Last week, the candy industry’s lobbying arm sent an email to select Hill offices informing lawmakers that not every state had sugar-related jobs.
Duh. That’s pretty obvious. Sugar can’t be grown in every state because of climate and soil conditions.
But Big Candy took it a step further and said that, because some states don’t have sugar-related jobs, those states’ delegations should support gutting U.S. sugar policy and outsourcing America’s sugar production to subsidized foreign producers.
Since when did a state’s employment stats become the litmus test for policy support?
Using such twisted logic, we guess that landlocked states should oppose spending on U.S. Naval bases, too.
Not every district has a national forest, so should America’s treasured lands only have the backing of the districts in which they are located? Foreign aid doesn’t support too many U.S. jobs either. And since we all live on Earth, NASA will obviously suffer under Big Candy’s new plan.
Luckily, not everyone in Congress is so narrow sighted or vindictive. And neither is the American public.
A recent public opinion survey showed that 92% of American voters supported spending federal dollars on America’s farmers. That support extends to Republicans and Democrats alike, and it applies to people from both rural and urban areas, where there aren’t a lot of farms.
Of course, sugar policy has something working for it that the other farm policies don’t. It operates at no cost to taxpayers, making it even more appealing.
This level of near-universal support for farm policy isn’t all that surprising, considering that eight in 10 people surveyed also said that they believed a strong domestic farming industry was essential to American national security.
In other words, farms are kind of like Naval bases. They might not be in every congressional district, but every constituent everywhere benefits from them.