Showing posts with label Graham. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Graham. Show all posts

Tuesday, July 05, 2016

The American "Wet" Dream Mall and the Graham Mega Development Around It. By Geniusofdespair

The gargantuan city proposed for the NORTH WEST end of the County might die. Sea Level rise sure won't help it survive.

You all know why I I fondly call it the American "Wet" Dream Mall -- it is a statement laced with the thought of the "big" dreams of men. HOWEVER, I was not that far off.

The limited property area in both developments leaves very little room for water retention.  So will "wet" be the end of the dream of both mega developments? The Khardashians Ghermezians and the Grahams have to deal with too much water that they MUST keep on their property by regulation. But of course we all know that environmental rules, with enough funds, can be skirted. Hang tough Commissioners (who am I kidding on that one).

 Hang tough Neighbors afraid of traffic, make sure that the water is dealt with. Keep the pressure on the WET DREAMERS. Hold their feet to the fire on water. You don't want your hood flooding?

Saturday, January 10, 2015

Gwen Graham stirring trouble with Democrats. Will she push toward the right, like her father did? … by gimleteye

North Florida, first-term Congresswoman Gwen Graham was one of the very few bright lights for Florida Democrats in the 2014 election cycle, winning against one of the most controversial Republicans in Congress, Steve Southerland. Graham was only one of two Democrats to take seats from Republicans in Congress, but her first votes have some of her biggest supporters up in arms.

Some important Democratic supporters of Graham have been distraught over her early votes; two anti-citizen votes on health care and financial regulation, and one in support of the Keystone pipeline where she joined 28 "oily Democrats". Although Keystone will likely be vetoed by President Obama and his veto sustained in Congress, Graham's instant shift to the right suggests an ambitious politician willing to carve out the same dismal territory once occupied by Blue Dog Democrats: conservative members of Congress -- mostly from the South -- who didn't move the party rightward so much as drain support toward Republicans.

Here is an email widely circulating among distraught Graham supporters:

"I have to tell you that I did a great deal to help Gwen Graham get elected. I am at a loss for words in expressing how disappointing this performance has been.

The worst part of it is that Gwen seemed to sincerely think she was going to be a part of a change in Washington. These actions are exactly the kind of cynical bullshit that makes people hate politics and politicians. They are disgraceful.

To me, the worst vote is the one on the ACA. There is a lot to dislike about the ACA. But the act really could be improved. But by 'improved' I meant work better for people, not the opposite.

This bill simply takes money out of the pockets of our hardest working, economically marginal people and puts it in the pockets of the Walton
family. It is an awful bill with no merit and justification. It is redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich. Period.

So, these Democrats are voting to 'reform' the ACA by making working poor people pay for their own insurance out of their measly paychecks instead of having their large-scale corporate employers pay, and when these same people are hit with the bill, they will think that the Republican propaganda about how awful the ACA was, was actually true. And then, they will go out and vote for Republicans.

I don¹t know exactly what to do about this, but this is just exactly what is wrong with Washington and its is sad to know the newest members have failed their first integrity test.

Totally sick to my stomach. Four votes in one week‹ against ACA, for Keystone, gutting Dodd Frank, and against Nancy Pelosi. Imagine what she can accomplish in 2 years. My support is over."

From Daily Kos on Jan. 9, 2015:

The House Republicans have been having an exciting week. On Wednesday, they voted to roll back Dod-Frank. Yesterday, they voted to weaken the Affordable Care Act. And today, they voted to approve the Keystone XL pipeline. And, as always, there are a number of Democrats happy to join them. The Keystone vote today was 266 to 153, with one "PRESENT" vote. Justin Amash (MI-03) always votes present because, although he supports the pipeline, he does not believe that Congress should be passing legislation on behalf of a single company.

28 Democrats joined the Republican caucus in passing the bill:

Brad Ashford (NE-02)
Sanford Bishop (GA-02)
Bob Brady (PA-01)
Cheri Bustos (IL-17)
Jim Clyburn (SC-06)
Jim Cooper (TN-05)
Jim Costa (CA-16)
Henry Cuellar (TX-28)
Mike Doyle (PA-14)
Gwen Graham (FL-02)
Al Green (TX-09)
Gene Green (TX-29)
Sheila Jackson Lee (TX-18)
Dan Lipinski (IL-03)
David Loebsack (IA-02)
Sean Maloney (NY-18)
Patrick Murphy (FL-18)
Rick Nolan (MN-08)
Donald Norcross (NJ-01)
Colin Peterson (MN-07)
Cedric Richmond (LA-02)
Kurt Schrader (OR-05)
David Scott (GA-13)
Terri Sewell (AL-07)
Albio Sires (NJ-08)
Marc Veasey (TX-33)
Filemon Vela (TX-34)
Tim Walz (MN-01)

So what is Graham up to and who does Graham favor?

Wednesday, April 23, 2014

How the US Army Corps of Engineers manifests Congressional incompetence and the irresponsibility of American voters… by gimleteye

After all the attention directed to the incompetence of the US Army Corps of Engineers (cf. Michael Grunwald, Washington Post, 2005), it is remarkable that Congress has failed to reform the Corps. Consider just one case: Florida's dying Everglades.

