The Hill picked up our coalition's release on reforming the U.S. sugar program. The letter, sent to all Senate and House offices, was pretty blunt in its assessment of sugar policy:
The program is an outdated relic of the 1930s that has outlived its purported usefulness. It is a central planning scheme that— —Allocates the domestic supply —Restricts imports of sugar —Sets prices substantially higher than the world price —Buys up surplus sugar and sells it at a loss to ethanol producersTen taxpayer, advocacy, and public policy groups signed on to the missive, which also pointed out who benefits and who loses:
The U.S. sugar program is a classic public choice case of concentrated benefits and dispersed costs: of how special interests can trump the public interest. A small number of sugar producers receive enormous benefits, while the costs are spread across the U.S. economy, hitting consumers and the sweetener-using industries.The groups urged policymakers to reform or eliminate the program.