In the past, at the dawn of a new year, I have set myself a goal to write regularly. That plan has always fallen flat thanks to lack of discipline and deference to competing priorities – but mostly lack of discipline.

For 2022, I made no such plans. And yet, here I am typing away at my keyboard as if to meet a weekly writing goal. But this post is not about sticking to a regular writing schedule. It is, however, inspired by what leads many great columnists to stick to theirs – irritation.

According to Washington Post columnist George Will, when asked the question, “How do you come up with things to write about?” William F. Buckley Jr. replied, “The world irritates me three times a week.” The implication being: write about what irritates you, and you will have sufficient material for a regular column.

The world irritates me three times a week.

^{_{William F. Buckley Jr. on the question, “How do you come up with things to write about?” according to George F. Will.}}

The source of my irritation is the new grocery bag tax plaguing northern Virginia.

I am generally irritated by taxes, but I find this new tax all the more bothersome, thanks to its timing. Earlier this week, I returned from California, where I spent Christmas and the New Year with my family. Family time is always rewarding but trips to California also come with reminders that the state has a penchant for bad policy – including its ban on plastic bags.

Usually, I do not do much grocery shopping while I am home. My typical encounter with the market occurs as a tag-along when my parents are shopping or on a one-off visit to pick up a few ingredients needed for dinner.

If I’m the one doing the buying, I grab only what I can carry without using a bag. Under the circumstances, I’m much more willing to shove items into my pockets and to walk away with overladen arms. Honey badger don’t pay no bag tax.

When I returned from my California visit, I thought I had left the plastic phobia behind me. Much to my dismay, at the self-checkout at my local grocery store in northern Virginia, I was confronted by a new prompt on the machine, asking me how many store-provided bags I used. It turns out, with the flip of the calendar, a new bag tax had taken effect.

Now, I tend to use reusable totes because they make it easier to carry my groceries on the walk home. But on this occasion, I was without my bags and found myself needing one that, a few days before, the store would have provided free of charge. So now, 10 cents later, I am irritated.

My opposition to the tax is more on principle than the cost. At 5 cents per bag, the tax will not break the bank. Regardless, it is still bad policy. Taxes should be about raising revenue to meet spending obligations, not social engineering. This new tax is really virtue signaling by Democratic politicians and environmental activists who circulated a petition to impose the tax following similar virtue signaling by the Virginia legislature and Democratic governor.

Arlington County, where I live, enacted the ordinance after receiving a petition with fewer than 1,500 signatories – not even 1 percent of registered voters.

A letter accompanying the petition claimed, “The plastic bag tax will encourage residents to shift to more sustainable, reusable bags…” Never mind that reusable bags are unhygienic and require nearly 200 years of regular use before achieving an overall environmental benefit.

I’m also dubious that the tax will reduce the prevalence of grocery bags that supposedly “litter our streets and open spaces.” When San Francisco banned single-use bags, the reduction in plastic bags comprising the city’s litter was statistically insignificant. Besides, the “nasty streets” of San Francisco have bigger problems than plastic bags.

Reportedly, revenue for the tax will be used for environmental cleanup programs, pollution and litter mitigation programs, educational programs, and to provide reusable bags to SNAP and WIC beneficiaries. But so what? If the tax is supposed to eliminate plastic bag usage, then the beneficiaries of the revenue are irrelevant. Really the tax pays for pet projects that make “environmentalists” feel good.

Of course, all of this ignores what the new tax portends for grocery-inspired comedy. Inevitably, grocery clerks will assume customers will want to avoid bagging large items such as the cumbersome gallon of milk. After all, it already comes equipped with a handle. As a result, they will forego the standard question: “Would you like the milk in a bag?” Leaving dad-joke aficionados without an opportunity to supply the always humorous response, “No, thanks. Just leave it in the container.”

Did anyone mention this to the petition signatories while they signed on to the death of comedy in exchange for an “environmentally friendly” bag tax?