The Corps is the principal federal partner in Everglades restoration, conceived as the most ambitious and expensive environmental project ever undertaken. The Everglades' life as a restoration project began in 2000, authorized and approved by the federal government and state of Florida as a $6.8 billion bargain resolving nearly two decades of litigation at the time. Fifteen years later, and environmentalists are wondering whether the whole mess shouldn't just be scrapped.

The problem is both bigger and smaller than the adage, "The Everglades is a test. If we pass, we may get to keep the planet." The devil is in the details, and in the case of a massive restoration project it is important to pay attention to the agencies managing the details.

The federal partner is the US Army Corps of Engineers. The Corps is not just the principal partner. Its role in management, planning and construction of projects makes the agency the key driver despite the fact that only the state, through its South Florida Water Management District, has taxing authority specific to Everglades restoration.

Unsurprisingly, the state partner is also the easiest for campaign contributors who control the state legislature to manipulate (those would be, Big Sugar billionaires). At every legislative session, insiders and lobbyists excel in ensuring that nothing is given to the Everglades without taking at least an equal part away, if not in Everglades protections then in state regulations like those protecting against rampant growth or upstream water quality or farm practices that indirectly impact the Everglades.

It is hard to imagine that insiders could top this dismal formula, but they have. Three years ago, Florida governor, Rick Scott -- in one of his first acts as newly elected chief executive -- axed the science budget of the District, thereby eliminating the capacity of the state to measure and monitor the results of Everglades restoration.

So who are Florida's Everglades activists to turn to, with state government proving obdurate at every point unless first blessed by Big Sugar?

Then there is Big Sugar, its marketing budgets, tons of PR merchandising and hundred of tons of influence with legislative processes and opportunities to put the fixes in, whenever and wherever they want. The sugar spin machine would have you believe their motives are pure and white as driven snow -- they "welcome" collaborations with the environmentalists went one recent initiative -- , and even if they would have taxpayers believe their actions can't be cast in a moral light -- because they are corporations and corporations are people -- , that they conform with the letter of the law. Big Sugar spends tens of millions of dollars a year, along these lines of persuasion.

The partner that ought to be more balanced by virtue of distance from local and state influence peddling  is the federal one. But there is no federal agency more hobbled by political meddling than the US Army Corps of Engineers.  The Corps is bogged down in the Everglades by rules and regulations superimposed as its own form of adapting to Congressional pressures.

Every major Corps project has to be authorized by Congress. Obtaining Congressional authorization is subject to all the whims of politics. And then there is the appropriations process, another chance for Big Sugar to put its imprimatur on the sausage that emerges at the tail pipe of federal legislation.

Environmentalists in Florida are caught between this rock and this hard place on so many levels. Just follow the money. Nothing is easy when it comes to getting money for the Everglades. Because funding is threatened each and every year -- whether by competing interests, competing damaged ecosystems, whether by ideologues or by special interests like Big Sugar whose fingers are relentlessly on the scale of justice -- environmentalists are timid.

They are further intimidated by worry that voters aren't paying attention, and because voters aren't paying attention that any negative news could drive both legislative support and their own contributors away.

The hardest place for the public interest may be the Corps of Engineers, an agency whose supervision of Everglades restoration is turning into the mess predicted by some environmentalists nearly fifteen years ago with the first Congressional authorization of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. At the time and with the 2000 federal Everglades plan, the White House could have put the US Department of Interior in place to be a third co-equal partner. That might have provided the single federal agency with a clear mandate to protect its national parks in a defining role. But the Clinton Administration and Senator Bob Graham caved to pressure from Big Sugar, that profits most when government programs to protect the environment are designed with built-in failure mechanisms. With Everglades "restoration". Big Sugar always exceeds its expectations along this line, notwithstanding an occasional set back in federal court.

Last week, the Corps could not support a plan to authorize a new piece of the Everglades puzzle because it did not meet Corps standards for quality. That piece of the puzzle is called the Central Everglades Planning Project. Although it would also take many years to complete, involving the creation of alternative engineered water flow pathways, CEPP at least gave some hope to angry, frustrated residents on both Florida coasts who have seen toxic algae blooms become so prolific that property values -- not to mention quality of life -- are being seriously impacted. A further irony is that affected homeowners are mostly Republicans, proving the fine example of voters voting against their own interests, time and again, by electing officials who do the bidding of polluters.

But these are distractions to the main folly. The US Army Corps may in fact be right to want to "go slow" on CEPP because of serious water quality issues. In other words, they may be able to engineer moving the dirty water south to the Everglades before they know if they can clean it up. The Corps' apparent concern is happening at the same time as its own inadequate contract supervision of important EXISTING Everglades restoration projects has unfolded in plain daylight.

Far out of the media spotlight in West Palm Beach, the District and the Corps have been battling over the result of the Corps' shoddy supervision of its subcontractors at one of the most critical Everglades restoration projects already authorized and funded by Congress: a water storage treatment area that is supposed to help water cleansed by man-made marshes flow into Loxahatchee national wildlife refuge. The refuge has been devastated by phosphorous laden water pouring off sugar fields for many years. As such, it is a bellwether for the remaining Everglades south and west.

