In the many analyses of what the consequences of the Affordable Care Act will produce, some refer in the abstract to the government ordering Americans to buy certain products. One example cited many times and even raised during the oral arguments before the Supremes, was whether the government could order one to buy broccoli.  The reaction from the left has generally been dismissive because broccoli is not “unique,” the characteristic of the health care market that makes it, well, unique. After-all, “everyone will need health care at some point, but not everyone needs broccoli.” Certainly George H. W. Bush would agree. From the right, or at least the center, Charles Fried, the Solicitor General in the second Reagan term, is outraged by such a metaphor and was offended that a Justice of the court would raise it. Clearly, Mr. Fried misses the hyperbole.

But, what about food in general? The market is larger than even health care!  We know that Michelle Obama, the unelected wife of the President, has made a cause of “proper” nutrition.  We know that in San Antonio, the public schools have installed surveillance cameras in cafeterias, not to prevent food fights or other disruptions, but to monitor caloric intake – food consumption – and assure that it’s consistent with Mrs. Obama’s prescribed dietary guidelines.  In North Carolina, teachers recently confiscated wholesome, home prepared lunches, and substituted government provided food deemed to be more nutritious. And, we know that government is always able to expand its reach, redefine the market, and even redefine “unique.”

How long will it be before the federal government, for our own good, begins enforcement of dietary rules to reduce obesity, limit diabetes, lower colon cancer rates, and other worthy goals?

There is nothing so unique that “progressive” congresses can’t find general solutions . . . for your own good.

Eat your broccoli. You’ll need the strength.