Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) made an unusual case for sugar subsidies at a recent event. He argued that ending price supports for the United States’ sugar industry, thereby ending a market distorting policy, will put our national security in jeopardy due to the availability of cheaper sugar from other countries that grow the crop.
“[O]ther countries will capture the market share, our agricultural capacity will be developed into real estate, you know, housing and so forth,” said Rubio, per the National Review, “and then we lose the capacity to produce our own food, at which point we’re at the mercy of a foreign country for food security.”
Of course, Rubio’s concern may have to do with the fact that Florida is one of the top producers of sugar in the United States, and he has received generous support from industry heavyweights. “Florida produces 2 million tons of sugar cane annually, constituting half of the nation’s domestic supply of sugar cane,” the Florida Center for Investigative Reporting notes. “The industry is situated in the Everglades Agricultural Area, a 700,000-acre swath of fertile land south of Lake Okeechobee including parts of Glades, Hendry, Martin and Palm Beach counties.”
Sugar subsidies may help this favored industry, but they are not good for businesses and consumers. In October 2013, the Wall Street Journal noted that the United States’ sugar policy, which artificially props up the industry, has caused some candy makers to move at least some of their operations overseas, where they can gain access to cheaper sugar and reduce the cost of overhead.
http://www.freedomworks.org/content/sugar-subsidies-hurt-consumers-and-cost-united-states-jobs
Classic CRONY CAPITALISM...but if you depend on the money from others, then they do own you.
Also, I’m not sure if I’d put sugar up there with Titanium, for example, as something vital to our national defense...but again, when people fund your campaigns, you say what they expect you to say.