« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

America vs. the Sugar Lobby

By: Senator Pat Toomey (Diary)  |  June 20th, 2012 at 04:46 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

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.

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.

This week, Congress has an opportunity to roll back many of the sugar program’s excesses. Along with Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), I have offered two amendments to the 2012 farm bill targeting the wasteful sugar program.

The first would eliminate the sugar program completely. In a rare demonstration of bipartisan common-sense, this amendment almost survived a tabling motion last week by a margin of just four votes. This week, the Senate will vote on an alternative amendment that will reform the sugar program rather than eliminate it. While this measure does not go as far as I would like, it will still save taxpayers $72 million, help bring down the price of sugar and save American jobs. Perhaps most importantly, it will finally begin to weaken the stranglehold the sugar lobby has on American consumers and our tax dollars.

We need only a handful of senators to change their votes in order to pass this historic reform. That’s where you come in. Check out your senator’s vote here, and pick up the phone. Your voice is louder than the sugar lobby’s – as long as you stand your ground and make yourself heard.

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • http://www.tooncesthecat.wordpress.com tooncesthecat

    Nay was yes and Yea was no. Confusing, huh.

    • amethyst210

      If what is going on in DC was printed in a way so we could know what is really meant, our government might not be in such sad shape. But then, perhaps that is by design .. keep ‘em confused to keep ‘em ignorant! I wonder how many who are new to Congress have voted the opposite of what they intended.

      Thanks for your reply.

  • mike2013

    So now it becomes clear that Sen. Saxby Chambliss, Johnny Isackson and Marco Rubio join Obama in his ethanol mandate…raising our food prices instead of dropping them.. Talk about Obama picking winners and losers and Rubio wants to become VP? Folks, true liberals always show their colors and these gentlemen are showing their true thoughts.

    It is a shame that Saxby is no longer the candidate he was when he defeated Craig Mathis in 1994. I even remember him showing Mathis in Clinton’s pocket. Guess the same commercial can now be made about Saxby. Washington Beltway thinking does that to you.

  • Pingback: continue

  • Pingback: URL

  • Pingback: yim game

  • Pingback: เกมส์ เกมส์

  • Pingback: Premierbond

  • Pingback: slr handbags

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    Until he discovered that he could make a lot more money turning his and over to unsubsidized crops.

    All AG subsidies are nothing but theft from the public which drives up food prices. They are just wrong.

  • majorclifton

    It’s amazing just how under reported this actually is. I do not know about support from the Union and liberal groups for this bill, but I know it is considered more conservative than most Democrats would want to vote for. Check the Yea’s and Nay’s. If your Senator voted Nay then their an idiot (or know where their paycheck comes from). The purpose of this bill is to end the Sugar Lobby and funding of our government sugar buying programs.
    Thank You Mr. Toomey.

  • mkozikowski

    But, Does it eliminate ALL subsidies for Ethanol production and use in fuel?

    Reducing the price, being competitive, and effectively opening up the U.S. to the world sugar market is a good idea,
    But using food products to fuel our cars and trucks is absurd. It directly threatens the food supply of the U.S. and the world, and is directly related to increased costs of almost everything.

    Ethanol for fuel subsidies MUST be eliminated completely. If is works, the market will do it. If it cannot stand on it’s own, then it should go the way of the buggy whip.

  • evilbloggerlady

    This is why. That is why many companies who use sugar switched to (further subsidized) high fructose corn sugar.

    Why not just let the market control the price and let cane and corn sugar float?

  • funwithknives

    have the skinny bottles marked ‘Hecho in Mexico’ , on their cooler shelves and I must say there is a difference.

    Two store chains in this area carry them when available for $1.00/bottle,12 ozs.

    I give them 5 ‘yummies’……….

  • http://www.tooncesthecat.wordpress.com tooncesthecat

    The vote was on a motion to table Toomey’s amendment. A “Nay” vote meant that the Senator was opposed to tabling the amendment and for keeping the amendment alive for debate and a final vote. In this case, you wanted your Senator to vote “Nay”. Before you call someone else an “idiot”, please check your facts. The real idiot here is Mccaskill who refused to vote because she’s in a tough Senate re-election campaign. She can run, but she can’t hide.

  • Christine

    here, that is someone I should contact?

    The link leads to a motion to table, so not sure how that tells me how a Senator will vote on the eventual bill.

