Posted on 7/13/2005, 4:45:37 PM by Diana in Wisconsin
Despite the sweet allure of special-interest money, Congress seems to be moving forward on a free trade agreement with our Central American neighbors, with votes possible as early as this week. But there's still a chance that America's free-trade policy agenda could crumble under the weight of a spoonful of Big Sugar.
The free-trade accord under consideration, the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), would establish the second-largest U.S. export market in Latin America, linking the economies of five Central American countries and the Dominican Republic, with that of the U.S. But let's not kid ourselves -- this deal is more about symbols than socks. The combined output of CAFTA nations is only about the size of the economy of Nevada. However, by passing the treaty, Congress will be reinforcing America's commitment to genuine free trade.
The souring ingredient to this otherwise sweet trade agreement is a small special interest group with lots of money to burn -- the sugar lobby, or Big Sugar.
The panic-driven sugar lobby incorrectly alleges that imports from the Dominican Republic and Central America would crowd out American-produced sugar.
But a closer look at the agreement shows that CAFTA won't hurt the already heavily subsidized sugar industry. CAFTA would allow an extra 109,000 metric tons of sugar imports to our mostly closed domestic sugar markets. However, under the current U.S. Farm Bill, Congress set a ceiling on imports of about 1.4 million metric tons of sugar. Presently, the U.S. is well below that ceiling, so the domestic sugar program will not be affected when imports are below this limit.
In addition, the treaty only calls for a gradual increase of sugar imports from 1.2 percent of current sugar consumption in the first year to 1.7 percent -- over 15 years. The extra sugar imported from the CAFTA countries would amount to a measly one-tenth of an ounce per day per U.S. household -- literally just a spoonful of sugar. The modest rise would hardly demolish this industry, which has been greatly protected by sweetheart trade rules and subsidies for years.
All of this begs the question: Should Americans taxpayers continue to send millions of their hard-earned dollars to support Big Sugar and artificially inflate the price of the industry's product? Inflated sugar prices have already forced U.S. candy companies like Brach, Leaf, and Ferrara Pan Candy to move their manufacturing abroad, triggering American job losses in the thousands.
Indeed, Kraft had to close its anemic LifeSavers plant in Holland, Michigan, and move to Quebec because sugar cost the company $10 million more in the U.S. than in Canada. The move meant the loss of 600 jobs here at home.
Clearly something's got to give. The gross manipulation of American trade policy by the sugar industry has gone on long enough. Since 1979, sugar-related interests (sugar cane, beet, and corn sweeteners) have poured more than $11.9 million into the campaigns of both Democrats and Republicans in an attempt to “protect” themselves from free trade. According to the Sugar Users' Association, a group that represents companies who use sugar, the protectionist bubble that Congress has constructed around the sugar industry has cost anywhere from 7,500 to 10,000 jobs in sugar-using industries due to higher sugar costs. Put simply, higher sugar costs make U.S. sugar-using businesses less competitive in both domestic and world markets.
What's worse is the impact protectionism has on the rest of us. American consumers and sugar-using industries are forced to pay three times the world price for sugar because of the tariffs bought by Big Sugar. By relying on an outdated quota system, the lobbyists have succeeded in raising sugar costs for consumers by about $1.9 billion a year.
If Big Sugar succeeds in its attempt to kill CAFTA, a $900 million boost to U.S agricultural exports and $1 billion in new U.S. manufacturing exports will never be realized, all because of a spoonful of sugar. Congress shouldn't let a measly teaspoon of sugar spoil what could be a delightfully sweet deal for American taxpayers, consumers and exporters.
Just a spoonful of sugar makes the FRee TRade Medicine go down,, medicine go down.. in a most delightful way. :-)
apologies to Mary Poppins. ;-)
I'm a free trader. I believe in it.
But dammit, then i go home and visit my granddaddy's home town and see the farmers and i actually get mixed feelings on this.
But I know we have to do the right thing.
CAFTA must be defeated! I need to government to protect me from cheap sugar!
Anybody buying this?
The future trade balance will be more factories, jobs and dollars are exported. 'Free Trade' has been taken over by governments and lobbyists. It's history is 'Fleese Trade'.
"Congress shouldn't let a measly teaspoon of sugar spoil what could be a delightfully sweet deal for American taxpayers, consumers and exporters."
TIN FOIL ALERT,
WORD OF THE DAY- CORN SYRUP.
Check the ingredients on everything in your pantry and you'll see the real source of "big" sugars influence. If the price of sugar was deregulated and allowed to be set by the market who would use corn syrup? Who makes Corn syrup and how "big" are they?
So ticked off about the situation now that I'm beyond reasoning with people. Lock the borders down now !!
That's exactly why a lot of the farmers (who should know better) vote Democrat WAY too often!
Just think.
Coke made with real sugar instead of high-fructose corn syrup.
Heaven in a glass.
You mean, high fructose corn syrup? Ya, this fake sugar is probably one of the leading causes of diabetes, chronic lethargy, maybe even hypoglycemia...
America eats twice as much sugar as our agricultural geography allows us to grow..All this "protecting the farmers" just means we are forced to consume lab-made synthetics with known health risks.
The BEST part about CAFTA is the possibility of introducing real sugar back into American processed foods. I'm excited, but I wonder if this will also affect seed oil availability? Our lack of seed oils leads to hydrogenation or unacceptable prices - this ones where the cholesteral comes from..
Why we would chose to cut ourselves off from trade or make it into a never ending political cycle, I do not understand. Lets set up some guidelines of what free trade means to us and move forward. We have the world to gain, and only fake sugar substitutes to lose..
You're right.... it's tough.
I have principles. I really do. But then when my principles hurt someone I care about I am tempted to compromise them.
But we all have somebody we care about who is hurt by competition and if we give in to temptation soon we will have a wall of protectionism that will harm the very people we want to protect.
It sucks. But it is the way of the world
Too many perjorative adverbs and adjectives, and the author works for a group with a vested interest in the opposite point of view....
Hell no, I ain't buying it.
How about Coke made with real coke?
Stop all corporate welfare.
YES
Sometimes principles hurt because of differences between what we ought to do, and what we actually do. And sometimes principles hurt because there's something wrong with the principle itself.
Your basic assumption here is that "Protectionism Is Always Bad, and Free Trade Is Always Good." While it may be generally correct, it's fair to ask whether it's always correct.
I won't take a stand on this particular issue -- I'm just suggesting that when the principles you espouse end up hurting those close to you, it's time to take a very close look at the principles, and to understand exactly why and how they're hurting folks.
It'll always go on, I know. It's too big for me, is all I can say.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.