The Corps' failure to adequately supervise a project that itself took many years to design and implement will cost lengthy delays and additional tens of millions in taxpayer contribution to its own ineptitude (I could but won't get into the Mod Waters project in west Miami-Dade county.)

I visited this water storage fiasco one clear Saturday in March. The lassitude of a failed project was visible -- hundreds of acres of scarified land served by faulty culverts was etched on a landscape that ought to have been humming with energy. Harmless foam barriers meant-to-do-what lazily floated by wading birds hunting for any piece of habitat suitable for feeding.

Meanwhile upstream from this man made cluster-of-mistakes, US Sugar just announced another bumper crop. The profits from sucrose just keep pumping along; from the veins of US voters straight to the healthy heart of Big Sugar. US Sugar is one of the two largest producers -- the other being the Fanjul billionaires -- expressed through Florida Crystals and various entities you can even find at Whole Foods -- and some 5.5 million tons of sugar grown in less than 200 days that poison democracy, poison the Everglades, and poison public health was extracted by US Sugar from the Everglades Agricultural Area south of Lake Okeechobee.

The purpose of the treatment marshes -- STA's as they are innocuously called -- is a work around of requiring Big Sugar to clean up its own pollution on its own land.

Our elected representatives have the power to fix these deep, enduring problems. Instead, the airwaves are filled with talking points, bloaviating by the right-wing spin machine, and the frittering of national capital. They are key players in the accepted game of socializing costs and privatizing profits.

Public opinion poll after public opinion poll show how little regard voters have for Congress. Yet voters are ultimately responsible for the morass. The US Army Corps remains the manifestation of a bitterly divided Congress, voter apathy, and misdirection by wealthy special interests. For decades it has been clear: there has to be a better way to serve the American public's need for infrastructure protecting the economy and the environment than the US Army Corps of Engineers. But where to turn?

While do-it-yourself video editors overlay their personalized versions of dancing to Pharrell Williams hit song "Happy", Big Sugar, corporate interests and other wealthy campaign financiers freed to unlimited contributions by the Bush Supreme Court are prancing in real world, grown-up VIP rooms, thrilled how dysfunction accrues to their net worth.

Friday, October 11, 2013

NPR: "Whatever happened to the deal to save the Everglades?" ... by gimleteye

There is a key fact that is missing from the NPR report yesterday, "Whatever Happened to the Deal to Save the Everglades?" The story concerns the deal made by then Governor Charlie Crist to purchase more than 150,000 acres of land blocking the flow of water from Lake Okeechobee south, towards the Everglades. The cost was high, more than $1.4 billion at the time, but many environmentalists (myself, included) believe that any steps to lessen the impact of Big Sugar on the Everglades and on our democracy are worth the price.

Putting clean water at the right times of the year has been the Holy Grail for Floridians and environmentalists ever since sugarcane began to be grown south of the Lake.

The fact missing from the NPR report is that for the US Sugar deal to work -- and restore water flow capacity through the central Everglades -- required the purchase or trade for central parcels owned by its nominal competitors, the Fanjul billionaires of Coral Gables and Palm Beach.

The only unassailable result of the US Sugar deal was to propel that Marco Rubio to the US Senate and to the first ranks of GOP leadership.

Sugar is a heavily subsidized commodity that benefits a few billionaires at the expense of the entire state. The addition of phosphorous and nitrogen to speed the growth of sugar -- combined with the recruitment of methyl mercury downstream of its pollution -- is responsible for the collapse of remnant Everglades habitats.

The failure of the US Sugar deal is constantly spun by sugar's paid-for mouthpieces in the media. (In the past, Joanna Wragg carried the torch for sugar. Wragg had been a senior editor at the Miami Herald for many years. These days, sugar's POV is on-demand service by Nancy Smith for Sunshine State News.)

The stated objection to the US Sugar purchase was first, its cost and second, that putting more water into the central Everglades is unworkable. But the first was a red herring then, as it is today. The money has always been available; either through the water management district or through the state. The second point -- that more water storage in the central Everglades is unworkable -- is often repeated by Big Sugar, ignoring the inevitability of geography.

Big Sugar is fiercely opposed to any tranche of public funding that could take their lands off the table and assents only to the least extent possible. Any work-around is acceptable, so long as it is not their money.

The billionaire Fanjuls were apparently furious with Crist for initiating a deal with US Sugar without obtaining their blessing. The Fanjuls not only withheld cooperation, they funneled huge amounts of campaign cash to Rubio; Crist's opponent in the 2008 US Senate race.

So, why did US Sugar put its lands on the table in the first place? Was the US Sugar deal was a set-up, from the first?

It makes sense that Big Sugar would strive to flush out and then to ruin the political fortunes of any and all appointees or politicians opposed to its control of the levers of power. It is the only interpretation that makes sense. It is also an interpretation that has never been examined by the mainstream press.

