Big sugar and the USDA

American Sugar producers have the federal government in their pockets. Not only is there a huge tariff on imported sugar, but now the Department of Agriculture is proposing to purchase 400,000 tons (with a “t”) of sugar from domestic producers so that those producers who borrowed money from the USDA are not at risk of default. In the Wall Street Journal I read:

NEW YORK—The U.S. Department of Agriculture is likely to buy sugar in the domestic market this year in order to drive prices up and prevent defaults on loans made to sugar processors, according to a USDA economist.

The USDA estimates it would need to buy 400,000 tons of sugar to boost prices to an “acceptable level,” said Barbara Fecso, an economist at the department. A purchase of 400,000 tons would amount to about 4.4% of projected U.S. sugar production in the marketing year that ends Sept. 30.

Domestic sugar prices have been trading at about 20 cents a pound, their lowest level in nearly four years, putting companies that make sugar from cane or beets at risk of defaulting on loans they received from the USDA when prices were higher.

This argument is so wrong, I can’t begin to believe that an actual economist, one Barbara Fecso, made it. First, it’s wrong to increase the cost of sugar domestically by imposing a tariff on American consumers that cost purchasers in the U.S. reportedly $3.86 billion per year (with a “b”) according to the real economist Mark J. Perry at the Carpe Diem blog. We pay on average 56 cents a pound for sugar in the U.S., while the international market is closer to 31 cents. Then, it’s wrong to subsidize producers by boosting the price of sugar through this crazy new program from the USDA. Finally, it’s wrong to have taxpayers foot the bill for these excessive purchases of sugar on the open market. It’s the people’s money, not the bureaucrats.

If that doesn’t get your blood boiling, look at this blog post from Arnold Kling, who read an advertisement in the Washington Post paid for by sugar producers advocating higher prices, and decrying “big candy”.

Big Candy’s Greed
[picture of a suit pocket stuffed with cash next to a picture of a farm with a foreclosure sign]
Jeopardizing 142,000 U.S. jobs and America’s food security isn’t a game. It’s a travesty.
So why are Big Candy executives lobbying Congress to outsource America’s sugar production?
To boost their already bloated profit margins at the expense of American farmers, workers and consumers.
Winners: A few corporate executives.
Losers: America
Support Current Sugar Policy–It Works for America
American Sugar Alliance
Backing America’s Beet and Cane Farmers

The worst aspect of this is that it is the Republican party members like Florida Congressman Tom Rooney (R-sugar) who are supporting these greedy sugar producers, at the expense of consumers. I thought the Republicans were the party of free markets. Not so much if it’s their contributors in the sugar lobby who are at risk of all that pesky consumer free choice. Throw them all out!

Obama Trying to Deport Homeschooling Family
How the government keeps the poor in their place
  • 2klbofun

    Maybe they can take all of this sugar, dissolve it in carbonated water, add flavorings and give it away in large 46 oz cups in New York City.

  • Vagabond661

    “Candy Mountain Charlie!”

  • GarandFan

    Sure her name isn’t Barbara Fiasco?

  • MartinLandauCalrissian

    This is one of the main reasons that Hostess went belly up, by the way. Hostess made the monumental mistake of trying to keep its jobs and manufacturing in the US. They thought if they paid Obama’s confiscatory sugar prices but negotiated with the unions to cut costs they could keep jobs in the US. Sadly, the greedy scumbags in the unions had other priorities. Hostess should have just moved all its manufacturing to Mexico or Canada like everyone else did.

  • herddog505

    Charlie QuidnuncI thought the Republicans were the party of free markets.

    Where on earth did you get this idea??? I doubt that you could find a single genuine free-trader in the Congress. Hell, I’d be shocked if there’s on anywhere in DC.

  • Par4Course

    This is why the Republicans are in trouble: They rail about the poor sucking at the federal teat but turn a blind eye to groups like Big Sugar that are just as much on the dole. In fact, tariffs hurt the poor more than the hurt the rich. Of course, the Dems are no better, as they have no interest in reducing the size, scope or cost of government regardless of the consequences. If the Sugar Workers Union (or whatever it’s called) likes the tariff and supports, the Dems will see nothing wrong with them.

  • http://www.wizbangblog.com David Robertson

    Republican politicians and Democrat politicians are alike in one way: They rarely, if ever, bite the hand that gives them campaign donations.

  • Pingback: Uncle Sugar | askblog

  • Jacksonbarton

    American Crystal Sugar Company just released their 2012 financials. $550 million in profits on $1.5 billion in sales. That’s a 35% profit margin. (Apple is only at 25%). And they are about to get a bailout. (And they paid a less than a 2% effective tax rate.). Paying off Washington is working well for them.

    • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

      Sounds like sound business…

Optimization WordPress Plugins & Solutions by W3 EDGE