Posted on 07/12/2004 12:04:11 AM PDT by Clear Rivers
Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Inez Tenenbaum is urging members of Congress to support a quota buyout for tobacco farmers.
"The quota system that was designed as a lifeline for tobacco growers has become a noose around their necks. And while folks in the Pee Dee struggle, Washington refuses to untie the knot," Tenenbaum said in a statement.
Tenenbaum was set to travel to a Pee Dee farm Monday with the president of the South Carolina Tobacco Growers Association, Johnny Shelley, to talk about her plan to bring relief to the crippled industry.
She wants private tobacco companies to pay farmers for their federal allotments, which dictate how much tobacco they can sell. Tenenbaum estimates her plan would put $1 billion into the state's economy and allow farmers to develop new crops.
"A tobacco quota buyout isn't a handout," Tenenbaum said. "It's a hand up, not just to our farmers but to the workers they employ and the communities where they live."
The quota is the amount tobacco farmers are allowed to grow based on the buying intentions of companies and how much leaf is in reserve. Quota holders can grow their allotted share or transfer it to someone else.
Tenenbaum, the state's education superintendent, took out an ad in a Pee Dee newspaper to kick off an online petition drive.
"The aim of this petition is simple: to tell Washington to get its head out of the sand, and start helping our tobacco growers get their feet on the ground, by passing a quota buyout," she said.
However, Tenenbaum does not support the legislation approved in House because it would use taxpayer money. The $9.6 billion farmer buyout passed last month as part of a corporate tax bill now awaits Senate action.
Tenenbaum's Republican opponent, U.S. Rep. Jim DeMint, also has said he only would support a buyout that would be done without using taxpayer money.
President Bush has recently said the Depression-era tobacco quota system should remain in place, prompting farm advocates to push harder for reform.
Some farmers complain the quota has driven up the cost of U.S. tobacco and say an end to the system will make their product more competitive with foreign-grown leaf. But they don't want to give up their stake in the system without being compensated for the money they've spent over the years.
forget quotas and allotments.
Go back to the free market.
This was a dumb idea. I agree that we need to end this "New Deal" sham, but not with a buyout.
An uneducated guess.
"Senator Tenenbaum of South Carolina" - it has a comical sound doesn't it?
Click Here if you want to be added to or removed from this list.
you're psychic..I just sent you a Freepmail...
I'm going to drill into that Rasmussen poll and see if they have any numbers on the senate race.
South Carolina already has a trust agreement with the R.J. Reynolds, Phillip Morris, Brown and Williamson, and Lorillard tobacco companies that established a private trust fund to benefit tobacco growers and quota owners in our state. The purpose of the Trust (know as Phase II) is to compensate the growers over a 12 year period (of which we are in the fifth year) for the losses of income and equity caused by a reduction in the national marketing quota of flue-cured and burley tobacco. The losses covered by the Trust are a result of the real and anticipated reductions in leaf sales resulting from the recent settlement of lawsuits by the companies with the various states.
Exactly how do the settlement of lawsuits affect leaf sales? Is this still a supply and demand market? I've not heard one tobacco consumer mention that since various states settled lawsuits that they would stop buying cigarettes. Sure didn't effect me!
However, the tyrannical tax placed on cigarettes by some states would certainly curb consumption. In New Jersey a carton is going for $50 and up. The tax placed by states attempting to cash in is much more a deterrent to consumption.
So what you have is a reduction in consumption due to outrageous taxes, such as in New Jersey, and tobacco companies cutting back on purchasing because of the financial outlay of the lawsuits. (??) Which is the greater cause? I'm just trying to understand this. Honest!
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.