Is the "Tan Tax" Racist?

Let's see:

Mention the new "tan tax" in a major news outlet and cries of discrimination and reverse racism often follow.

The complaint surfaced on reader comment boards to blogs and news Web sites back in December, when it became clear that the levy -- a 10 percent surcharge on the use of ultraviolet tanning beds -- was likely to be included in the new health-care overhaul bill. Since then, it's been repeated by conservative commentators such as Rush Limbaugh and Doc Thompson, a fill-in host for Glenn Beck who intoned in March, "I now know the pain of racism."

When an article about the fallout from the tax -- which took effect last week -- appeared on the Washington Post's Web site Wednesday, dozens of commenters questioned the tax's legality.

The case can seem deceptively simple: Since patrons of tanning salons are almost exclusively white, the tax will be almost entirely paid by white people and, therefore, violates their constitutional right to equal protection under the law.

But does the argument have any merit? Not remotely said Randall Kennedy, a professor at Harvard Law School specializing in racial conflict and law.

"There is no constitutional problem at all, because a plaintiff would have to show that the government intended to disadvantage a particular group, not simply that the group is disadvantaged in effect," he said.

I would guess that most of the cries of "racism!" are purely tongue-in-cheek, but it does raise some interesting questions. For instance, is it possible Democrats felt pretty safe imposing this tax knowing that it would affect mostly white people and wouldn't hit their pet constituencies in the Hispanic and Black communities? I think that's quite possibly true.  It's hard to imagine the Democrats approving of any tax that would almost exclusively target brown or black people.

Is the tax racist?  No, but it does seem to show that certain groups are considered fair game for taxes while others are not.