Sunday, April 03, 2011

On Miami-Dade politics and Marco Rubio ... by gimleteye

As though Marco Rubio has free will. The New York Times, in a shallow piece on Rubio, wrote this week, "The political advisers working for Senator Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida, had always envisioned that he would eventually speak out forcefully in Washington on the issues that animated his campaign: the debt, government spending, entitlements and taxes. They just didn’t think it would happen so soon."

"The sudden nationwide visibility immediately stoked speculation that Mr. Rubio, a 39-year-old star in the Republican Party, was positioning himself to be a vice presidential pick next year." Earth to New York Times' Michael Shear: Rubio is not "positioning himself" so much as being positioned, the same way that George W. Bush found himself positioned to be the GOP candidate in the 2000 presidential campaign. They were embraced long before they embraced the office.

Rubio was teed up for the US Senate just like Alex Penelas was, more than a decade ago, as the future of the Democrats in Florida. Like Penelas, Rubio is made-for-TV handsome, Cuban American, and carries a good sound bite. Somehow he glided through the slime of local Miami Dade politics to emerge as Jeb Bush's knight-at-arms in the walled castle of the state capitol. Somehow not even proximity at the time to David Rivera rubbed off. Somehow, an insider mortgage from US Century Bank was overlooked, buried in the crack cocaine of the housing boom. And somehow, Rubio had the massive fortune of being able to tag team his US Senate campaign behind the inchoate anger of the Tea Party (and the vanities of Kendrick Meek), avoiding the fallout of the housing crash and the economic catastrophe that Florida developers, homebuilders, and lobbyists who funded his campaign helped create. Poor Penelas got tangled up in the weeds of the failed Homestead Air Force Base fiasco. In the late 1990's, having won the position as Miami-Dade's mayor, Penelas was teed up to be Bob Graham's successor, drawing support from the same financial donors who flooded Rubio's campaign ten years later. Penelas (and Graham) pushed too hard on the air base (the plan was to turn the base into a privatized commercial airport, secured by Ramon Rasco, a founder and now chairman of US Century Bank, and board members of the LBA configured as HABDI, in a no-bid deal pushed by then county commissioner Natacha Seijas) figuring they could pin down Al Gore before the November election. They counted their chickens before the eggs hatched and when the whole farm blew up in the most spectacular presidential political fried chicken mess in US history, scattering bits and parts, feathers and gizzards all over the nation, Alex Penelas took a powder to Spain "for a business trip". Dick Armey's loafered GOP Anglos shut down the recount in Miami Dade, Greenspan snuffed out common sense at the Fed lighting the fuse on the housing bubble, and the rest-- alas!-- is history.

American voters are too dim-witted to even pick up the thread of the disaster. If we have proven anything, it is that orthodoxy serves the purposes of the powerful here the same way it does in Iran, or China, Russia, and Saudi Arabia to name a few places where strict interpretation of the law accrues to the few, the powerful, and the rich. Marco Rubio is following a script. Karl Rove and Kochs (the anti-Newt Gingrich's) have planned all along for Rubio to take the GOP brand of "fiscal responsibility" straight to Obama once he mastered those sound bites. The Times is wrong when it writes, "... even before Mr. Rubio’s victory in Florida’s three-way Senate contest last year, aides had mapped out a plan for Mr. Rubio to lie low in Washington." Marco is the annointed one. He has the Jedi warrior sword and we have the photo to show it.

The aides? Who are they, if not Rove et al? "They knew that getting used to the ways of the Senate can take a while." Baloney. These days of unrestricted campaign contributions and corporate welfare, learning the ways of the Senate for the GOP means getting the right haircut and media training. It means mastering sound bites to be the first on Fox News with the rest following, saying 'how smart that Marco Rubio is"; neat as pins, American flags on their lapels, and organized as synchronized swimmers.

That's how to understand Senator Marco Rubio when he is on your television set delivering with the earnest demeanor of a self-made man with practically zero net worth; calm and poised from the waist up while legs churn in the figurative water to the command of the coaches walking up and down the sides of the training pool. That's where you will find Jeb! these days, not with the whistle in his fingers, but his cell phone to his ear calling commands. Given the lasting damage to the Bush brand-- the only thing better than being King, is being the oligarch who tells the King what to do.

Thursday, November 04, 2010

Florida Democrats need to hit the "re-set" button ... by gimleteye

In 2008, President Obama won Florida by appealing to an increasingly large and diverse group of voters. Hispanic voters were strongly energized by hope and change. He also won, by-passing the state Democratic apparatus-- especially old-guard affiliations. That was by design. This overlooked fact, now that the 2010 election results are in, points the way forward for Florida Democrats.

Part of Obama's calculation was that he didn't need to cultivate, like the Clintons, alliances within the African American vote. But there is every indication, from this-- Florida's most populous county-- that deal-making by African Americans for their slice of the political pie has only served as a form of permanent political enslavement. African Americans are far from the only group hostage to the political past.

South Florida's senior and more liberal Democratic voters have been captive, too, to cracker politics that dominate the old line, north Florida. North Florida Democrats produced conservative, 7 term Congressman Allen Boyd not to mention a sad list of failed campaigns for state office; including Buddy McKay, Bill McBride, Betty Castor, Jim Davis, and now Alex Sink and Rod Smith.

