don's report archive

by Donald B. Ardell, Ph. D.

Wellness in the Headlines
(Don's Report to the World)

How far should we go to encourage healthy lifestyles? Suppose Americans were an endangered species, which in a way we are due to the fact that so many of us are overweight, under-fit, stressed to excess and bored to tears. Is this sufficient cause for government to subsidize better habit patterns? It would seem so. While the people are NOT quite an endangered species, they ARE in peril of suffering all manner of illness, disease and diminished quality of life due to self-imposed risk behaviors, such as too little exercise. Should the government intervene? Specifically, are things so bad that it is now appropriate for Congress to allot taxpayer dollars to subsidize lifestyle improvements? In short, has the time come to create a reward structure that will encourage better behavior choices leading to improved citizen health status?

US Congressman Earl Blumenauer, D-OR, thinks it has. He has introduced "The Bike Commuter Act," co-sponsored by Rep. Mark Foley, R-FL. Mr. Blumenauer heads the "Congressional Bike Caucus", a bipartisan group with over a hundred House members. The original goal of the Caucus was simply to provide opportunities for members of Congress and their staffs to have fun biking. More recently, the Caucus has supported cycling efforts nationwide to promote safer roads, more bikeways, convenient bike parking and increased recognition of the importance of cycling.

Mr. Blumenauer comes from a state with hundreds of miles of bike boulevards, paths and lanes. He believes the rest of the country can be encouraged to lead healthier lifestyles and that everyone, including non-cyclists, should be supportive of his modest bill. In the past decade, Congress has quadrupled spending on bike projects to nearly $2 billion. The result? About 20,000 miles of bike trails, bike racks on buses, and widespread biker safety programs.

Mr. Blumenauer makes a good case that people who cycle to work deserve a tax break. He notes that a bike commuter does not pollute, improves his health (assuming he does not get run over) and lightens the traffic load for everyone else. Motorists and mass transit patrons get all manner of tax breaks -- why not give one to those whose initiative to pedal to work benefits the rest of society as well as their own health? (See "Congressman Eyes Tax Breaks for Cyclists" by Matthew Daly, Nation World, March 23, 2003.) At a time of soaring energy (and health care) costs, this seems eminently sensible. Why discriminate in terms of tax treatment against those who do not pollute the air, contribute to traffic congestion or lower petroleum reserves?"

The League of American Bicyclists claims a million workers commute by bicycle on a regular basis. The Bureau of Transportation Statistics puts bicycles ahead of mass transit as a favored mode of transportation. The current tax code allows companies to deduct the costs of parking plans and van-pool expenses, subsidies that seem to encourage sedentary commuting. Why not give the same break to those who help themselves and society -- by cycling to work? There is no shortage of precedents. A Time magazine study in 1998 put the cost of corporate welfare at $125 billion annually. By comparison, Congressman Blumenauer's bill would cost only $114 million a year. Not bad for an initiative that sends a positive, wellness-friendly message, especially compared with the $3.7 billion annual cost of tax breaks for drivers and mass transit users.

So, should sedentary folks line up with biking commuters to support this tax break? Is there anything wrong with encouraging desired wellness-oriented behaviors? Might this initiative begin a process that could mitigate the lifestyle problems that threaten to overwhelm the medical and health insurance systems and break the economy in the process? Is it wise to use taxpayer funds for the exercise of common sense?

Yes, yes and yes. The only problem with this bill is that it does not go far enough! Why not provide the same benefits for those who run or walk to work -- or, for that matter, get there in any manner other than via a private automobile?

In addition to supporting this Bill, let's think of others like it that would have similar effects of promoting healthier lifestyles. How about taxpayer support (for example, tax credits) for those who meet a yet-to-be-developed age-graded wellness profile? Whether someone bikes, runs, swims or otherwise gets fit and stays that way, what alone matters in a major way is the level of well-being attained. Under Congressman Blumenauer's Bill, a cycle commuter could theoretically smoke on his/her ride to/from work, fail to wear a helmet, ride with a Walkman-like device and pedal so slowly for an inconsequential distance that little value (save energy efficiency) would result. Let's pass this Bill and then create another that meets a larger standard, namely, one that enables a goal of not just protecting the environment but also motivates citizens to undertake a myriad of actions required for genuine fitness and overall well being.

In summary, "The Bike Commuter Act" is a good start. It is an effective way to demonstrate that exercise pays off, in more ways than one. Let's follow this innovative law with others that are part of a larger strategy to reinforce and subsidize desired lifestyles and health outcomes. This will be even more effective than categorical, single initiatives that do a small part of a desired larger job.

Do you agree? Be well and always look on the bright side of life.

(Note: This essay will be filed in the archives in the PHYSICAL DOMAIN under the skill area of exercise and fitness. Additional articles related to this theme may be found there.)

(Ed. Note: Views expressed in this and other columns are those of the author and not necessarily those of the SeekWellness Editorial Board.)

 Send e-mail to Don Ardell