Posted on 05/10/2015 2:58:11 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Well this is certainly disappointing. With all of the newly emerging candidates running around the early primary and caucus states talking to anyone who will listen it gets difficult to keep track of them all. But there’s one bit of news out of Iowa from earlier this week which is definitely worth a quick rewind and a better look. Newly announced presidential contender Ben Carson was out talking to the Cornhuskers and the inevitable subjects of ethanol, the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) and subsidies for King Corn came up. The answer from the esteemed neurosurgeon was dismaying even compared to some of the other pandering we’ve seen previously.
He started out on a fairly good note:
Carson, in his first speech in the state as a candidate, was asked by a voter about the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), the federal mandate that fuel refiners blend a certain volume of ethanol and biodiesel into their gasoline and diesel supplies.
“I don’t particularly like the idea of government subsidies for anything because it interferes with the natural free market,” Carson said, according to The Des Moines Register.
Not bad. Subsidies in general are detrimental. If he’d only stopped there. But sadly, he didn’t.
“Therefore, I would probably be in favor of taking that $4 billion a year we spend on oil subsidies and using that in new fueling stations” for 30 percent ethanol blends, he added.
How much wrong can you package into just one sentence? First of all… thirty percent blends? We’re fighting like mad to hold the line against E-15 as it is. I don’t even need to go back over all the reasons why yet again in this article. But let’s move on to the other half of that pitch.
He’s suggesting cutting subsidies for domestic energy companies in the oil and gas industry. Not for everyone, mind you. Just them. And then reallocating that money away from fossil fuels and into ethanol processing. Just five seconds before that Carson had been claiming that he didn’t want anyone interfering with the free market, but now he’s saying to cherry pick one specific set of companies in the energy sector, remove a subsidy from them, and then redirect it to benefit the ethanol industry? It’s difficult to imagine a more egregious example of the government picking winners and losers, with the winners just happening to be in the first caucus state.
Second, calling out the “subsidies for Big Oil” is the language of the Left, and as usual it’s complete horse hockey. As anyone who follows this topic knows, the subsidies received by oil and gas companies are not specific to them. They are precisely the same as subsidies given to almost anyone who sells anything, including Apple and Microsoft among so many others. In fact, you couldn’t just cancel the subsidies to the fossil fuel segment of the energy industry without rewriting the rules entirely just to exclude them. That’s a left wing, anti-energy talking point and Carson should be embarrassed to be saying it in front of an ostensibly conservative crowd.
If you want to have a discussion about removing all subsidies across the board, then fine. We’re all ears. Carly Fiorina has proposed the same thing and it’s a worthy topic of debate. But when you start talking about just picking the pockets of oil and gas developers and using it to pay for ethanol, you may as well be running for the Democrat nomination. Poor showing, Dr. Carson.
30% Ben? Push the plunger!!! ... 30% and we’re done ... What a waste of time ... Ben has no idea what he is proposing ... 10% ethanol and look at the price of meat ... 30% ethanol and only a doctor will be able to afford the price of a piece of meat.
That’s their plan.
Let’s not. It isn’t good for your car
My car is a diesel.
your car should be replaced often ... It is good for the economy.
Writer Jazz Shaw about as knowledgeable as Carson. ‘Cornhuskers’ are Nebraskans, Iowans are ‘Hawkeyes’.
Remember Dr. Ben said he would consider limiting certain firearms in urban areas...
I don’t remember that part of the Second Amendment.
we’re coming for you next ... with bio-diesel ... More sugar today in the engine ... more sugar and is mandated! More sugar for you and me ....
Walker has long been maligned about flipping on ethanol by a lot of people, including some Cruzers here on FR.
Readers have a right to know the truth on Walkers longstanding ethanol position, one he articulated again in his Iowa speech.
+++
Walker on ethanol, March 7, 2015
“While I do not support the mandate, I do not have a problem with ethanol...”
“However, it is clear to me that a big government mandate is not the way to support the farmers of this state...”
“Central planning will not help our family farmers, protect our environment, or provide jobs.”
“The free enterprise system must drive innovation to relieve our dependence on foreign oil, not mandates from the state or federal government.”
Carson is no dummy. I think he knows exactly what he is proposing. He's willing to not only support, but expand a horrible program in exchange for votes.
It might be a smart move politically, But it's repugnant on all other levels. Carson is off my list.
Ben Carson needs to stick with surgery.
He flip-flopped. Spin it any which way you want to.
Carson 2016: Because intelligent people burn their food supply.
Or your lawn mower engine. Or your boat engine. But it is good for votes in a key primary. Evidently that's all that matters for some (or even most) politicians.
Biodiesel is actually hard to find. I have the perfect vehicle to modify to run on treated cooking grease, but I’m a renter, not a homeowner and have nowhere to store the equipment I’d need.
It’s good for the gasket companies. I had to rebuild two Hollyes because the alcohol ate accelerator pumps. They last 2 years and the alcohol destroys them...then dumps raw fuel on the hot engine.
Safe as hell...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.