  • spoasteph97

    A “yes” vote meant that the senator supported sugar subsidies. If they voted “yes” on the motion to table, they need to be warned ASAP!

    Unfortunately, that includes my two senators from Georgia…Isakson and Chambliss.

    Thank you Senator Toomey for the great work you are doing in congress! Keep it up! (And if you could warn give a little personal talk with my two senators…that would be great!)

  • pty12300

    This is so convoluted that even the super smart Senators don’t know what they are voting on. Seem Rubio says table the issue and leave the sugar lobbies alone and Collins and Snowe say don’t table and get rid of the sugar lobby. I say get the government completely out of business. They have proven that they cannot operate a profitable business. Freddy Mac, Fanny Mae, Post Office, Medicare, Social Security…I could go on. Be sure and look for your Senator’ vote, then you may wonder why we are paying them.

  • ihateliberals

    n/t

  • amethyst210

    Vote Summary
    Question: On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table Amdt. No. 2393 )
    Vote Number: 119 Vote Date: June 13, 2012, 12:02 PM
    Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Motion to Table Agreed to
    Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 2393 to S.Amdt. 2392 to S.Amdt. 2391 to S. 3240
    Statement of Purpose: To phase out the Federal sugar program.
    Vote Counts: YEAs 50
    NAYs 46
    Not Voting
    ———————————
    Okay …. This is my understanding of what this Summary means. Will someone tell me if I have it right? Some who have commented seem to disagree on what a yay or nay means. Let’s hope all of the Senators really understand it!
    ——
    The question is: Do you want the motion tabled?
    According to this article the vote should be “No” meaning: “I don’t want the motion tabled I want us to vote on it.”
    —–
    The Statement of Purpose is only an explanation and not something to be voted on which is ” to phase out the Federal sugar program.” If a Senator votes “Yes” (table the motion) then that means he/she is voting to keep the program going. If one votes “No” then that means that person wants to debate it and hopefully get rid of the program.

    With respect to all, I say “thank you”.

    My Senators voted “Nay”. I’m assuming they “done good”. :-)

  • ardendulou

    Notice Rubio voted Yay… time for Florida conservatives to let him have it. This is just as bad as the ethanol subsidy. Farmers can grow something else!

  • bobguzzardi

    Democratic Senator Bob Casey voted “NAY” with Pat Toomey on this amendment. Agriculture Subsidies are, generally, considered Republican Pork and Ds will vote “NAY” to a Republican subsidy.

    The vote did not seem to follow party lines. What was the dynamic.

    Sen. Toomey is reliable

    If all voted “NAY” to subsidies, The Forgotten Taxpayer would be a lot better off.

  • mike2013

    I agree with you. I cannot believe that Rubio is siding with Obama. The price of Corn and sugar are in essence controlled by Congress and what they do. We have got to get out of the Nanny State business of government coddling lobbyist with yours and my tax dollars.

    I should go down to my nearest farmer and give them two thousand bucks out of my pocket. That is what these Senators voting YEA just did.

  • shyamg22

    I originally assumed geography, quickly browsing through the vote summary, however 35 out of the 50 yay’s were D and from all over the country whereas the R’s supporting this seemed to be mostly from the south or big ag states (Rubio, Chambliss, etc).

    Flipping D’s from non-ag states to vote Nay on this vote would seem to be an easier proposition to get this issue moving?

  • celador2

    I support cutting subsidies but am sick and tired or more and more imports. US is a debtor nation especially on trade. Is it possible to still gow cane in these United States?

    I have NO interest in giving Mexico more Dollars from their sugar exports. Is there a way to help US farmers with market forces and giive consumers a choice to buy American? Or is US farming an activity of the past?

    I see a trend more and more that makes trade deals that lead to US importing all kinds of things. We are losing our once strong self sufficiency.

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    All trade restrictions do is drive up the costs. If a framer has a comparative disadvantage with Brazil in producing sugar cane, he will still have one even after you pass a massive tariff.

  • aesthete

    as a “debtor nation” in regards to trade surpluses/deficits. Are you a “debtor” for purchasing things at Walmart without them buying anything from you? A trade is mutually advantageous for both parties. Hobbling ourselves won’t make us any better than our competitors; it just makes us less able to compete.

    In addition, we *are* still a farming nation: in fact, we export more agricultural goods in terms of dollar value than any other country in the world. Our exports are almost double that of the next closest country (France). Mexico isn’t in the top 10 of agricultural export countries.

