Marco Rubio Wants To Make Your Groceries More Expensive
The senator from Florida calls for tariffs on imported fruits and vegetables.

A trip to the grocery store costs considerably more than it did a year ago. Now Florida's congressional delegation wants to inflate prices even more.
On Friday, Sen. Marco Rubio (R–Fla.) led a bipartisan group of lawmakers—all of them from Florida—in submitting a petition to U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai seeking "an investigation" into what the lawmakers call "the flood of imported seasonal and perishable agricultural products from Mexico." They ask Tai to invoke Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 to impose "trade remedies" that will protect American growers from the scourge of…low-priced produce.
While they don't come out and say it directly, it's obvious from the letter that Rubio and his colleagues are seeking tariffs on Mexican produce. Section 301 is the same mechanism the Trump administration used to impose wide-ranging tariffs on goods imported from China. It's a law that grants the executive branch broad, unilateral power over trade.
Rubio and the other lawmakers say the Mexican government is subsidizing its domestic agricultural infrastructure as part of a scheme to undercut the prices charged by U.S. growers. "Mexico poses a direct threat to Florida's seasonal and perishable agricultural industry," they conclude.
The petition goes into more detail. A case of Mexican-grown bell peppers, for example, sells for about $5.85 less than a case of bell peppers grown in Florida. A flat of strawberries from Mexico goes for a few bucks less than the equivalent amount of strawberries picked in Florida.
And don't forget the cucumbers! The petition claims that a flat of Mexican-grown cucumbers sells for a whole "$1.32 less than the average price of a flat of Florida-produced cucumbers." What's more, "prices for Mexican cucumbers are their lowest in the months of April and May, which are the peak months for the marketing of Florida-grown cucumbers."
Anyone who has taken a basic economics class should be able to explain what's happening there. A high level of supply tends to push prices downward. Whether grown in Mexico or Florida, it makes sense that cucumber prices would be at their lowest when there are a lot of cucumbers in the market.
But that's not how Rubio and his colleagues see it. Instead, the petition describes this minor pricing difference as "a clear attempt to displace Florida cucumbers from the U.S. market."
Take a moment to enjoy the fact that some of the most powerful men and women in the U.S. government are freaking out over the idea that American consumers might get to save a few cents on their next cucumber purchase. Then amuse yourself with the optics of American agricultural special interests—which are, of course, pulling Rubio's strings here—complaining about subsidies, as if "direct government aid" doesn't account for nearly 40 percent of American farmers' annual income.
"These Florida politicians are following a time-honored tradition of trying to help their local constituents at the expense of Americans in other states, who benefit from low-priced fruits and vegetables regardless of where they are grown," says Bryan Riley, director of the free trade initiative at the National Taxpayers Union Foundation. Any discussion of how government subsidies are distorting the agricultural markets on both sides of the U.S./Mexico border should take into account the protectionist barriers to imported sugar, he notes.
Indeed, the American sugar industry has for decades enjoyed the kind of protectionism that Rubio and his colleagues would like to see extended to cucumbers and other produce. The results aren't great. Consumers pay billions more annually, the environment gets wrecked, and Americans end up eating less healthy sugar alternatives.
But the craziest thing about Rubio's proposal is the timing. Food prices are up 10.9 percent over the 12 months ending in July. That means they've risen even faster than overall inflation, which is up 8.5 percent over the same period. (August's inflation data will be released Tuesday morning.)
The whole point of special-interest protectionism is that the costs are diffused while the benefits are highly concentrated. All Americans pay for the federal government's dumb sugar policies, but we barely notice the added cost while the sugar-producing industry reaps billions of dollars in benefits every year.
Even so, openly calling for higher prices at the grocery store—and that is exactly what these lawmakers are doing—at a time like this? Are you serious?
It shouldn't matter whether a cucumber is grown in Florida or Mexico. And at a time when American consumers are beset by high and rising prices, it makes sense to welcome the import of cheaper goods that can put food on the table and put downward pressure on inflation. Rubio's petition should go directly to the compost heap.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Well, after all, the Mexican government just requires each illegal to carry some fruit along with the drugs, and shipping costs drop to nearly zero.
Definitely unfair competition.
I am making 80 US dollars per hr. to complete some internet services from home. I have not ever thought like it would even achievable however my confidant mate got $13k only in four weeks easily doing this best assignment and also she convinced me to avail. Look extra details
going this article… https://libertyinc0me.neocities.org/
I am creating eighty North American nation greenbacks per-hr. to finish some web services from home. I actually have not ever thought adore it would even realisable but (ami-07) my friend mate got $27k solely in four weeks simply doing this best assignment and conjointly she convinced Maine to avail. Look further details going this web-page.
