Last month we ripped into the federal government’s latest sugar bailout – which is connected to its equally ridiculous subsidization of the ethanol fuel “industry,” one of the least efficient fuels known to man.
Anyway, we recently uncovered an ally in this fight via an excellent column by Carl Hiassen of The Miami Herald. While Haissen frames the debate from a much more left-leaning perspective than we did (recanting various federal budget cuts which could be made whole if only we weren’t subsidizing Big Sugar), he nonetheless hits the nail on the head in describing how this scam works.
Here’s the breakdown …
For years the government has guaranteed an artificially high price for American sugar, undercutting foreign competitors and inflating consumer prices for everything from soft drinks to breakfast cereal.
Last year, sugar processors under the price-support program borrowed $862 million from the USDA. The loans were secured with about 2 million tons of sugar that was expected to be harvested.
And the harvest was very good. Too good, apparently. The market got flooded.
Between February 2012 and February 2013, the price of beet sugar fell from 51 cents a pound to about 28.50 cents. Raw cane dropped from 33.57 cents to 20.72 cents.
Consequently, the government’s loans to processors are in danger of default. To avoid that, the USDA would take all the sugar and sell it at a discount rate to producers of ethanol, who’d mix it with the corn from which that fuel is distilled.
The transaction would result in Uncle Sam losing 10 cents on every pound of sugar sold, which adds up to an $80 million hit on 400,000 tons of product.
What a brilliant system.
Hiassen also cites an Iowa State University study which found that sugar subsidies increase consumer costs by $3.5 billion annually.
Ouch!
Sadly, this is one of many bastardizations of the American free market (or what’s left of it) – a scam in which tax dollars support subsidies for certain politically connected interests while the rest of us get stuck with the tab. Oh … and even “Tea Party” leaders like Marco Rubio have the sweet tooth when it comes to these government giveaways.
Fortunately, on both the right and the left opposition to this crony capitalist nonsense is mounting. The only question is whether we should give the money that’s currently being spent on these boondoggles back to the taxpayers – or throw it into more wasteful, welfare spending.
It seems Hiassen prefers the latter, while this website will obviously continue arguing on behalf of the former …
***
16 comments
Not only that but the politicians sell it as protecting jobs in the domestic sugar growing industry. The fact is that yes some low wage jobs are protected but we end up losing many high-paying jobs in sugar using food processing and candy manufacturing industries. For example, Lifesavers moved thousands of jobs from Chicago, not to low wage counties like China or Mexico but to Canada where they can access sugar at the world market rate of half the price we Americans are forced to pay. Not only this but because of high sugar prices domestic soda manufacturers substitute with corn syrup which adds to our obesity problems. Thanks Rubio!
you’re cute,and seem like a party-type.how big? blow and blow?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DyesPp6OUY
Not only that but the politicians sell it as protecting jobs in the domestic sugar growing industry. The fact is that yes some low wage jobs are protected but we end up losing many high-paying jobs in sugar using food processing and candy manufacturing industries. For example, Lifesavers moved thousands of jobs from Chicago, not to low wage counties like China or Mexico but to Canada where they can access sugar at the world market rate of half the price we Americans are forced to pay. Not only this but because of high sugar prices domestic soda manufacturers substitute with corn syrup which adds to our obesity problems. Thanks Rubio!
you’re cute,and seem like a party-type.how big? blow and blow?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DyesPp6OUY
i realize you were just quoting another author, but on what planet do subsidies inflate the prices of the foods that contain the subsidized product? besides the budge aspect, the thing about subsidies that’s ruinous is that it makes it LESS costly to buy corn- and sugar-laden products. THAT’S WHY EVERY FUCKING THING IS MADE WITH CORN, for example… cause it’s cheap, not cause it’s costly.
if you’re so compelled, THAT’S what you should write about–SC is fat, not broke, cause of the subsidies.
/end rant
i realize you were just quoting another author, but on what planet do subsidies inflate the prices of the foods that contain the subsidized product? besides the budge aspect, the thing about subsidies that’s ruinous is that it makes it LESS costly to buy corn- and sugar-laden products. THAT’S WHY EVERY FUCKING THING IS MADE WITH CORN, for example… cause it’s cheap, not cause it’s costly.
if you’re so compelled, THAT’S what you should write about–SC is fat, not broke, cause of the subsidies.
/end rant
“but on what planet do subsidies inflate the prices of the foods that contain the subsidized product?”
Planet Earth-specifically the USA.
A price support (subsidy to the domestic sugar industry) on US domestic sugar keeps US sugar prices artificially high while keeping cheaper Brazilian cane sugar from being imported. The US consumer has to pay at least 22 cents per lb. to protect our sugar industry even though Brazilian cane sugar could be imported at a much cheaper price.
So over a year’s time this equates to billions more spent by consumers due to the crony capitalism which protects the inefficient and politically connected at the expense of the average consumer and taxpayer.
Well said.
One can’t talk about the sugar subsidy without first discussing the corn subsidy — it’s the corn subsidy which spurred the invention of high-fructose corn syrup. HFCS is a sugar substitute.
no.you’re the sugar substitute
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3SiWcyg29g
How sweet =)
“but on what planet do subsidies inflate the prices of the foods that contain the subsidized product?”
Planet Earth-specifically the USA.
A price support (subsidy to the domestic sugar industry) on US domestic sugar keeps US sugar prices artificially high while keeping cheaper Brazilian cane sugar from being imported. The US consumer has to pay at least 22 cents per lb. to protect our sugar industry even though Brazilian cane sugar could be imported at a much cheaper price.
So over a year’s time this equates to billions more spent by consumers due to the crony capitalism which protects the inefficient and politically connected at the expense of the average consumer and taxpayer.
Well said.
One can’t talk about the sugar subsidy without first discussing the corn subsidy — it’s the corn subsidy which spurred the invention of high-fructose corn syrup. HFCS is a sugar substitute.
no.you’re the sugar substitute
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3SiWcyg29g
How sweet =)