Hoeven: Sugar program must be in farm bill
December 9, 2011 at 12:58 pm in Grand Forks Herald
Senator discusses 2012 Farm Bill talks, Keystone pipeline legislation
The U.S. sugar program seems to be on track to be continued in the 2012 Farm Bill, Sen. John Hoeven, R-N.D., said Friday. “We need to continue the no-cost sugar program and it needs to be part of the farm bill, and I believe it will be,” he said. Continue Reading
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
58 
68
But Jeff! No sugar program means no union jobs in the region. No union jobs means welfare and food stamps, working for the rich farmers shoveling stuff in their barns. Surely Jeff, you wouldn’t want that for your comrades?
Like or Dislike:
16 
8
Would the farmers still be rich? Wouldn’t they be poor to? Aren’t they just a mere step away from that now?
Like or Dislike:
6 
10
Farmers stand to make more and more money as the years and decades go forward. Food supplies is something the world needs, just like oil. The RRV has the best soils in the world. Subsidies or not, farmers will make more and more money as food supplies diminish or population grows.
Like or Dislike:
8 
4
I share your view..they have nothing to worry about. Sounds to me like this whole thing was much ado about nothing. They no longer need tax payer money. They can all operate free of government intervention and still make a healthy profit.
Like or Dislike:
5 
8
I do not think so Mr Hoeven.. If you allow .. The low cost of sugar that you are saying is that American Crystal Sugar , is now going to get more Federal funding to make the CEO richer? Look what happened to the workers in both states.. I think you full of bees wax.. And how come you could not step in and try to settle this argument when you know darn well that the workers will never see a dime if you push more money into the sugar program.. You must have lost your mind dude… Do you really want to tell these people that your full of it.. Mr Hoeven.. Who’s side are you on? Well let me tell you what I think… Since you became the RNC Sen. in Washington.. You don’t care about anything but you fat big paycheck.. No matter what you say.. It will not help the workers in the Sugar Industry… I hope the people remember about your dealings with that fish farms that still looks shady…
Hot debate. What do you think?
52 
59
Hoeven and Fish Farms?? You don’t mean Schafer? Enlighten me please if I missed something.. seriously..
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
43 
15
I was wrong.. It was Schafer who had the fish farms.. But the idea still is the same.. … No more federal money to Crystal Sugar since it looks like they made enough money to support themselves.. Actually Schafer who made money from the farm bill on his fish kill.. The same is the same when to comes to Hoven I really think that the Farm Bill is way to extreme to fund the mega farmers who think that money is for them..
Hot debate. What do you think?
28 
25
Sorry for such a late response.. I was seriously confused and thought I had missed something critical in a persons actions that would change what I thought of them.. I am very aware of what transpired with the fish farms and Schaefer which is why I about fell out of my chair when he was made a Secretary for Bush..
However If Hoeven had overstepped his bounds I really wanted to know, because he is actually one republican that I can respect because he doesn’t toe the party line 100% of the time.. Yes it is more than I would like, but at least he is willing to compromise. Unlike the other Republican we sent to office.
Personally I am all about the right person for the job and don’t care about the identifier after their name. Thanks for clarifying.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
19 
4
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
18 
63
The sugar program is not cost free. It requires a staff to operate it…it raises the cost of foods that use sugar as part of their ingredients…it costs the country food manufacturing jobs that are lost to Canada and Mexico.
Hot debate. What do you think?
42 
48
There is no staff operating it . It does not raise the cost of ingredients.. Sugar only amounts to 1.7 cents of a 1.75 oz candybar that sells on ur store shelf for 70 cents (36 cents retail) manufacturing that has moved to mexico did due to lower labor costs…. compare 17 dol an hour to 3 dol an hour.. net cost of refined sugar is basically the same in both countries… I’ve been to mexico, u’d be surprised how many things cost similar to here.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
22 
7
This would be a social program….food stamps for the farmers. Rather than focusing on subsidies, how about creating jobs for the millions and millions of people that are out of work in this country. And while you are at it, Mr. Hoeven, how about supporting the bill that would not allow insider trading for members of Congress? Thee is much to do by members of congress….but it seems that congressmen/women and senators are not interested in helping the little guy….just the 1%. Sad!
Hot debate. What do you think?
53 
40
Sen. Hoeven-How many jobs bills have you or your republican party introduced since you were in office? None you say-nada- ziltch. Why is that? Please enlighten us Sen. Hoeven. The republicans number one complaint is unemployment and they don’t lift one little finger to alleviate it. What a poor excuse for a political party-what happened to the gop?