.
---------->>> https://smartpay21.pages.dev
We keep hearing this B.S. about how trade helps Americans while the other countries get richer, and we get poorer. China is a great example. Bill Clinton though it was great to outsource labor and manufacturing to China which would help them become more peaceful and democratic. Okay, but then China levied taxes on U.S. imports, while we spared theirs. What happened? They because filthy rich while Americans got cheap goods and higher taxes, less pay, and less high paying jobs. So, stop with the fair-trade nonsense. We need to tax the crap out of imports at the same rate they tax hours. Supply and demand only work when things are done fairly.
Marco Rubio Wants To Make Your Groceries More Expensive
The Biden regime beat him to the punch.
As the grandson of two farmers, and having owned some of my maternal grandfather's farmland, I side with Marco Rubio. If we aren't willing to pay for American agricultural products, then we might as well tell farmers to move to town.
Gotta love those free market Republicans. Glad libertarians still have common ground with conservatives.
sarcasmic
September.11.2022 at 11:03 am
Flag Comment Mute User
Free trade is a bunch of shit. Fair trade is what matters. For example if another country taxes citizens who buy good from us, that's not fair. Our government has a duty to tax us for buying stuff from them. That's fair. Unilateral free trade that stupid libertarians promote is totally unfair. Foreigners get taxes and we don't! How fair is that? And what about subsidies? When other countries tax their citizens and use those taxes to make exports less expensive, we pay less for those good than we otherwise would. That sure ain't fair. To make it fair we should be taxed to make exports less expensive.
So all this bullshit about free trade means other countries tax their citizens to make imports more expensive and exports cheaper, while we don't.
That's just not right.
That's why we need to step up and raise taxes on imports, and raise taxes to subsidize exports. Then it will be fair.
Sarcasm refers to the use of words that mean the opposite of what you really want to say, especially in order to insult someone, or to show irritation, or just to be funny. For example, saying "they're really on top of things" to describe a group of people who are very disorganized is using sarcasm.
I was only pretending to be retarded!
A guy who calls himself sarcasmic was being sarcastic? Whoa!!!!
And no I wasn't pretending to be retarded. I was pretending to be a Trump voter. Oh. Now that I think about it, you're right.
So you *are* retarded?
Pointless to argue with sarcasmic. He himself never knows which words in his comments are serious, sarcastic, or guesses at what other commenters would say.
If you quote him seriously, he says your sarcasm meter is broken. If you quote him to show his inconsistency, same thing.
Plus, he’s drunk.
Does it really matter if a Mexican in Mexico picks my tomatoes or a Mexican in Florida picks my tomatoes? Either way, it's not going to be a Mexican in California picking my tomatoes, California doesn't have enough water to grow tomatoes.
What are the Mexicans in California going to do?
Go to Florida and catch the bus to Chicago.
Jesus just left Chicago.
For Burr Ridge (SW Chicago 'burb) with the rest of the migrants. He was shipped there by Lori Lightfoot without telling any Burr Ridge officials.
"and he's bound for New Orleans"
Z Z Top
"Rubio and the other lawmakers say the Mexican government is subsidizing its domestic agricultural infrastructure as part of a scheme to undercut the prices charged by U.S. growers."
Lower priced foreign stuff? With all this inflation that's going on? How terrible is that? The federal government needs to put a stop to that right now by taxing people who buy that lower priced foreign stuff! They should be buyin Murkin!
sarcasmic
September.11.2022 at 11:03 am
Flag Comment Mute User
Free trade is a bunch of shit. Fair trade is what matters. For example if another country taxes citizens who buy good from us, that's not fair. Our government has a duty to tax us for buying stuff from them. That's fair. Unilateral free trade that stupid libertarians promote is totally unfair. Foreigners get taxes and we don't! How fair is that? And what about subsidies? When other countries tax their citizens and use those taxes to make exports less expensive, we pay less for those good than we otherwise would. That sure ain't fair. To make it fair we should be taxed to make exports less expensive.
So all this bullshit about free trade means other countries tax their citizens to make imports more expensive and exports cheaper, while we don't.
That's just not right.
That's why we need to step up and raise taxes on imports, and raise taxes to subsidize exports. Then it will be fair.
Are you stupid or do you have no concept of sarcasm? Asking for a friend.
