Comments on: Sweet Letter on a Sour Program

By: Hammer

Hammer — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 10:03:57 +0000

I suppose I know the answer already (interstate commerce) but I would love to hear a congressman actually try and defend this sort of law only by referencing the powers granted to the congress by the Constitution.
I would also love to hear him explain why it made any damn sense.

By: Jared

Jared — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 01:08:20 +0000

"By keeping domestic sugar prices so high, the current sugar program encourages companies that use sugar in their products to move their factories to countries such as Canada and Mexico where they can buy less-expensive sugar and then just bring the finished products back here."

I was under the impression (entirely based on press reports, no particular source) that the primary effect of higher sugar prices was the substitution of high fructose corn syrup for sugar. Is that impression mistaken?

By: MU78

MU78 — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 21:00:28 +0000

In the 80's there was a comedy called Sledge Hammer. The detectives found a counterfeitter selling 2 $1 bills for a dollar. When the detectives asked how he made any money, he answered he makes it up in volume.

The government buying sugar for 20 cents per pound and selling it for 10 cents a pound is not a comedy, though it would be better for this country if congressman would all become writers in Hollywood. But no one would ever accept a script with such a stupid premise.

By: MU78

MU78 — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 21:00:21 +0000

By: Sam Grove

Sam Grove — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 17:31:53 +0000

The sugar program has always been touted as one with no net cost to taxpayers.

Except for those taxpayers that also consume sugar.

By: Ramon Mier

Ramon Mier — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 12:53:39 +0000

Unfortunately you can not buy cheaper sugar in Mexico. Prices are similar to those in the US or even higher, and for similar reasons.

By: James Hanley

James Hanley — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 12:49:43 +0000

The Toledo Blade had a good article a few years ago about the Spangler candy company (they make the dum dum suckers, and the vast majority of candy canes). They pay an extra $10,000 a day for sugar by keeping operations in the U.S.

And of course Fannie May went out of business some time back, destrying thousands of jobs in Chicago, due to high sugar prices. And another candy company in Muskegon, Michigan, etc.

But how important is all that compared to subsidizing sugar production in the Everglades, thereby subsidizing destruction of the Everglades while we're simultaneously being taxed for the restoration of the Everglades?