Members of the Media

Members of the Media

“Without the Army Corps of Engineers’ dredging and building, the cane growers wouldn’t have the soil or the irrigation they need. Without Washington’s decades of rigging the labor market, the companies wouldn’t have had the workers they needed before mechanization. Now the industry says it deserves to be protected from foreign competition. … Florida sugar cane is an industry literally built on big government.”

—“Sugar Industry Would Wither Without Big Government,”
Opinion Column by Timothy Carney,
Washington Examiner, February 3, 2013

“The sugar program distorts the market and, food and beverage makers contend, unnaturally props up the price of a key ingredient. Naturally, the sugar industry disputes that assertion but Democratic and Republican senators who oppose the program make a compelling case that it costs consumers at least $3.5 billion annually in food costs. Only a decade ago, the Government Accounting Office estimated the cost to consumers at $1.9 billion a year.”

—“Sugar Industry’s Sweet Deal”
Sarasota Herald-Tribune editorial, June 25, 2012

“As it does roughly every five years, Congress is weighing a new farm bill. This time, however, the measure could essentially end the loathsome direct-payment system that has wasted so many taxpayer dollars. … Discouragingly, the Senate has already defeated one smart, money- saving amendment. It left costly sugar subsidies in place, ensuring continued inflated prices for American consumers. The country cannot afford these kinds of giveaways. If allowed to stand, the sugar program bodes ill for the kind of broader fiscal discipline that the economy desperately needs.”

—“Reshaping the Farm Bill,”
The Providence Journal editorial, June 25, 2012

“The sugar industry welfare arrangement, which was introduced in 1934, includes price supports and import restrictions. It’s done its job — the industry is on sound footing — and it should make no sense at a time when some government coddling of other established industries is drawing to a close.”

—“Senator Jeanne Shaheen Tried to End
Corporate Welfare for the Sugar-Growers”
Sentinel Source editorial, June 25, 2012

“The big sugar producers won — again — in the U.S. Senate, while consumers lost. But this time, at least, the vote was close. The House, with Wisconsin’s delegation leading the charge, should challenge the Senate on its latest handouts to Big Sugar before the five-year federal farm bill is approved. … Sugar doesn’t deserve special protections.”

—“Stop Giving Sweetener to Big Sugar”
Wisconsin State Journal editorial, June 21, 2012

“… [T]he sugar lobby … last week narrowly defeated a bipartisan attempt at reforming its egregious quota program that gouges American consumers to benefit a mere 5,000 or so farmers. The Senate voted 50-46 to table Senator Pat Toomey’s reform bill, but the reform would have passed if not for the votes of 16 GOP Senators.”

—“A Tale of Two Conservatives”
Wall Street Journal editorial, June 18, 2012

“Though the sugar industry is surely not the biggest recipient of federal subsidies, the federal supports put into place decades ago benefit a relatively small number of sugar producers — mostly large operations — while hurting consumers and thousands of commercial users of sugar.”

—“Artificial Sweetener”
Columbus Dispatch editorial, June 13, 2012

“[The sugar program] is a conveniently hidden tax and a regressive one too. When Big Sugar says the program imposes “no net cost” on the budget, they’re not talking about the family budget. Americans pay about 50% more than the world price of sugar.”

—“A Sugar Showdown”
Wall Street Journal editorial, June 13, 2012

“An Iowa State University study has found that the federal sugar program costs U.S. consumers roughly $3.5 billion a year and deprives the workforce of 20,000 jobs. This New Deal-era framework of barriers on sugar imports and of price supports for domestic sugar is a racket that benefits only a few…”

—“It’s Time To End The Job-Killing U.S. Sugar Policy”
Investor’s Business Daily editorial, May 23, 2012

“This government meddling in the free market, unlike subsidies, doesn’t impose a cost on taxpayers directly, but it forces U.S. consumers and food makers to pay much more for sugar. Studies have shown the sugar program is a net negative for the U.S. economy, but the industry has invested heavily in lobbying and political campaigns to hold on to its sweet deal.”

—”Congress Should Plow Under Farm Subsidies”
Orlando Sentinel editorial, May 10, 2012

“And the next farm bill will almost certainly include a bid to renew the government’s sugar program. As apologists for the program will tell you, it doesn’t include any direct subsidies for U.S. growers. However, its price supports, production controls and import quotas keep sugar more expensive in the United State than in the rest of the world.”

