Economist Donald Boudreaux has a way with words, but sometimes he uses them as grenades rather than cinnamon rolls. He got upset with Florida Rep. Tom Rooney‘s remarks when he tried to justify tariffs and dressing his arguments up to look “conservative.” This is what ticked Boudreaux off:
Like most conservatives, I don’t like subsidies or government intervention in markets. But I do like U.S. sugar policy, which, according to some, runs counter to these core conservative ideals.
America’s sugar policy has my support and the support of so many other conservatives because it’s the best line of defense we have against an OPEC-like market that threatens our food security and 142,000 U.S. jobs…
The policy we have chosen — placing tariffs on imported sugar — guarantees imports into the U.S. market (America is the world’s biggest sugar importer) but keeps subsidized foreign oversupplies from bankrupting U.S. producers. And, it operates without a federal budget outlay, which means it doesn’t cost taxpayers a dime.
True, this policy isn’t perfect. But it’s necessary. Until Brazil and other countries stop distorting the market with excessive subsidies, our no-cost policy is the least intrusive way to keep 142,000 Americans off unemployment rolls and prevent America from becoming dependent on the OPEC of sugar.
First, I checked Rooney’s voting record vis-à-vis the Constitution and it’s a forgettable 73. What that rating tells me is that this guy needs help. He is muddled in his thinking, but perhaps he is worth saving rather than