Mandated special interest programs not good for industryTOWNER, N.D. — The last time I voted for a Republican was when I lived in Wyoming and I voted for Dick Cheney for congress. I voted for him because he made a committee vote to kill the sugar program in spite of Wyoming being a sugar- producing state.
By: Paul Koetz,
TOWNER, N.D. — The last time I voted for a Republican was when I lived in Wyoming and I voted for Dick Cheney for congress. I voted for him because he made a committee vote to kill the sugar program in spite of Wyoming being a sugar-
According to what I heard on Joel Heitkamp’s radio program on Sept. 20, Rep. Rick Berg, R-N.D., took a vote against the sugar program. He has got my vote if it is true. It is a good start toward killing special interest programs mandated by Washington.
The thing that got me riled up against sugar producers was their constant propaganda — also known as lies. My favorite is that it does not cost the sugar producers a cent. Sugar producers leave out the part about how much it costs consumers of sugar, since we pay more than the world price for sugar. In fact, it costs so much that a simple calculation of the difference between world sugar prices and domestic prices multiplied by the amount of sugar used in the U.S. shows an implied subsidy of more than a million dollars per sugar farmer per year.
The sugar producer would sarcastically ask, “Where is my million dollars?” This brings on the next lie — I mean propaganda — about how efficient U.S. producers are. The reason they can’t find their million dollars is because they are so inefficient at producing sugar, their costs of production eat up that million dollars.
Sugar producers who lie like this are very worthy of spending eternity in Daunte’s innermost circle of hell. Let’s finally make producers earn an honest living like the rest of us.
Editor’s Note: Koetz is from Towner, N.D.