Quote of the day from outgoing Chairman (and soon-to-be Ranking Member) of the House Agriculture Committee, Collin Peterson (D., MN):
"I'll be able to take care of sugar, that's not even a question," Peterson said. "We'll keep the same program; it doesn’t cost anything. That won't be hard."
(Source: the North Dakota InForum, which has many more gems from the Chairman about why the election is not a problem for Big Ag)
Au contraire, Mr Peterson. The U.S. sugar program costs sugar consumers, including food manufacturers, billions of dollars a year, by the government's own figures.
I just love the way that so many politicians (and bureaucrats) assume that if something doesn't show up as a line item in the budget, then it is essentially free. Tens of thousands of pages added to the Federal Register every year, placing staggering regulatory burdens on business? Costless! The immense inconvenience to travellers and business people from debilitating lines at airports because of security measures? No need to consider those costs against any supposed security benefits; they're paid for by the fairies. And the sugar program, which shifts the burden of supporting sugar prices onto consumers rather than taxpayers? Well, it simply "doesn't cost anything."
For more of Cato's work on sugar policy, see here, here, and here.