the beverage industry is actively lobbying legislatures to defeat the measure, the Wall Street Journal reports. In Philadelphia, the Canada Dry Delaware Valley Bottling Co even offered to donate $10 million “into health and wellness programs in the city through the Pew Charitable Trusts” to keep the city from imposing the tax. “The moves come as officials in at least 20 cities and states have proposed new taxes or the removal of tax exemptions on non-alcoholic beverages so far this year”:

Industry officials argue that taxes would penalize consumers at a time when people are already struggling and lead to lost jobs for bottlers and distributors. “This is all about grabbing money to fill budget deficits and pay for more government,” said Kevin Keane, a spokesman for the American Beverage Association, the main trade organization representing Coca-Cola Co., PepsiCo Inc. and other beverage makers. “There’s really a grassroots disdain for more taxes, especially on grocery items.”

The ABA spent $18.9 million in 2009 on lobbying, compared with about $668,000 in 2008, with most of the money going toward ads against a federal soft-drink tax. The organization spent $5.4 million in the first quarter of 2010, up from $140,000 in the year-earlier period, with most of the money in the latest quarter spent on advertising changes that have been made in beverage selections at schools to reduce calories, the ABA said. The figures don’t include money spent by local coalitions and lobbyists to battle state and local taxes.

Map of state efforts:

So far the lobbying has been a success, as soda tax initiatives have basically failed in Washington, D.C., Baltimore and New York City. The industry has put forth the argument that soda is an essential commodity and that taxing it would disproportionately impact poor families who drink it most. But the tax is only as regressive as the disease itself and the industry’s meme only makes sense if you ignore or discount the fact that obesity disproportionately affects the poor. The “more government” argument is also unsound, since taxing soda could actually reduce government spending on obesity-related treatments and improve health outcomes among lower income Americans.

Lobbyists may have succeeded over the short term, but you can’t get away from the reality that in a period of staggering deficits, taxing a non-essential commodity that only increases health care expenditures makes a lot of sense. That economic necessity for revenue may make all of the lobbying obsolete– at least in the long-term.