*******************
Distinction without a difference, sugar-butt.
Cruz has also opposed sugar subsidies.
These Big Ag trough-sloppers are 100 times worse than every welfare baby-mamma combined.
NO FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES. None. Period. Not for oil, not for solar, not for Big Ag. Shut off the teat. Let the market work.
The right way to look at this is that the Brazillian government is choosing to spend $2 billion of their taxpayers money in order to make sugar cheaper for Americans. As long as they are stupid enough to do it we ought to take advantage.
People don't realize that the economic effect on that totality of sugar buyers is going to be larger than the effect on a few local sugar producers.
How about give them a “subsidy” in the way of tax cuts? Tax business at 10 to 15% and no extensive write-offs. Keep ALL sorts of business in the U.S. and probably attract a bunch back in.
Beet Sugar tends to taste like beets. Pure Cane Sugar is the way to go, Castros be darned.
“We will defend the sugar program for a long, long time,”
Of course you will. No one likes to lose their sugar tit.
But the rest of us are tired of paying for your happiness.
”. . . when he challenged Cruz to a debate over the Republican presidential candidate's call to do away with government support for the sugar industry.”
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponents Argument
GMO controversies aside, it remains that the states have never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate, tax and spend for agricultural purposes. This is evidenced by the following excerpts from case opinions written by a previous generation of state sovereignty-respecting justices.
”Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” - Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited. None to regulate agricultural production is given, and therefore legislation by Congress for that purpose is forbidden [emphasis added].” - United States v. Butler, 1936.
So why doesn’t Harvard Law School-indoctrinated Sen. Cruz argue this point? It seems that the law schools are not emphasizing anything about the federal governments constitutionally limited powers before FDRs state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices trampled 10th Amendment-protected state sovereignty.
Corporate pigs at the welfare trough.
In other news: American Crystal CEO Berg to step down in 2016
Short war.
I live in Pointe Coupee Parish where there are 10s of thousands of acres in sugar cane. I agree with Cruz. I say that it is a stupid crop and should no longer be subsidized.
Americans pay more for sugar than anyone else on the planet but Venezuelans. Good to know Cruz opposes this crony capitalism.