Boyd, from Florida Congressional District 2, was proud of being a conservative Democrat and part of the Blue Dog Coaltion that vexed the Obama White House that ultimately felt compelled, as a result, to sharply curtail its legislative priorities. Priorities, like the environment. As noted by the Florida Independent, Boyd has been, recently, a key figure in the effort to eliminate funding for the EPA, to kill the most important initiative to protect Florida's environment in decades-- restrain the pollution of Florida streams, rivers, and bays.

Ultimately, Boyd could not save his seat from the torrent of cash seeking an even more conservative, radical Republican home. But the take-away lesson is not that Democrats somehow failed to reflect the Florida electorate. This state has proven, as recently as 2008, that its voters are receptive to change. The problem is that Democrats can't find the words to communicate why Florida's economy is in such desperate shape.

The shocking loss of Alex Sink proves not just that she ran a terrible campaign-- and she did-- but that Florida's respected Democratic status quo have been staring for years at a computer screen displaying a fault message while claiming that they really can see the program we should all be following. It has been more than four decades since The Who sang, "We won't be fooled again" and nearly that long Florida Democrats nominate, cycle after cycle, candidates who can't win because they don't reflect the new Florida. Not the Florida of a small town past, but the inchoate mess of Florida's suburbs and cities groaning under poor schools, inadequate infrastructure and a degraded environment.

The popular truism is that no one ever got elected by saying how bad things are. But there is a political fact that is also true: really bad times can sweep you out of office if you can't explain 1) how we got here, 2) what we are going to do, to get out of an economic mess, and 3) where we are going.

Alex Sink did not explain how Florida became a state with a 12.4 percent unemployment rate and a foreclosure rate that is nearly the highest in the nation. She did not identify the bandits. She certainly did not explain what we are going to do-- nor did any other Democratic candidate for state-wide office beyond the standard platitudes-- nor did she paint for voters a clear picture of where we are going.

Here is the bottom line: Florida taxpayers are paying the price for a snatch-and-grab economy that worked while the rest of the nation was eager to buy into the winter sunshine on borrowed money, but not after the housing bubble and mortgage fraud disaster popped. The churning destruction of the American dream is resonant across the spectrum of Florida voters. Seniors, unable to make ends meet on threatened pensions. And for Hispanics-- especially the more recent generations-- the notion of promises hijacked to serve the purposes of an insulated economic elite is especially resonant, but not a theme that Florida Democrats have been able to articulate.

Alex Sink wouldn't even take the occasion of her campaign to tag the culprit for putting Florida's pension funds at risk of multi-billion dollars losses: that would be Jeb Bush and political insiders who ran the State Administration Fund out of the back pocket of Lehman Brothers. I'm sorry: the fact that Rick Scott in the final weeks of the campaign was able to pin Alex Sink with that responsibility is just... well... unprintable.

Florida Democrats are shell-shocked by the 2010 results. How could the GOP that created the weaknesses in the Florida economy through policies advocated by continuous majorities in the legislature and a hold on the executive branch, have taken such clear advantage from the misery they created? Stockholm Syndrome is at work, partly. The same old line political consultants in Tallahassee advise Democratic candidates who take the same route, cut and pasted from past campaigns, to defeat. Some might even claim there is no way for a Democrat to raise enough money for a state-wide campaign without being defeated.

But that is not a way forward. With 2012 and the passage by more than 60 percent of Florida voters for Fair Districts, re-districting of both state and Congressional lines will create a blank slate. That is the most significant change for the Florida political landscape in decades. What is needed is a vigorous effort to recruit and train a new generation of candidates for office who are Democrats, and the place to begin is to help Florida voters understand the costs of this snatch-and-grab economy, who is responsible and the way forward. Anything less than re-setting the Democratic agenda in Florida is just pushing against a string.

Tuesday, September 01, 2009

Big Sugar: fat, powerful and rippling with analogies ... by gimleteye

The American Heart Association doesn't have a soft spot in its heart for processed sugar. Nor should anyone else. "In a scientific statement issued Monday, the organization says most women should limit their sugar intake to 100 calories, or about six teaspoons, a day; for men, the recommendation is 150 calories, or nine teaspoons. The recommendations are likely to prove challenging for many consumers to meet. Just one 12-ounce can of cola has about 130 calories, or eight teaspoons of sugar. ... The heart association has encouraged consumers to moderate sugar consumption, but the new statement is the first time it has suggested specific limits." (Wall Street Journal, August 25, 2009)

There is a funny thing about sugar. It is so ubiquitous in our diets that it becomes hard to describe. Sugar is in the air we breathe. Not literally, of course, but the point is that Sugar invites a thousand comparisons and analogies. Here are two: the American taxpayer and voter has allowed Congress and White House to lick the sugar stick like hamsters on a water dispenser laced with nicotine. Comparing the sugar lobby to tobacco is not far from the truth.

