Sugar Subsidy Remains by Three Votes

Businessweek: Sugar Subsidy Remains in Farm Bill After Amendment Defeated

The Senate rejected an amendment backed by snack-food and beverage companies that would have phased out federal government aid to U.S. sugar growers, including marketing quotas and import restrictions.

Today’s vote was 50-46 in favor of tabling the amendment, effectively killing the plan.

Unlike other crop initiatives that send farmers payments, the sugar program keeps prices high primarily by limiting imports, harming consumers and companies, Senator Jeanne Shaheen, the sponsor of the amendment, said yesterday on the Senate floor. “This outdated program puts American companies at a competitive disadvantage, and it should go,” the New Hampshire Democrat said.

The Coalition for Sugar Reform supported the amendment. Its members include industry groups representing bakers and makers of candy, snack foods, beverages and other groceries, as well as small-government organizations. The amendment would have ended all price supports for the sweetener by 2015 and ended the quota on imports. ...

Just three a switch of three votes would have passed this measure. Too bad they couldn't muster the votes this time.

Comments

[ZZMike]

There are more than a few Senators (at least, the last time I looked) who have big farms back home.

You'd also think that with so many on the liberal side (Bloomberg, for one) blaming sugar for the epidemic of obesity, that they'd have passed this one.

[Michael W Kruse]

Actually, ending this program would make sugar cheaper by letting sugar from emerging nations into the market. Maybe that is why health conscious liberals should oppose it. ;-)

Seriously, I think it is a scandal that "free market" Republicans have not ended this. There are places for government intervention but this stuff is way passed its time.