—“Is Another Sugar Shakedown Coming?”
Orlando Sentinel editorial, April 20, 2012

“The end of government’s sugar-market interventions – sweet for fewer than 5,000 domestic producers, sour for consumers, food makers and their more than 600,000 workers, including nearly 42,000 in Pennsylvania — is long overdue. The Coalition for Sugar Reform (sugarreform.org) outlines how government distorts sugar supply and demand, costing consumers and businesses an additional $3.5 billion annually. … The coalition sees this year’s farm bill as a chance to stop this economic madness. Congress should do what’s best for the overall economy and heed that call.”

—“Sugar, Sugar: Not So Sweet,”
Pittsburgh Tribune-Review Editorial, April 17, 2012

“The last time Congress revisited sugar, in the 2008 farm bill, it made the program even less responsive to the marketplace. As a result, U.S. food-makers not only pay an inflated price for sugar, they can’t always get enough of it to keep their factories reliably supplied. No wonder Canada, for one, has experienced a boon as bakery, candy, frozen-food, breakfast-cereal and other food companies search outside the U.S. for this basic ingredient.”

—“No Sugarcoating This Giveaway,”
Chicago Tribune Editorial, April 12, 2012

“Sugar import quotas confer substantial wealth on a small cohort of producers already wealthy enough to work the political levers of redistributive government. The increased cost of sugar substantially penalizes consumers as a group but not so noticeably that individuals protest.”

—“Government: The Redistributionist Behemoth,”
Opinion Column by George Will,
The Washington Post, January 6, 2012

“A Commerce Department report says that for each sugar-growing or sugar-harvesting job saved through the program, nearly three manufacturing jobs are lost. In a five-year period beginning in 1997, more than 10,000 jobs were lost in the sugar-containing-product industries, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

“Consumers aren’t the only ones getting smacked by the program. American workers also pay a steep cost so Big Sugar can keep living the sweet life. Companies that use sugar in their products, from Kraft to Hershey to Brach’s, have closed facilities in the U.S. and moved them out of the country, typically to Canada and Mexico, where they can buy sugar much cheaper.”

—“Close the Candy Store,”
Investor’s Business Daily Editorial, April 12, 2011 

“The federal government, in one of its least defensible corporate welfare boondoggles, limits the amount of foreign sugar that can enter the country. The result: a U.S. price for sugar that is often double or triple the world price.

“The sugar program also includes non-recourse loans to sugar growers, with sugar as collateral—meaning if the price of sugar drops too low, sugar growers simply sacrifice their sugar to the federal government, and default on their loans. Florida’s biggest sugar growers are very politically connected, and that’s the only reason this program exists.”

“Richard Lugar Takes On Big Sugar”
Opinion Column by Timothy Carney,
Washington Examiner, March 22, 2011

“Congress and the Obama administration are in the market for fresh ideas to create jobs. Or so we are told. So far, however, we haven’t seen too many specifics—but that may be about to change. Two senators, one from each party, have introduced legislation that would phase out the costly, job-destroying federal sugar program. Democrat Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire and Republican Mark Kirk of Illinois call their bill the Stop Unfair Giveaways and Restrictions (SUGAR) Act. Despite the cutesy title, it’s a seriously necessary proposal.”

—“Break the Sugar Addiction,”
The Washington Post Editorial, January 30, 2011

“The government’s relationship with sugar producers and processors began in the early 1800s, when high tariffs were imposed on sugar imports to bolster the value of local sugar plantations. Today, cheaper foreign sugar makes up only 15 percent of sugar sold on the U.S. market due to protectionist policies, while the remaining 85 percent of sugar produced domestically enjoys guaranteed pricing due to production quotas. The result is a cost of sugar in the United States nearly twice the world market price. American prices have been higher than world prices for the last 44 out of 45 years.”

—“The Great American Sugar Divide,”
The Epoch Times, April 4, 2011

“There’s no way to sugarcoat this: Small bakers and confectioners are hurt most by the current U.S. sugar program by denying them access to the competitive world sugar market, while those of us who like candy (a lot) pay an increased cost because of artificially inflated sugar prices.”

—“Sweet and Sour,”
Lakeview News-Sun Editorial, June 10, 2011