In a 2007 editorial, the Orlando Sentinel called the sugar provision in the Farm Bill, "a shakedown". Why are we so willing to be shaken down and suffer health consequences at the same time? A friend of mine just returned from Switzerland. In an informal airport survey, he noticed an immediate difference between the airport crowd in Switzerland and the US airport where he landed: obesity. Just plain fat. We have turned into a curious nation, jiggling with layers of excess. America doesn't manufacture much. We leave that work to low cost labor nations. Much of the technology that we rely on is now made in other nations, too. We have a lot of government employees and a bloated health care system filled with intermediaries. We make airplanes, weapons and wage wars on behalf of the free world. And we fuel our ambitions with sugar.

"For decades, a federal program has protected the U.S. sugar industry by propping up its prices. The sugar program has been a sweet deal for the industry, and a rip-off for just about everyone else." (Sugar Shakedown, Oct. 26, 2007, Orlando Sentinel) To be clear, this "shakedown" has its companion analogies in state politics. When Gov. Jeb Bush encouraged the Florida legislature to re-write the legal agreement forged in the early 1990's between the US government and Florida and sugar producers polluting the Everglades, there were more lobbyists employed by sugar patrolling the capitol hallways than Florida senators. And, back when I was leading the fight against the Homestead Air Force Base conversion to a privatized commercial airport in Miami-Dade and trying to arrange a press conference at County Hall, it was a sugar lobbyist who intervened with then commissioner chairwoman Gwen Margolis to shut down the event.

In a 2005 editorial, the Wall Street Journal wrote: "U.S. sugar policy has also harmed the environment by encouraging overproduction. Florida's Everglades have been damaged enough by runoff from sugar cane fields that a $300 million water treatment facility will be required to clean it up. But the sugar industry will pay less than one-third of that cost, while taxpayers pick up the rest, especially Floridians who have a new line on their property tax bill. Think of it as a second sugar tax, after the first tax of higher sugar prices. What's astonishing about all this is how much damage is being done to so many for the benefit of so few. A handful of cane and sugar beet growers in a few states benefit the most, and one key to their success is their ability to dole out campaign contributions. In the 2004 election cycle, Florida's Fanjul family, owner of mega-sugar producer Flo-Sun, gave $430,750 in political donations for a total Flo-Sun contribution of $573,700." (Bittersweet Trade, May 13, 2005, Wall Street Journal)

In yet another newspaper editorial against sugar policy-- I can't think of a single newspaper that has endorsed the sugar subsidy in the Farm Bill-- The Washington Post editorial page recently wrote, "Since 1982, domestic sugar producers have lobbied for, and gotten, a government-guaranteed share of the market. Today, their guaranteed share is up to 85 percent; the rest gets divided up among some 40 countries lucky enough to hold quotas of varying sizes. The advent of free Mexican imports upset this scheme somewhat, which is why the 2008 farm bill promised that the government would offset them by purchasing excess U.S. sugar and shipping it to ethanol factories. In addition, the federal government guarantees minimum prices for both raw cane sugar and refined beet sugar. Pretty sweet." (Washington Post, "Sugar's sickeningly sweet deal with the government", August 23, 2009) Well it is even sweeter. The Washington Post doesn't want to bore readers with the details of the failed ethanol bubble or sugar's welfare racket.

Sugar wields its outsized profits in South Florida, from spin doctors inventing "green" sugar packaging to PR flaks to big downtown law firms that have been sucking on the sugar-tipped tit for decades. It is playing a behind the scenes role in promoting the campaign of Marco Rubio against Gov. Charlie Crist, who angered Fanjul family sugar interests by entering into a land deal they deemed 'too sweet' with their chief competitor, US Sugar.

In a Herald puff piece, former Florida governor and US Senator Bob Graham discusses his new book, "America: The Owner's Manual". He cites the capacity of citizens to effectively change government. ("Yes, you can fight City Hall, August 25, 2009, Miami Herald") But while he was US Senator, when it came to standing up to Big Sugar on behalf of public health and the Everglades, Bob Graham hardly practiced what he now preaches.

On the big stuff, there are no differences between Florida's sugar growers. When they can't grow sugar, they will build inland ports, rock mines, or new suburbs.

The economic downturn has done nothing to lessen either sugar's influence or desire to knock down barriers to building whatever industrial facilities they want in historic Everglades wetlands. According to the Wall Street Journal, "Sugar is a classic case of what Milton Friedman once called the Law of the Few -- that in a democracy the intense interests of a few can often trump the diffuse costs spread among many." (Today, the Martin County Commission is taking up a new proposal to weaken growth management restrictions in the western part of the county; long a goal of sugar growers and land speculators.)

The Wall Street Journal reports, "Current food labels don't list sugar content in calories or teaspoons and don't distinguish between natural and added sugars." You can ask former Senator Graham or current US Senator Bill Nelson, why. I'm not sure they would admit that Big Sugar controls local and state politics with its sweet tooth along the lines of the popular HBO show, "True Blood"; where excess and sweetness interlock like legislators and sugar money after the sun goes down.


April 27, 2000

Sugar Industry Seeks Bailout,
Gives Money to Help Get Way

By BRUCE INGERSOLL
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

WASHINGTON -- Never have old hands at the Agriculture Department
seen such a turnout: 11 U.S. senators trooping into Secretary Dan
Glickman's office to lobby for a big sugar-industry bailout.

"When you have 11 senators showing up," says Florida sugar-company
executive Robert Buker, "that's horsepower" -- enough power, he
believes, to push an ambivalent Clinton administration into an
unprecedented market intervention to bail out distressed U.S. sugar
producers.

The producers are floundering beneath a market-depressing glut of sugar.
Come October, they face another problem: a tenfold jump in Mexican
sugar imports. The federal sugar-loan program, which has cosseted them
for nearly two decades, is suddenly in danger of imploding.

So, to shore up the domestic market, sugar lobbyists are imploring
administration officials to authorize a bold sugar-buying spree. Only by
spending $100 million now to buy sugar and boost market prices, they
contend, can the government hope to head off a much costlier wave of
sugar-loan forfeitures later this summer, in the midst of an election
campaign.

Fighting the sugar lobby at every turn is a well-financed alliance of
consumer groups, candy makers, confectioners and other major users of
sweeteners. Their vision of the sweet hereafter is a deregulated sugar
industry, and they want the administration to let the market sink. Says Jeff
Nedelman, spokesman for the Coalition for Sugar Reform: "The whole
house of cards is starting to collapse."

The government has long managed to keep U.S. sugar prices far above the
world price, largely by curtailing imports of lower-cost sugar. That benefits
producers, obviously, though it also means consumers get stuck with a
price-support tab -- estimated at more than $1 billion a year -- in the form
of higher sugar, candy and soft-drink prices.

But in recent months, due to rising sugar plantings and improving yields,
prices have fallen below the guaranteed price-support levels of 18 cents a
pound for raw cane sugar and 22.9 cents for refined beet sugar. Lately,
prices are up a little in anticipation of a bailout. Under the loan program,
sugar processors who put up sugar as collateral are entitled to forfeit their
crop, keep the loan money and let the government eat the loss.

Processors are threatening to forfeit as much as 1.4 million tons of sugar
valued at an estimated $550 million. The sugar lobby's pitch to Mr.
Glickman and White House officials is that buying 300,000 to 350,000
tons immediately will give the market enough lift to avert massive forfeitures
at the end of August and September. "Sugar prices are at a 20-year low,''
says Sen. Larry Craig, an Idaho Republican. "The potential for loan
forfeitures ... is very real."

The senators visiting Mr. Glickman on March 26 -- all but one from major
sugar-producing states -- told the agriculture secretary that "he needed to
get on the stick," says Mr. Buker, senior vice president of United States
Sugar Corp., the nation's largest processor. On April 6, a dozen
sugar-state lawmakers met with White House Chief of Staff John Podesta.
They and the industry fear costly forfeitures would be a public-relations
debacle, sparking moves in Congress to scrap the shaky program.

Administration officials wouldn't be so hesitant about buying heaps of sugar
if they knew what to do with it. One option is to sell excess sugar on the
world market at cut-rate prices, but that would be just as controversial as
Europe's oft-deplored dumping practices. Another is to donate it overseas
as humanitarian aid, but so far no country has shown any interest in empty
calories.

Limited amounts could possibly be used for school lunches and other
feeding programs. The only other viable option is to use it as feedstock for
ethanol plants, but it would have to be dirt-cheap to compete with corn,
which sells for a nickel a pound.

Sweet Contributions

Top Sugar Daddies

1999 PAC, soft-money and individual contributions from sweetener industry

Archer-Daniels-Midland Co.
$405,000
Florida Crystals Inc.
$344,350
American Sugar Cane League
$144,750
United States Sugar Corp.
$144,040
Florida Sugar Cane League
$93,500
American Crystal Sugar Co.
$79,000
Southern Minnesota Beet Sugar
$74,150
Minn-Dak Farmers Co-op.
$59,050
Other Producers
$176,320
Total
$1,520,160


Competing Commodities

1995-99 PAC, soft-money and individual contributions by commodity group

Sugar Beets & Cane
$7,204,000
Livestock
$5,705,000
Dairy
$5,105,000
Fruits & Vegetables
$4,566,000
Poultry & Eggs
$2,914,000
Rice & Peanuts
$1,294,000
Cotton
$1,087,000
Grain & Soybeans
$665,000
Horses
$579,000
Sheep & Wool
$121,000

Source: Center for Responsive Politics

Diverting sugar into ethanol, a fuel additive, would displace corn, costing
farmers $100 million a year, the National Corn Growers Association
argues. They shouldn't have to "shoulder the burden" of bailing out sugar
producers, the association says.

Adding to the difficulty of a bailout is the opposition from politicians who
represent more sugar consumers than producers. Splurging on sugar would
be a "quick fix" of "dubious legality," 15 House members asserted in a
bipartisan letter. It would bestow a "bonanza" on processors, without
preventing forfeitures in the end, Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman
Richard Lugar cautioned last week. The Indiana Republican also warned
that "dumping" sugar overseas would infuriate trading partners.

