many observers thought that 2013 would be the year that the sugar pro-grams were finally abandoned. The farm bill was up for renewal, and theState Working Paper 13-WP 538, May 2013, www.card.iastate.edu/publications/dbs/pdffiles/13wp538.pdf.sugar support programs were held up as an example of how wasteful gov-ernment subsidies are. However, sugar producers spent some $20 million CASE DISCUSSION QUESTIONSon political lobbying between 2011 and 2013. Partly due to their influ-ence, the U.S. Senate voted 54 to 45 against any reform in the sugar pro-1. Who benefits from subsidies to U.S. sugar producers? Who loses?2. Do the benefits of U.S. government support to the U.S. sugar industrygrams. The majority included 20 out of 45 Republican senators, most ofwhom publicly rail against this kind of government intervention. Appar-ently, however, political expediency required that they support interven-tion in this case.outweigh the losses?3. What do you think would happen if the U.S. government removed allsupport for U.S. sugar producers?4. Government support programs for sugar producers were introduced inthe 1930s, yet they are still in place today, long after the originalrationale disappeared. What does this tell you about political decisionsSources: George F. Will, "Congress Needs to Stop Subsidies to Sugar Farmers,"The Washington Post, June 7, 2013; Ron Nixon, "American Candy Makers, Pinchedby Inflated Sugar Prices, Look Abroad," The New York Times, October 30, 2013; J.Beghinand and A. Elobeid, "The Impact of the U.S. Sugar Program Redux," lowarelating to international trade?5. If you had the power to make changes here, what would you do and why? closing caseSugar Subsidies Drive Candy Makers AbroadBack in the 1930s at the height of the Great Depression, the U.S. govern- from flooding the U.S. market and driving them out of business. Opponentsment stepped in to support the U.S. sugar industry with a combination of of the practice include numerous small candy producers. Many of themsubsidies, price supports, import quotas, and tariffs. These actions were complain about the high U.S. price for sugar. Increasingly, they have re-meant to be temporary, but as of 2015 they are still in place. Under poli- sponded by moving production offshore. For example, the Spangler Candycies approved in the 2008 farm bill, the government guarantees 85 per- Company, the maker of Dum Dums, has moved 200 jobs from Ohio tocent of the market for U.S. producers, primarily farmers growing sugar Juarez, Mexico, where it makes candy canes that are then imported backbeets and cane. The remaining 15 percent is allocated for imports from into the United States. Similarly, Adams & Brooks, a California-based candycertain countries at a preferential tariff rate. The government also sets a company, has shifted two-thirds of its production across the border tofloor price for sugar. If the price falls below the floor, the government steps Mexico in response to higher U.S. sugar prices.in to purchase excess supply, driving the price back up again. The surplusis then sold at a loss to producers of ethanol. A significant U.S. sugar har- benefit 4,700 sugar producers, while imposing costs of $2.9 to $3.5 billionvest in 2013 required the government to spend some $300 million to prop per annum on U.S. consumers due to higher sugar prices. The same re-up U.S. sugar prices. As a result of these policies, between 2010 and 2013, search predicts that removing the support programs would lead to the netthe U.S. sugar price has averaged between 64 and 92 percent higher than creation of 17,000 to 20,000 new jobs in the United States, while dramati-the world price of sugar.American sugar producers say that the federal programs are necessaryto keep big sugar-producing countries such as Brazil, India, and ThailandA recent academic study suggest that the U.S. sugar policies primarilycally reducing imports of products containing sugar.Given the benefits of removing sugar support programs and all thetalk about deregulation and reducing the budget deficit in Congress,

Question

many observers thought that 2013 would be the year that the sugar pro-grams were finally abandoned. The farm bill was up for renewal, and theState Working Paper 13-WP 538, May 2013, www.card.iastate.edu/publications/dbs/pdffiles/13wp538.pdf.sugar support programs were held up as an example of how wasteful gov-ernment subsidies are. However, sugar producers spent some $20 million CASE DISCUSSION QUESTIONSon political lobbying between 2011 and 2013. Partly due to their influ-ence, the U.S. Senate voted 54 to 45 against any reform in the sugar pro-1. Who benefits from subsidies to U.S. sugar producers? Who loses?2. Do the benefits of U.S. government support to the U.S. sugar industrygrams. The majority included 20 out of 45 Republican senators, most ofwhom publicly rail against this kind of government intervention. Appar-ently, however, political expediency required that they support interven-tion in this case.outweigh the losses?3. What do you think would happen if the U.S. government removed allsupport for U.S. sugar producers?4. Government support programs for sugar producers were introduced inthe 1930s, yet they are still in place today, long after the originalrationale disappeared. What does this tell you about political decisionsSources: George F. Will, &#34;Congress Needs to Stop Subsidies to Sugar Farmers,&#34;The Washington Post, June 7, 2013; Ron Nixon, &#34;American Candy Makers, Pinchedby Inflated Sugar Prices, Look Abroad,&#34; The New York Times, October 30, 2013; J.Beghinand and A. Elobeid, &#34;The Impact of the U.S. Sugar Program Redux,&#34; lowarelating to international trade?5. If you had the power to make changes here, what would you do and why? closing caseSugar Subsidies Drive Candy Makers AbroadBack in the 1930s at the height of the Great Depression, the U.S. govern- from flooding the U.S. market and driving them out of business. Opponentsment stepped in to support the U.S. sugar industry with a combination of of the practice include numerous small candy producers. Many of themsubsidies, price supports, import quotas, and tariffs. These actions were complain about the high U.S. price for sugar. Increasingly, they have re-meant to be temporary, but as of 2015 they are still in place. Under poli- sponded by moving production offshore. For example, the Spangler Candycies approved in the 2008 farm bill, the government guarantees 85 per- Company, the maker of Dum Dums, has moved 200 jobs from Ohio tocent of the market for U.S. producers, primarily farmers growing sugar Juarez, Mexico, where it makes candy canes that are then imported backbeets and cane. The remaining 15 percent is allocated for imports from into the United States. Similarly, Adams & Brooks, a California-based candycertain countries at a preferential tariff rate. The government also sets a company, has shifted two-thirds of its production across the border tofloor price for sugar. If the price falls below the floor, the government steps Mexico in response to higher U.S. sugar prices.in to purchase excess supply, driving the price back up again. The surplusis then sold at a loss to producers of ethanol. A significant U.S. sugar har- benefit 4,700 sugar producers, while imposing costs of $2.9 to $3.5 billionvest in 2013 required the government to spend some $300 million to prop per annum on U.S. consumers due to higher sugar prices. The same re-up U.S. sugar prices. As a result of these policies, between 2010 and 2013, search predicts that removing the support programs would lead to the netthe U.S. sugar price has averaged between 64 and 92 percent higher than creation of 17,000 to 20,000 new jobs in the United States, while dramati-the world price of sugar.American sugar producers say that the federal programs are necessaryto keep big sugar-producing countries such as Brazil, India, and ThailandA recent academic study suggest that the U.S. sugar policies primarilycally reducing imports of products containing sugar.Given the benefits of removing sugar support programs and all thetalk about deregulation and reducing the budget deficit in Congress,

Accepted Answer

Since we only answer up to 3 sub-parts, we’ll answer the first 3. Please resubmit the question and…

1. Who benefits from subsidies to U.S. sugar producers? Who loses? 2. Do the benefits of U.S. government support to the U.S. sugar industry outweigh the losses? 3. What do you think would happen if the U.S. government removed all support for U.S. sugar producers?