The farm bill was up for renewal and the sugar support programs were held up as

The farm bill was up for renewal and the sugar

This preview shows page 1 - 2 out of 2 pages.

abandoned. The farm bill was up for renewal, and the sugar support programs were held up as an example of how wasteful government subsidies are. However, sugar producers spent some $20 million on political lobbying between 2011 and 2013. Partly due to their influence, the U.S. Senate voted 54 to 45 against any reform in the sugar programs. The majority included 20 out of 45 Republican senators, most of whom publicly rail against this kind of government intervention. Apparently, however, political expediency required that they support intervention in this case. Sources: George F. Will, “Congress Needs to Stop Subsidies to Sugar Farmers,” The Washington Post, June 7, 2013; Ron Nixon, “American Candy Makers, Pinched by Inflated Sugar Prices, Look Abroad,” The New York Times, October 30, 2013; J. Beghinand and A. Elobeid, “The Impact of the U.S. Sugar Program Redux,” Iowa State Working Paper 13-WP 538, May 2013, . Case Discussion Questions 1. Who benefits from subsidies to U.S. sugar producers? Who loses? US sugar producers primarily benefit from the subsidies, and the American taxpayers and consumers pay the price. 2. Do the benefits of U.S. government support to the U.S. sugar industry outweigh the losses? Yes, the benefits do outweigh the loss. The reason for this is because the government does not want the big sugar industries
Image of page 1
Image of page 2

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read both pages?

  • Spring '14
  • MikoD.McFarland

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture