Leading Free Market Advocates Say “Zero—for—Zero” Makes ZERO Sense
• CATO Institute: “… [T]he sugar lobby, and their supporters in Congress and, sadly (not to mention confusingly), some conservative groups, are pushing a ‘Zero-‐for-‐Zero’ sugar policy, which would essentially end U.S. sugar support programs only when other sugar-‐producing countries do the same. … [W]hat should the United States do while we are waiting for this nirvana to materialise, a process that would be very lengthy indeed? … [A]bandoning the terrible U.S. sugar policy—costing the economy billions of dollars a year … and, now, government sugar purchases—is a good start.” (8/6/13 – Read more)
• Club for Growth: “The argument made by supporters of [Rep.] Yoho’s [‘zero-‐for-‐zero’] bill is the same as saying we won’t stop banging our head against the wall until everyone else stops banging their heads against the wall. That sort of protectionist reasoning is not in line with free market principles. … [W]e should eliminate barriers to trade any chance we get – regardless of what other countries do. … Yoho’s bill is clearly part of a public relations scheme dreamed up by lobbyists from Big Sugar in an attempt to dupe members of Congress and other conservative groups.” (8/7/13 – Read more)
• Competitive Enterprise Institute: “There is growing support for reforming the sugar program from both the left and right. The sugar lobby has responded not by negotiating an end to its special privileges but by seeking to rally around the flag and bash Brazil. … It’s never easy to try to change another country’s policies. It’s a much better idea to change our own.” (8/7/13)
– Only Congress can fix a program that hurts U.S. consumers, taxpayers, food manufacturers and their workers with simple reforms to U.S. sugar policy.