• About Us
  • Activity
  • Advertising
  • Books
  • Business
  • Contact
  • EB5
  • Entertainment
  • feedback
  • Government
  • Home
  • Interviews
  • Members
  • National
  • Nevada
  • Nevada News and Views
  • Newsmax
  • NN&V Ads
  • Opinion
  • Politics
  • Polls
  • Privacy Policy
  • Subscribe
  • Subscription Confirmation
  • Survey
  • Survey
  • Terms of Service
  • Today’s Top 10
  • Travel
  • Travel
  • Travel
  • Welcome!
  • Yop Poll Archive
Nevada News and Views
  • Home
  • Muth’s Truths
  • Politics
  • Government
  • Entertainment
  • More
    • Nevada
    • Opinion
    • Business
    • Travel
    • News
    • Sports
  • Facebook

  • Twitter

  • Pinterest

  • RSS

Business

Reforming U.S. Sugar Program WITHOUT “Importing Unemployment”

Reforming U.S. Sugar Program WITHOUT “Importing Unemployment”
N&V Staff
February 1, 2016

[the_ad id=”25740″]

 

a

By Chuck Muth, President, Citizen Outreach

The proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) continues to divide Congress for a number of reasons, including the agreement’s relative silence on the problem of foreign currency manipulation.  And while sugar is not a major component of the agreement, many of the concerns related to TPP mirror longstanding concerns related to reforming and/or eliminating the U.S. sugar program.

In debating TPP, Sen. Jeff Sessions recently observed that many of our allies and trading partners “are not religious about free trade” and wondered “whether or not our aggressive trading partners may be gaining unfair advantage.”

He continued…

“In general, while they assert their desire is for expanded free trade, their actual policies seek fewer U.S. exports to them using non-tariff as well as tariff barriers. Our trade competitors use currency manipulation, subsidies, and other actions to expand their exports to us. Their goal is, naturally, to seek full employment in their countries while exporting their unemployment to the United States…”

In the case of sugar, major trade competitors such as Brazil, India and Thailand have long used both direct and indirect government subsidies to artificially lower their cost of sugar.  If not for the current U.S. sugar program of relatively minor tariffs and import quotas, foreign job creation in foreign sugar markets would, indeed, be at the expense of sugar jobs in the U.S.

Although not specifically addressing sugar, here’s how a Senate Republican aide described the general problem of unfair global trade practices in an internal memo last month…

“Many foreign nations undermine the principles of free and fair trade by improperly subsidizing either the labor or capital required for production, in violation of World Trade Organization (WTO) rules.

“These aggressive actions include illicit product dumping, where foreign competitors deliberately target domestic industries by flooding the market with underpriced goods – an action which can result in the permanent closure of a domestic industry and, with it, an economic way of life. 

“Such actions, by shuttering the manufacturing core, also jeopardize national security.

“No American company, or its workers, can compete against a foreign product that is dumped on the market at dramatically distorted prices.  If authorities turn a blind eye to such violations of trade rules, those companies go out of business and their workers are placed on unemployment.”

Indeed, the U.S. Department of Commerce and U.S. International Trade Commission recently ruled that Mexico harmed U.S. producers by dumping subsidized sugar in violation of U.S. trade law.

Free trade is, of course, the ideal.  And an end to the U.S. sugar program should continue to be an important objective for Congress.  However, free trade – as with any contract – must include rules and terms that apply equally to all partners and are observed by all signatories.

There are some who wish to immediately eliminate the U.S. sugar program without holding our trading partners to the same rules we operate under.  But a failure to insist on all parties playing by the same rules is no different from having no rules whatsoever.

Yes, we should eliminate the U.S. sugar program.  But we should only zero out ours if and when they zero out theirs.  Anything less amounts to unilateral disarmament.

And universal disarmament, as Sen. Sessions warns, doesn’t mean just importing artificially cheap sugar; it means importing unemployment, as well. And that is decidedly not in America’s best interest.

Prev postNext post

Related Items
Business
February 1, 2016
N&V Staff

Related Items

More in Business

Farm Bill: Left Sacrifices Reality to Ideology, Conservatives Should Not

N&V StaffAugust 3, 2022
Read More

Shift to Made-in-America Manufacturing Gains Steam

N&V StaffJuly 28, 2022
Read More

Rising Costs Hammering Local Small Businesses

N&V StaffJuly 18, 2022
Read More

U.S. Sugar Policy a Rare Silver Lining around Inflation’s Dark Cloud

N&V StaffJuly 10, 2022
Read More

Government Export Cap Backfires on Indian Sugar Producers

N&V StaffJuly 6, 2022
Read More

NEW STUDY: U.S. Sugar Industry Good for the Economy, Jobs

N&V StaffJune 19, 2022
Read More
Scroll for more
Tap

Subscribe Free By Email

Looking for the best in breaking news and conservative views? Let Chuck do all the work for you! Subscribe to his FREE "Muth's Truths" e-newsletter.

* indicates required
Nevada News and Views
Nevada News & Views is an educational project of Citizen Outreach Foundation, a non-partisan IRS-approved 501(c)(3) organization. It is not associated or affiliated with any political party or group. Nevada News & Views is accessible by the public at no cost. It funds its operations through tax-deductible contributions from donors and supporters and does not accept government money or grants.

TAGS

Featured Article Nevada Politics business Muth's Truths government Government Opinion Muth’s Truths Obama Ron Knecht News Donald Trump GOP Republicans

Copyright © 2022 Citizen Outreach | Maintained by VirtualAlly

Do We Really Want to Put the “OPEC of Sugar” in the Driver’s Seat?
Mr. T and the Texas Trolls: A Tale of Two Corrupt Cities