Hot debate. What do you think?
50 
52
What happened to the GOP? They are racing to the right at a very high speed! Look at what’s happening in the primaries right now. Newt Gingrich? He is the New Darling of the Tea Party and if his popularity holds right through until next Fall, he will take the party right off the political cliff. Remember….he is the guy who disgraced the GOP with his lies in the mid-90′s and fined $300,000 for it. They had to get rid of him! And he might be running for President? YIKES!!! THAT’S what’s happening to the GOP. It is no longer the party of my parents or grandparents.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
51 
34
I think the GOP is so screwed right now because of what Karl Rove did to get Bush elected. He formulated what he said was going to be a “permanent majority” by going after the evangelical Christians as well as the far-right neocons and others like the Birchers. He said this coalition was going to last forever, except that as Bush finished his term, the far-right had gotten used to a person in charge who bascially gave them everything they thought they wanted and when Obama was elected, they thought their mistake was to not be conservative enough. The tea partiers took over and swallowed the GOP whole and now nothing happens unless they approve. All the GOP moderates were hoping Romney would be able to pull it off, and he still might, but it looks like Gingrich has got all the support he needs from the far-right. Meanwhile all the GOP moderates are planning to vote for Obama after everyone discovered that he really isn’t very liberal at all and he really isn’t the devil incarnate either.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
39 
15
Did the editorial board challenge Mr. Hoeven on his “no cost” assertion? Why not? Are consumers harmed by artificially higher prices for sugar because of the farm program? Indeed, this kind of protectionism redistributes the wealth from the consumer to the farmer. The media sycophants of our congressional delegation leave us with much to swallow.
Hot debate. What do you think?
37 
36
I’m on the border about how much protection is healthy. It is amazing that while most industries have basically fallen victim to unfair competition from abroad that farming is so well protected…Or at least in regards to sugar beets (Not too educated about most of the bill or what it protects).
What I’d really like to see is for the restriction for growing Hemp get repealed. Hemp is very versatile and of all it’s uses not one has anything to do with getting high like it’s cousin Marijuana. I’m not a big supporter of ethanol, but if we’re going to continue I understand hemp is every bit as good as corn.
In the end maybe the valley could use some other alternatives and get out of the stranglehold Crystal has on local productions…
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
44 
27
I grew up in the valley. I remember as a kid how there was a wide variety of crops planted everywhere. Now it’s basically down to Sugar Beets, Spuds, Corn, and Wheat….I don’t see where having farming return to a variety of crops would be a bad deal….especially for the remaining family farmers who might find they could do better with some niche crops….
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
40 
18
I agree that the farm program isn’t without places to cut, but what you don’t understand tundra, was the other crops were being grown because the farm program forced them to grow the crops. It encouraged farmers to put in the same crops they always did and not put in the crops the market needed. The farm program kept the US farmer planting crops even though there was too much commodity, why did they do that, because they wanted to know without a doubt that there was enough wheat for a full year of domestic use.
Freedom to Farm was a farm program in the 1990′s that removed that portion and moved farmers to more market driven planting decisions. Thus, more corn, spuds, beets, and probably much less wheat than what used to be grown in the valley.
The sugar program is in for the reason the US wants to make sure they always have a supply of sugar. The sugar program helps keep local factories going while allowing the US to keep the factories compliant with environmental regulations. One year, we had a 10 million ton crop and a $36/ton beet payment. Farmers were screaming that they needed $40 to make it. The funny thing was, American Crystal spent 40 million on environmental regulations that year or $4.00/ton. Those are all dollars not spent in third world countries to keep the air clean.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
41 
11
I’m hearing stories about air quality issues right now at ACSC. Where is the EPA? I would love to see them go through all 5 factories right now from top to bottom. I think a serious review from OSHA is called for as well. That is the only way to settle the rumors going around.
Hot debate. What do you think?
25 
33
Been through them.. They are cleaner now than when they were last year.
Hot debate. What do you think?
20 
10
Really? It sure doesn’t smell that way when driving by the plant near Hillsboro. Talk about an awful stench.
Like or Dislike:
16 
13
That was Jeff H. takin care of some business in the jiffy john office. LOL
Like or Dislike:
15 
10
Since everything I read from everyone is that everyone knows the difference.. I would want you to re-read what Tundrabeast said.. That idea would bring fresh foods here in the valley instead of outsourcing.. But hey.. At least we get you buy veggies near our towns at least once a year to support out small farmers.. This idea from this person is true to it’s words..
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
38 
12
sugar wants to lock out its workers, then they must not need the subsidies.
