Taxpayers give a gift to U. S. Sugar, or some of its shareholders.

Associated Press reports that the state of Florida will give U. S. Sugar $1.75 billion to take 187,000 acres out of sugar production and give it to the State for Everglades restoration. An “environmentalist” is ecstatic:

“In the old days, you didn’t just beat your opponent, you also ate them,” he said. “Today, we’re eating U.S. Sugar.”

This works out to about $9,000 per acre, considerably more than the price of good rural midwest farmland. According to the article, it’s become increasingly difficult to make a profit in the sugar industry– leading one to imagine that a similar result might have been achieved had the State spent nothing.

The article states that the 1,700 employees will lose their jobs– but the companies web site says that it is an employee-owned company– with 1700 owners.  Looking at it that way, it’s about a million dollars per displaced worker.  Tho I doubt that each gets an equal share  of what amounts to a gift from the taxpayers. The San Diego Union Tribune says employees own only 30% of the company.  That source also says that the company’s 30,000 acres of orange groves are included in the deal.

And according to the New York Times, insiders have been squeezing the employee-owners out.  So there may be even more sleaze here than at first appears.

Blocking progress at the FCC

Comcast packed an FCC hearing to prevent the public from participating.  Apparently this is routine practice in Washington, and the only news is that Comcast did it at Harvard.  (It is, of course, also routine in Chicago)

Homeland Security trumps responsibility

Ever heard of the “Support Anti-Terrorism by Fostering Effective Technologies Act of 2002?”  Known as the “SAFETY Act” (Can’t they even keep their acronyms clean?)  it limits liability for “almost every conceivable technology” related to homeland security.  According to Washington Lawyer Brian E. Finch, even transit [August '07 Metro Magazine, page 24]  and amusement park security guards can be protected from liability under this act.

Feel safer now?

Billionaire says “don’t pay corporate boards”

Today’s Tribune carries an article that appeared a week earlier in the LA Times, wherein billionaire Charlie Munger discusses the problem of overpaid CEO’s.  He traces it to corporate directors, who want to keep their CEO’s happy and retain their well-compensated seats.  The solution: “‘If I were running the world, I would not allow directors to be paid at all.’” New laws and regulations won’t solve the problem. “‘I think you can assume that any law will be promptly evaded.’”

Why would a director serve without pay?  Well, the directors are supposed to represent the shareholders.  Wouldn’t a large shareholder want to supervise the management of his investment?  In fact, many of today’s board members own no shares whatsoever, or only as much as they’re required to own to hold their lucrative positions.