Do you not know that sarcasm is mostly related through tone of voice so written media is a poor way to relay it?
Or are you just retarded?
So your inability to pick up on my sarcasm means I'm retarded. Got it.
It is only saracsm when it makes you look bad, got it.
/sarc off
Seriously. If you thought that posting that was somehow clever and meant to make a point, you've got some weapons-grade stupid in that noggin of yours.
/sarc on
Conservative socialism.
Imagine being angry about low prices.
God forbid he try to lower taxes and regulations in this country to make it cheaper for American farmers to produce their produce.
Same old, same old.
When you have a weight shackled to you you do not see the free and demand your shackle be removed.
No, you demand the free be shackled.
Rubio started out his Senate tenure as "not bad", but has moved to become part of "The problem IS government".
No surprise that this sort of thing comes from the same fool who worked to make sure that his FL buddies could play golf after work all winter long by condemning much of the country to winter mornings with sunrise after 8:30 or even 9 AM.
Do . . .do you think government sets people's work hours?
Also, it's FL - they don't have winter there.
Sure we do; winter is that month after the hurricane season ends.
No, Government does not set work hours (yet), but it does set school hours and hours for governmental offices that many have to deal with, which has a wide effect through society.
But to speak to what I believe your point is, why not leave the clocks on standard time year 'round, and let people (or their employers) set their work hours accordingly.
All that Daylight Saving Time does is move the clock around; making sunrise later is just going to result in western parts of time zones have later start hours for some activities, leaving the relationship between what is done and where the sun is the same. So let's stop messing with the clock part.
I bet you are over 80 years old. Because you sure sound like it.
LOL
Nope, not by a long shot, but I don't live in a city either. It's urban (and suburban) folks who seem to go for this stuff.
Just another Republican obsessed with AOC's melons.
Damn Eric. This is what you get when you push for a $15 an hour minimum wage. I guarantee you that those Mexicans are not paying their labor $15 an hour. It's a few dollars less per unit to buy from Mexico. It sounds like a pittance, until you multiply it by the number of units bought.
Eric, would have you wrote this article if you couldn't have tied a Republican's name to it? You call out Rubio in the headline yet admit that it is a bipartisan push. Where's a Democrat's name?
Then of course you had to be sure that you got Trump's name in there as well.
I also noted that Rubio is invoking the 1974 Trade Act which was introduced by a Democrat, passed by a Democratic Congress, and signed into law by an unpopular and arguably unelected Republican President, but completely ignores the fact that without all that, Rubio et al. wouldn't be able to call for anything to be enforced.
Clearly, the GOP's hands aren't clean in all of this and this is very much a 'both sides' story but, equally clearly, Eric has opted for a 'Republicans pounce!' narrative instead. Almost like he doesn't actually care about indicting both sides equally for abrogation of free trade.
Eric showed who and what he is when he "reluctantly" voted for Biden. Anything and everything he writes should be viewed through that lens.
At least Rubio did not vote for Biden.....like you reluctantly did, Boehm.
Are you sure? A lot of Republicans did or at least did not vote for Trump.
Cite?
August 31, 2021. Senator Ron Johnson R-WI says that Trump lost because he underperformed with Republicans. The Senator noted that had he gotten the votes that other Republicans got he would have won.
On Friday, Sen. Marco Rubio (R–Fla.) led a bipartisan group of lawmakers—all of them from Florida—....While they don't come out and say it directly, it's obvious from.....
You could at least try to be discrete, coy or otherwise unfettered with your fear and loathing of Florida's impressive demonstration of government doing good work
When will Reason stop carrying water for the party that gave us Pelosi-Biden-Woke Inc?
So it's a bipartisan thing but Eric makes it a republican thing.
Rubio is a top target of the DNC. There is a huge social media push to promote negative stories about Rubio.
It makes one wonder if this is part of that push. I doubt his democrat opponent has a different position on thus issue.
Exactly! This article has nothing to do with libertarian support for free markets and disappointment in a Republican shunning the free market principles the party once upheld.
It's a hit piece orchestrated by Democrats because Reason is a leftist rag run by leftist leftists who hate Republicans and never say anything critical of Democrats!
Glad someone around here is observant. For a moment I almost thought Reason was coming from libertarian point of view.
One might think so as the author of this particular negative story "reluctantly" voted for Biden.
DeSantis, General; don't forget DeSantis.
Last I checked the U.S. is the biggest exporter of food on the planet, so how much more expensive are tariff's going to make food exactly? We produce so much of it we're flooding the world with food, which sort of presumes we grow more than enough to keep prices low at home. Especially when considering the massive subsidy in that arena.
