Sugar Subsidy’s are an example of a tax break for the rich and the rich getting richer while the poor get poorer. First of all the R's are constantly preaching about free and open markets. The ONLY reason that they don't support eliminating or at least reducing this "tax on the middle class and poor" is that they get BIG DONATIONS from the sugar producers in this country! By both absolute and relative numbers there are WAY more poor and middle class in this country than there are rich. So who buys more sugar? Who benefits from this subsidy? Rich agribusiness! What about opening up our markets to countries that conversely and proportionally open their markets to us? This is actually a inequity perpetuated on both sides of the political fence. (I think I'm rambling here but I can't stop myself.) Additionally there may be adverse health affects (LinkHere) from High Fructose corn syrup, which is what most of the sugar in this country is made from. And STILL furthermore (somebody stop me, PLEASE!) it would help some of the poorer countries that we send subsidies too!! Growing sugar in this country is environmentally harmful (LinkHere) too. Do you know how much of the Everglades has been sacrificed for sugar cane production? Sugar subsidy's make as much sense as tobacco subsidy's do.
And what makes them think they should be able to modify their name? Margarine can't call itself butter. Artificial sweetener's can't call themselves sugar. Lard (or Crisco) can't call itself Olive Oil.
No comments:
Post a Comment