Now that they have critically (and foolishly) wounded the U.S. Export-Import Bank, Grover Norquist and his allies in the conservative gadfly movement are taking aim at a far more formidable (and worthy) target: Big Sugar.
The U.S. has protected its sugar producers almost since they've existed. But those protections have long since lost any justification. U.S. consumers now pay close to double the world price for sugar; ending U.S. support for sugar producers could put as much as $3.5 billion a year back in consumers' pockets. This fiercely defended thicket of tariffs, price supports and quotas undermines U.S. development aid, corrupts the country's politics and distorts global trade. It also enriches a coterie of sugar barons at the expense of public health.
U.S. producers argue that dismantling U.S. protections would amount to unilateral disarmament, flooding the country with cheap imports of subsidized sugar. Yet the goal of dismantling U.S. protections is not to create more jobs in the confectionary business or get more sugar into the American bloodstream.
But there are policy and market rationales for ending sugar subsidies. The global patchwork of protectionist measures has helped feed a sugar glut, with prices lower than they've been in six years. Perverse consequences abound: The EU's impending "reforms" of its sugar policies, for instance, will end production caps while doing nothing about subsidies; as a result, millions of sugar growers in less-developed countries could be pushed deeper into poverty. To take an example nearer and dearer to U.S. taxpayers and consumers, would you rather let Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador sell you more raw cane sugar, or give them more U.S. aid dollars?
The sugar industry lobby accounts for more than one-third of all lobbying funds spent by crop producers, even though sugar represents less than 2 percent of the value of all U.S. crop production.
Norquist can often go too far--his quest to destroy the Export-Import Bank was unhelpful, as is his biannual no-tax pledge--but this campaign is worthwhile. It could energize reformers in Congress who have long railed against sugar subsidies. It coincides with pressure on U.S. negotiators to allow Australia and other Trans-Pacific Partnership members greater market access on sugar. If it even partly breaks down the U.S. sugar wall, it would be a sweet victory for taxpayers and consumers alike.
Editorial on 07/25/2015