Great point. The expression "Nickle and dimed to death" is dumb and has no meaning at all.
The original intention of the Constitutional Convention was that the federal government would be funded trough tariffs.
So, what Rubio is proposing is advantageous for his constituency and exactly what was intended from the beginning. When you add to that the effect of the federal minimum wage on Florida fruit prices, what Rubio proposes may not be 'free market' but it may be the most fair. What are the chances of the feds waiving minimum wage for the industry?
I also came across this gem, of which I was not aware:
That is how the founders handled actual insurrectionists. The brutality of it shocks the senses!
"Throughout Western Pennsylvania counties, protesters used violence and intimidation to prevent federal officials from collecting the tax. Resistance came to a climax in July 1794, when a US marshal arrived in western Pennsylvania to serve writs to distillers who had not paid the excise. The alarm was raised, and more than 500 armed men attacked the fortified home of tax inspector General John Neville. Washington responded by sending peace commissioners to western Pennsylvania to negotiate with the rebels, while at the same time calling on governors to send a militia force to enforce the tax. Washington himself rode at the head of an army to suppress the insurgency, with 13,000 militiamen provided by the governors of Virginia, Maryland, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. The rebels all went home before the arrival of the army, and there was no confrontation."
So will Joe personally lead his 87,000 armed IRS agents against us next year?
I have occasionally considered if our government, at different levels, could be funded primarily through fines and penalties. That could at least be entertaining.
and exactly what was intended from the beginning.
Really because my constitution also has a prescribed method on how to levy said taxes/tariffs and it doesn't include sending a letter to the Executive Branch asking them to enact them?
my constitution also has a prescribed method on how to levy said taxes/tariffs and it doesn't include sending a letter to the Executive Branch asking them to enact them?
True, but is Rubio asking him to do so without authorization, or to enforce legislation that already exists? The article identifies that Rubio is asking for the later.
No they are asking for new tariffs under an old law. Congress (unconstitutionally imho) authorized the executive to issue any tariff they want for national security reasons (or other reasons, 1 or 2 other laws do the same).
These are not existing tariffs, that government just isn't collecting (1st rule of government, they always collect).
For an example of why this is really bad just look to Bidens usage of Heroes Act to justify his power to wipe out student loan debt.
If you accept what Rubio is asking for than bend over because the Dems will be right behind him.
Hey asshole, write a bill and get your colleagues to vote on it or fuck off.
No Taxation without Representation.
And no representation without taxation.
Actually, after a 200 year experiment, I am not so sure about taxation with representation.
Now that Trump failed to get Mexico to pay for a wall and Bannon may have stolen money donated to build part of it, this seems like a reasonable way to get Mexico to fund all or part of the wall?
You know who else made groceries more expensive?
Lenin?
Joe Biden?
Krogers?
Gordon Ramsay?
Doesn't it make more sense to support agriculture in Mexico so the farmer will stay there and not feel the need to move to the US. What is cheaper losing some of the vegetable market to Mexico or dealing with more immigrants because Mexican farms are failing.
Reason #345 to not vote for Rubio in November.
I mean, sure- but keep in mind that his opponent called the "Build Back Better" bill a tax cut, so...
Boo! I live far from Florida, but I highly disapprove of bills like this.
I have no doubt that Mexico is willing to cheat; they may be supporting their local growers. If so, I say- sucks to be them! Thanks, Mexico, for subsidizing our fruits and veggies so they are cheaper!
I obviously understand why our farmers may dislike having to compete, and it is really scary to face that. But how long and how much can Mexico really do? I have a hard time believing they have tons of money to throw at their produce growers.
Regardless, and while I agree with Rubio on some stuff, this gets a strong thumbs down from me.
Mexico simply has to not implement the kind of idiotic environmental and labor policies that the US implements in order to keep their prices low.
Of course, the correct way of dealing with that would be to abolish America's idiotic environmental and labor policies.
However, given that the US government has an annual budget deficit of a couple of trillion dollars, using higher taxes on imports is not a bad way of at least reducing the harm caused by US regulations, while at the same time reducing the budget deficit.
Start your own Mexico.
"While they don't come out and say it directly, it's obvious from the letter that Rubio and his colleagues are seeking tariffs on Mexican produce. Section 301 is the same mechanism the Trump administration used to impose wide-ranging tariffs on goods imported from China. It's a law that grants the executive branch broad, unilateral power over trade."