  • mcsul

    Yes. Thank you, Senator.

    This week’s Economist magazine has a good article on the impact of agricultural subsidies on prices we pay. It also looks at the likely unintended consequences of the new shallow-loss system being proposed. It’s interesting that the AEI, Heritage Foundation, and a bunch of environmental groups (folks who all normally don’t get along all that well) are cooperating on driving revisions.

  • mcsul

    Yes. Thank you, Senator.

    This week’s Economist magazine has a good article on the impact of agricultural subsidies on prices we pay. It also looks at the likely unintended consequences of the new shallow-loss system being proposed. It’s interesting that the AEI, Heritage Foundation, and a bunch of environmental groups (folks who all normally don’t get along all that well) are cooperating on driving revisions.

  • http://www.ajharaldson.com lakeworthcane

    How can foreign countries plant, grow and harvest sugar cane, process it into sugar, ship it to the United States and still sell it more cheaply than sugar produced right in this country?

    That doesn’t make sense.

    I live in Palm Beach County and frequently drive through the sugar-cane farms. They employ a lot of people from Bell Glade, Clewiston, South Bay and Pakokee. Those people don’t get paid high wages. In fact, they get paid very low wages, and those towns are some of the poorest in the country. The poverty in which those people live is jaw-dropping: some of the worst I’ve ever seen (and I’ve been around).

    So, something’s not adding up.

    Check this our from American Sugar Alliance:

    http://sugaralliance.org/images/stories/Sugar_Fact_Sheets_2012/cheaper-sugar-prices-dont-reach-consumers.pdf

    Do you really think that if the cost of sugar was reduced, food prices would come down?

    More to the point:

    If companies that use sugar in manufacturing are taking their businesses elsewhere, it’s probably not to get cheaper sugar. Sugar costs simply do not constitute a high enough percentage of overall production costs to warrant relocation to a foreign county.

    Labor costs, however, are another story. As cheaply as American sugar-harvest laborers are paid, laborers doing the same work in foreign countries are likely paid a lot less, constituting high enough overall cost reductions to support relocating.

    Foreign countries probably offer other cost reductions, too: taxes, fees, regulatory compliance, transportation.

    Foreign counties pay their workers a fraction of what even the lowest-paid US workers get. So, foreign countries can produce goods far more cheaply than the US, even with shipping costs included in the equation.

    But if we import foreign-produced goods so we can have cheaper prices, we also decimate the US job market. If, using the sugar example, we allow foreign competition to wipe out the US sugar industry, we’ll put a few hundred thousand people out of work, and–now, here’s the kicker–prices won’t come down that much, if at all.

    So, I do think we should stop subsidizine the US sugar industry, but I also think we should slap a 100-percent import tax on imported sugar, too.

    I think we should do this because we enjoy a higher standard of living in this country. Our workers make more money. The US cannot compete with the cheaper labor costs in foreign countries without driving down wages here.

    Now, that’s a huge problem. The “recession” we’ve been in for several years is consumer-lead. People aren’t spending because–and this is borne out in business reports–wages aren’t going up.

    If we want to see our standard of living decreased to that of foreign countries, then we’ll allow them to compete here, and we’ll be forced to decrease our wages to compete. But if we want to maintain our standard of living, then we’ll make it very expensive for companies to use cheaper labor in foreign countries, for goods to sell in the US.

    Personally, I’ll pay more for US made goods, knowing that my money is going into an American worker’s pocket and not to some third-world poop-hole where the workers get a dollar a day.

    Competition’s benefits have their limits. You can’t just blithely endorse competition with dramatically cheaper labor in foreign countries without creating some huge problems here, and you can’t blithely turn your back on the people whose jobs are eliminated by unfair competition without sounding like real horse’s behind.

    So, yeah, let’s stop subsidizing American sugar: immediately if not sooner. But let’s also give American sugar a level playing field on which to compete by artificially increasing the cost of sugar production in foreign counties–with massive import taxes–to offset their unfairly low labor costs.

    Either that, or we can refuse to import their sugar unless they pay their workers what American workers get. That might solve two problems because immigrants would stop flooding into this country–and burdening our already over-burdened infrastructure–if they could make a decent living in their countries of origin. Let’s force the countries where they live to support their own populations.