Sugar plum policies dance in their heads

Published 8:38 pm Friday, December 13, 2013

Is Christmas candy yet another holiday tradition falling to the “War on Christmas”? Or perhaps it’s a victim of that other seasonal villain (no, not the Bumble), but globalization?

In fact, it’s neither. Christmas candy (being manufactured in America) is a victim of big government policies, particularly indefensible sugar subsidies.

That should be clear to the Washington Post, but it misses the point in a predictable December rant about Walmart and locally owned businesses. The newspaper writes about candy factories in Chicago. The Cato Institute helpfully makes the connections for the Post.

“When Chicago was at its peak as America’s candy-making king, the sweet smells of Starbrite mints, Milk Maid caramels and Maple Nut Goodies wafted down North Cicero Avenue,” the Post reported. “The Brach’s plant, first opened in 1924, grew into one of the world’s largest candy factories, home to thousands of union workers pumping out 200 varieties of chocolates and hard candies. But in the 1990s, as American manufacturing moved overseas, the stream of departing blue-collar jobs here turned into a tidal wave. In 1993, Leaf Candy closed its factory, laying off 500 workers who used to make Whoppers malted milk balls. After dropping 2,800 jobs in 15 years, Brach’s moved its final 1,100 jobs to Mexico in 2003.”

But why did “American manufacturing” of candy move overseas? The Post article isn’t specific. At least, that article in the Post isn’t specific. In 2006, the newspaper made the connection.

“Producers of hard candy, such as Primrose and Brach’s, which closed its Chicago plant in 2004 to move its operations to Mexico, blame their shifting production strategies on one culprit: U.S. sugar subsidies that keep prices of domestic sugar much higher than prices on the world market,” the Post reported. “In addition, tight import quotas make it hard to import cheaper foreign-produced sugar.”

Walmart isn’t to blame; Washington is. The sugar subsidies program is the poster child for bad government policies, led by lobbyists, surviving because of bipartisan cronyism.

“The purpose of U.S. sugar policies is to keep domestic prices artificially high,” Cato explained. “In recent decades, U.S. sugar prices have been typically two or more times higher than prices on world markets. The federal government achieves that result by setting guaranteed prices and backing them up with trade restrictions and production quotas.”

Even the Post acknowledged the system is broken.

“The special protection is a testament to the enduring Washington clout of one of the country’s wealthiest farming interests, including the politically connected Florida family that controls a substantial share of the world’s sugar market,” the Post reported on Sunday. “Sugar makers succeeded by gaining the support of a wildly divergent collection of lawmakers — rural and urban, tea party and liberal — who have little in common other than the presence of sugar operations in their states.”

The Post, of course, chose to portray the closing of candy factories in Chicago as a story about globalization. That better fits the anti-Walmart narrative. In reality, however, this is a story about the national embarrassment we call our sugar policies.