Before I even scrolled to the comments I knew there would be people here twisting themselves into pretzels to defend this just because of who is doing it.
Never change "libertarians".
Further evidence that the "national conservatism" fetish in the GOP is completely losing the plot. Even if you allow that tariffs have a place in economic policy, the last place you'd want them is on low-value-added essential goods, like fruit and veg. This is subverting policy-making to economic illiteracy in the name of a political sales pitch.
I didn’t bother reading this article. I’m only here to comment on Mr. Boehm’s incorrect and insipid headline: “Marco Rubio Wants To Make Your Groceries More Expensive”. Does he actually think that is what Rubio’s objective is? That Rubio woke up on day and was like, “Fucking A man, I want to make groceries more expensive today! Fuck yeah!” Does Mr. Boehm has some secret connection where he know what goes on inside Rubio’s head and understands his deep motivations? If I bothered to read the article would I learn about Mr. Boehm long interview in which Rubio details his master plan to raise grocery costs? No, no, and no. The headline is shit. Stop with this clickbait headlines. It’s embarrassing to read you. Hence, I didn’t.
They accuse their opponents of that because the progressive crowd (including Reason) really does want to keep grocery and other consumer prices artificially low. It simply doesn't occur to them that artificially lowering consumer prices destroys free markets, destroys the economy, and bankrupts the nation.
Within the libertarianish corner of the progressive movement, where Reason is located, low consumer prices and free markets are simply equated, so if anything raises consumer prices, they just assume it must be violating the free market. The idea that indirect government subsidies can lower consumer prices while representing a devastating attack on free markets simply doesn't occur to these simpletons.
We have had decades of Keynesian stimuli and huge budget deficits. Fixing those problems necessarily means making a lot of consumer goods much more expensive.
Libertarians should get behind that, because if our economy was a free market economy, stuff would be much more expensive than it is now.
If you object to making consumer goods more expensive in our current economic system, you are not a libertarian, you're a vote-buying progressive. But that's Reason for you.
Make it on the fruits and vegetables that compete with home grown.----- I, Grampa
Goodby to Globalism ..... and good riddance.
Hear me out before you freak out.
Health and Safety standards, Environmental regulations, Food Safety standards and Social Safety nets all have one thing in common. They cost money. Collectively, LOTS of money. ALL of those costs get imbedded into the price of goods produced IN THE USA.
The primary effect of "Free Trade" (that has not at any point been reciprocal) is the export of manufacturing to the MOST ABUSIVE nation. Move chemicals and heavy industry to places with little to no environmental standards. Move heavy industry and heavy manufacturing to places with no safety standards. And the same applies to everything from health to child labor.
It does not matter how "good" or "nationalistic" you are. Every company ultimately becomes faced with the necessity to export manufacturing in order to compete.
This is a disaster for providing jobs and futures to those who are not in the professional class, not to mention the national security implications and the fragility of supply chains (as proved in the last couple of years).
It is long past time to recognize that "free trade" is part of our national heritage. But, the founding fathers were interested in having it WITHIN the USA, as demonstrated in the commerce clause. They understood, as we should understand, that "free trade" between nations with different standards, different cultures, and different legal schemes is a losers game for the USA.
The world is not a single government with a unified approach to safety, environment, and social policy. The full-on Globalists want it to be, with all the centralized power that entails. The true irony of libertarian "free trade" is that it has been drawing us not toward global liberalism, but rather toward global centralization and tyranny.
So yes, good-by to Globalization ... and good riddance indeed.
Reason has the same policy with elections.
By "cheating" do you mean Mexican taxpayers buying a portion of our fruits and vegetables for us (subsidies)?
Consider it foreign aid, buy the cheap produce and move on after thanking them for their generosity.
I suppose "scheme to undercut the prices charged by another supplier" is a lengthy way of saying "capitalism" but the question being begged is "why is that bad?"
It doesn't matter either way. Thank the Mexican taxpayer for their foreign aid and buy the cheap produce.
Subsidies are a drag on the economy that implements them, but they're a boon for everyone else. If some other fool wants to subsidize his country's industries there's nothing wrong with taking advantage of them. They're only hurting themselves. The worst possible response to foreign countries shooting themselves in the foot with subsidies is to demand that you shoot yourself in the foot too.
An entire slew of awesome answers!
The Washington Post August 31,2021, by Timothy Bella
Forbes August 31, 2021, by Andrew Solender
So you think not taxing something is subsidizing it. You are mistaken as to who has shit for brains.