America vs. the Sugar Lobby (http://www.redstate.com/pat_toomey/2012/06/20/america-vs-the-sugar-lobby/)


It’s not often conservatives and liberals, Democrats and Republicans, pro-growth conservative groups and the Teamsters agree on something. In fact, it’s almost unheard of. :whistle:

But when it comes to the federal government’s sugar program – one of the most egregious corporate welfare handouts in a long list of wasteful programs – these strange bedfellows have found common ground.

For years, the federal government has kept the price of sugar high by capping domestic production, imposing a de facto government price floor, and mandating that USDA buy excess sugar to sell to ethanol producers at a loss. The U.S. government also places exorbitant restrictions on sugar imports. The cumulative effect of all these special protections is an artificial increase in the price of sugar for Americans relative to other countries.

As a result, American consumers pay more for products containing sugar, and U.S. manufacturers of sugar consuming products are at a competitive disadvantage. Not surprisingly, many of these manufacturers have closed their doors or moved their factories to Canada and Mexico where sugar costs less than half the price. The Department of Commerce agrees, finding that for every one job protected by the sugar program, three others are lost in sugar using manufacturing industries.



I know lets end the subsides, add a 25% tax on sugar and require food producers to post on the packaging a price difference based on the amount of sugar in the product

.... this loaf of bread would cost $ X.xx but we load it with sugar so you will buy more ..... so it costs $ Y.yy

As a philosophical question, what's wrong with subsidies? Absent them, sugar in the US is no more. I don't ask this as a free market advocate because that speaks for itself. I ask it as a practical matter in terms of the national interest, promoting the general welfare.

:popcorn:

you subsidize something, like Affirmative Action you unfairly elevate one business [sugar producers] or a group of individuals over another


maybe pansy growers should get a subsidy over plastic plants manufactures .... make the real thing cheaper




maybe the Gov. should keep that Helium Storage Facility going - I hear we may need barrage balloons in the next war, how about Mohair / Wool do you think we need vast herds of sheep, in case the next war is fought in the Antarctic Region

you subsidize something, like Affirmative Action you unfairly elevate one business [ US sugar producers] or a group of individuals over another (Brazilian sugar producers


maybe pansy growers should get a subsidy over plastic plants manufactures .... make the real thing cheaper Would it serve the national interest, promote the general welfare?




maybe the Gov. should keep that Helium Storage Facility going - I hear we may need barrage balloons in the next war, how about Mohair / Wool do you think we need vast herds of sheep, in case the next war is fought in the Antarctic Region

Same question; would it serve the national interest and promote the general welfare?

There are certain things like, say, oil, where we simply can not compete with, say, Saudi, on costs. Nor would it make any sense to subsidize US oil so we didn't use Saudi oil. That would use up our much higher quality oil for crap oil uses like gas, far faster than would serve the national interest or promote the general welfare.

There are other areas like auto manufacturing where it would have made more sense to let GM figure it out, like Ford did, how to better compete than subsidize.

National interest, promote the general welfare.

you are contradicting yourself

you talk about subsidies and promoting the general welfare, then talk about Ford and how free markets work, but GM was bailed out


[we know the GM Bailout was all about UNIONS, so they would not have to endure pay cuts and other losses of benifits, - IMHO what would have happened had GM gone thorough a NORMAL Chap 13 or 11]


IMHO it is better to let business succeed or fail, based on their business decisions and responses to the markets ... if they cannot adapt then they close shop and employee's go elsewhere

you are contradicting yourself

you talk about subsidies and promoting the general welfare, then talk about Ford and how free markets work, but GM was bailed out


[we know the GM Bailout was all about UNIONS, so they would not have to endure pay cuts and other losses of benifits, - IMHO what would have happened had GM gone thorough a NORMAL Chap 13 or 11]


IMHO it is better to let business succeed or fail, based on their business decisions and responses to the markets ... if they cannot adapt then they close shop and employee's go elsewhere

I'm not contradicting myself because I am taking no position on this. I am asking about serving the national interest and promoting the general welfare; governments job.

When the army decided everyone would get a beret I thought it was silly. Participation trophies. Then, to find, not only that but, that they were made in China?

I think there is, clearly, a time and a place for government to take action and the debate is what is serving the national interest and what is promoting the general welfare. Just as clearly, none of us what to live in a pure capitalist economy because then everything we have and do would be gone to cheaper.

Consider. A defense contractor, rightly, sees NO problem in discerning a national interest in us developing and building weapons systems here at home by American's for American's. However, there is a huge cost subsidy to it being done by Americans in America. I, personally, am fine with that.

Those same people have a good bit more trouble seeing the same dynamics at work in, say, sugar. Developing predator drones is certainly a good bit more sensitive an issue and more readily evident but, those weapons are to defend America. That may well include the sugar industry and jobs.

:buddies: