[SAJ]

Saint -- Old news. Long ago, the various ag lobbies got together and, effectively, formed a compact to mutually support each others' subsidies and handouts, lest each group be picked off one by one when proposals to reduce subsidies came along.

Said compact is still in force -- informally, of course, mustn't step over the anti-trust line, y'know.

[StJacques]

First of all; on sugar cane -- get rid of it if it cannot stand on its own. If I had realized you were suggesting burning the Louisiana sugar cane fields to get rid of it I might not have demurred after all.

On the Sugar Subsidy, there is clearly an entire complex of interests brought together to support and maintain it. But that truth does not change the fact that a federally financed ethanol industrial development plan that is implemented simultaneously alongside subsidized sugar and high fructose corn syrup will be far more expensive than it should be and far less successful than it could be.

There has been so little discussion about what the Sugar Subsidy costs this country. Do you know that major candy manufacturers like Brach's are moving their production facilities to Canada simply for the price of sugar? The labor in Canada is actually more expensive than in Memphis, but the price of sugar is just too high here.