Hot debate. What do you think?
35 
37
?? there are no subsidies for sugar. You want to talk subsidies.. take a look at corn and it’s HFCS! Now that’s a fat subsidy!
Hot debate. What do you think?
25 
11
Your definition of subsidies and mine are two different things. I consider tax-payer funded crop insurance to be a subsidy…you don’t.
Like or Dislike:
8 
9
How do you view why the government paid for new homes and buildings in flooded or hurricane hit area’s when people didn’t want insurance?? At least most farmers buy insurance (required if have operating loan) in case of massive loss in a bad year that could make them go under. The insurance is quite expensive to have each year too.
Like or Dislike:
9 
5
Taxpayers subsidize much of the cost of yield-based or revenue-based insurance policies. It cost the taxpayers a fortune to run the crop insurance program. Here is what I read recently on the EWG website.
On average taxpayers cover 60% of the premiums across all of the multiple crop insurance options available to producers.
The government reimburses private crop insurance companies for thier administrative and operating costs at between 22 and 24 percent of total premiums.
Taxpayers are responsible for a significant share of the payments that go to producers in the event of a yield or revenue loss. The cost to taxpayers for supporting the crop insurance program was risen significantly.
Subsidies to reduce the cost of the crop insurance program that producers pay have been the largest source of increases to cost for taxpayers.
Taxpayers provide about 80 percent of the revenue to the private crop insurance companies that offer policies to producers.
Granted the USDA decides which crops in which regions are eligible for crop insurance.
Its made on a crop-by crop and county-by-county basis depending on producers interest in crop insurance and the level of risk associated with a certain crop in a certain region.
Four crops: corn, cotton, soybeans, and wheat account for 2/3 of all the acres enrolled but sugar is a part of this program. Sugar is not a cost free program in my eyes.
Funny how taxpayers should help pay for crop insurance but the state of ND can’t pay unemployment benefits to Locked Out ag related workers. We should pay to keep the insurance agents lights on though.
In ND it is all about business helping business. The individual tax payer is forgotten. This is my problem with a right to work state.
I would post my real name at this point but I don’t want a hundred phone calls tomorrow. Strike me down…hit the dislike button.
I don’t feel someone living in a flood or hurricane area should get diddly squat if they don’t buy insurance. If you can’t afford to take the loss you shouldn’t live there. I say that as someone that lives a stone throw behind a very large dike in EGF.
Like or Dislike:
4 
12
Due the the long and protracted lock-out of Crystal Sugar workers I don’t think these sugar producers should get any subsidies. They made record profits last year. Seems like they don’t need the subsidy. Do we need to subsidize wealthy farmers? Besides. Should we subsidize a crop that is responsible for increased weight and diabeties health problems in the US? It dosn’t seem like a very good idea.
Hot debate. What do you think?
24 
33
I wonder how far the farm subsidy money would go towards paying off the national debt.
Hot debate. What do you think?
24 
31
It is so hypocritical for the executives at Crystal Sugar to spout free market when talking about locking out their workers, when the government is protecting their interests by limiting sugar imports. It is a bunch of crap for Hoeven to say it doesn’t cost taxpayers money, because it does in the form of higher sugar prices. Crystal Sugar is making record profits courtesy of government protection but it can’t be bothered to extend that kind of protection to its workers.
Hot debate. What do you think?
19 
18
So you think that people who pay taxes might be the same people who buy sugar? No way.
And since the prices are artificially high due to government meddling in the global “free market” for sugar, then these taxpayer/sugar buyers actually do pay more then if there wasn’t a sugar program? can’t be.
Crystal Sugar is a strong supporter of the idea that a “free market” solves everything, including offering up a moral base for the excessive executive pay. shouldn’t they be setting prices based on Global Free Market forces, just like all the other corporations that have to compete with China and India?
Like or Dislike:
17 
8
by the way, I actually remember when Cuba nationalized the sugar plants, and I also realize that in other countries sugar is subsidized by the respective countries, making foriegn sugar artificially cheaper than true free market forces would account for. And it certainly wouldn’t help the union workers if they had to compete head to head with the low pay of sugar workers in other countries. Just couldn’t resist the “NO COST” argument, just about everything has some cost associated with it whether direct or indirect.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
19 
4
Doesn’t the government have to borrrow the money that they loan to ACS? Borrowed money comes with interest costs. Then when ACS pays back the government with sugar, in lieu of cash, the government then has to sell the sugar at a loss. So now how does the sugar program not cost the taxpayers? Another case of privatize profits and socialize losses.
Like or Dislike:
16 
10