Ultimately, though, such considerations may not offset the political leverage
of Big Sugar, which gave Democrats and Republicans $7.2 million
between 1995 and 1999, more than any other commodity group in
Washington. The fact that the meeting with Mr. Glickman was attended by
New Jersey Sen. Robert Torricelli, who hails from a state with no sugar
growers but is chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign
Committee, highlights sugar's importance in an election year.

At least three sugar states -- Michigan, Ohio and Florida -- are seen as
being in play in the presidential race. Earlier this year, Florida Crystals
Inc., owned by the Cuban-born Fanjul family, gave Sen. Torricelli's committee
$50,000. Last July, Alfonso Fanjul hosted a $25,000-a-couple dinner,
attended by President Clinton, raising more than $1 million for the Florida
Democratic Party. Mr. Fanjul is renowned for calling up the president to
discuss sugar-related issues.

Particularly desperate are three big Hawaiian sugar-cane producers, Gay
& Robinson Sugar Co., an Alexander & Baldwin Inc. subsidiary and
Amfac/JMB-Hawaii Inc., whose first shipload of the season is due to
reach the mainland next week. Unlike their counterparts, they are
"price-takers," says their lobbyist, Dalton Yancey. Under an exclusive
contract with a refinery on San Francisco Bay, they are obligated to base
the price of arriving shiploads on the going New York price, no matter
how far it falls below the guaranteed price-support level. The contract
doesn't allow putting sugar under loan or forfeiting it.

Adding to the industry's problems is a looming surge of Mexican imports.
In October, under terms of the North American Free Trade Agreement,
Mexico will be free to ship 250,000 metric tons of low-duty sugar into the
U.S.

Despite more than a 20% drop in prices since 1996, sugar production is
still much more profitable than raising grain or cotton. The result is that
the nation's 10,000 cane and beet growers are shifting more land into sugar.
Their lobbyists portray them as suffering from agriculture's woes, including
crop failures and lost markets, when in fact most fare better than non-sugar
producers.

All told, the sugar problem threatens to haunt the White House and Vice
President Al Gore's presidential bid. It could complicate the coming visit of
Mexico's president to Washington, and could further hamstring U.S. efforts
to open up overseas markets for meat, corn sweetener and other
foodstuffs.

Ironically, the administration could have avoided the whole sticky mess.
But Messrs. Glickman and Podesta, under intense industry pressure, went
along with an administrative decision last fall to reinstate the guaranteed
minimum price, even though under a 1996 change in the loan program it
shouldn't have been offered to processors.

Now, the industry is arguing that "sugar is in crisis," in the words of Jack
Roney, economist for the American Sugar Alliance.

-- Jake Bleed contributed to this article.

Write to Bruce Ingersoll at bruce.ingersoll@wsj.com


U.S Sugar: Clean Up Your Own Mess

By Christine Stapleton
The Palm Beach Post
Friday, November 14, 2008

In the last month we -- the taxpayers -- have been told that WE have to pay
for the mistakes of others: at least $700 billion to Wall Street’s greedy
financiers; $25 billion to the walking anachronisms in Detroit; and $143 billion to AIG
for forgetting that insurance can be risky business.

So the measly $1.34 billion that WE will pay for a huge swath of heavily
polluted land at the south end of Lake Okeechobee doesn’t sound like much.
Neither does the estimated $44 million WE will pay to clean up the pollution
left by one of the nation’s most profitable and powerful companies: U.S. Sugar.

I am referring to the cost estimate of cleaning up 181,000 acres of land that
WE are going to buy from U.S. Sugar to clean-up the Everglades. U.S. Sugar -
the fabulously powerful and successful sugar-grower - has been allowed to
pollute its farmland for decades, while at the same time telling us that it
wasn’t really polluting its farmland for decades.

Yesterday the truth - or close to the truth - came out. It is going to cost US at
least $44 million to clean up U.S. Sugar’s polluted land before we can begin
using it to restore the waterflow between Lake Okeechobee and the
Everglades. Another clean-up estimate has the cost as high as $119 million.

WE know - from our recent experience with AIG, The Big Three and Wall
Street - that these estimates are lowball numbers. The cleanup will - in my
humble opinion - cost a lot more than $119 million because no Everglades
Restoration project comes in even close to budget.

Sure, U.S. Sugar will be responsible for decontaminating some of the land it
polluted with toxic fertilizers and pesticides - about 7,700 acres of about
85,000 acres that need to be decontaminated. The estimated cost of U.S.
Sugar’s portion of the cleanup: $25 million.

Carol Wehle, executive director of the South Florida Water Management
District, assured board members on Thursday that the district typically picks
up the cost of decontaminating land it uses for environmental projects.

“This is nothing different than we’ve always done,” Wehle said.

Paying the cost of cleaning up someone else’s mess just because it is
what “we’ve always done” is no longer a good enough reason to spend tax-
dollars. Maybe we need to try something different. This is a radical idea but
why don’t we make U.S. Sugar clean up its own mess?

It is called “personal responsibility.” Where I come from it would dishonorable
and shameful to make a mess and expect others to clean it up. My mother
drilled it into our heads when we were toddlers: “You make a mess, you clean
it up.”

Roll up your sleeves, Sugar Boys. It’s time to get to work.