Posted on 11/30/2010 1:20:26 PM PST by SeekAndFind
Has the federal government’s appetite for ethanol ended? A bipartisan group of Senators signed a letter today calling for an end to subsidies and tariffs designed to protect and enhance domestic production of ethanol, which has been until recently the darling of the alternative-energy movement. In a sign of how far ethanol subsidies have fallen from favor, the letter addressed to both Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell has the signatures of such liberal luminaries as Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, and the newly-elected Chris Coons:
In a clear sign of momentum against ethanol subsidies, a bipartisan group of more than a dozen senators has signed onto a letter urging Senate leaders to let the subsidies expire during this Congress, a move that could put many officials in a tricky political spot and could even have ramifications for the 2012 presidential race.
The letter, which I obtained from a source, was authored by senators Dianne Feinstein and Jon Kyl, and includes a number of Democrats and Republicans, including John McCain, Susan Collins, Richard Burr, and Mike Enzi. This is key, because the question of whether the subsidies should expire is emerging as a key test — just like earmarks — of whether Republicans are serious about reining in spending and the deficit.
While this issue could divide Dems along regional lines, it’s more directly relevant to the GOP. With leading GOP senators now coming out for letting the subsidies expire, this could up the pressure on Republican senators who backed the subsidies in the past, such as Chuck Grassley and Orrin Hatch, putting them on the wrong side of what may emerge as a key litmus test for the Tea Party and potentially dividing the GOP caucus.
Greg Sargent misses the significance of Boxer’s name on this list. Boxer has a cap-and-trade bill stalled in the Senate, earlier versions of which relied on ethanol to meet its goals. The ethanol subsidies allowed Midwest farmers to have some buy-in for a bill that would otherwise levy some significant costs on agriculture. This more or less puts an end to that support, which means that Boxer has acknowledged the death of cap-and-trade.
Will this divide the GOP? It will make for some contentious discussions on agricultural policy, no doubt, especially in the House where the GOP picked up a number of seats. But it’s just as likely to hurt Democrats in the Senate, especially those running for 2012 re-elections from ag-heavy states. Ben Nelson of Nebraska is the obvious incumbent for the hot seat, but Jon Tester in Montana and Mark Pryor in Arkansas also will have to answer for it.
It may, however, have some impact on the 2012 presidential nomination race, which starts in Iowa — the heart of corn country. It’s not necessary for a GOP candidate to win Iowa in order to win the nomination — Mike Huckabee won it last year and finished a distant third — but it’s usually necessary for a candidate to do well in the caucuses. Tea Party activists will see an end to subsidies as a success, but will GOP presidential candidates start pandering to corn farmers in Iowa to gain an advantage in the first round of the nominating process? That may well be a good test for the sincerity of those candidates running as small-government conservatives.
The letter makes clear just how much the government has intervened to coddle ethanol production:
Historically, our government has helped a product compete in one of three ways: subsidize it, protect it from competition, or require its use. We understand that ethanol may be the only product receiving all three forms of support from the US government at this time.
It’s long past time for those efforts to cease. Converting food to fuel not only doesn’t work as a replacement for gasoline, it expands starvation by artificially inflating corn prices and making it more difficult to purchase. This letter might be the first step in dismantling an expensive and ongoing failure.
The subsidy and mandate need to be ended.
We need to end our current farm policy of over production.
We still need to encourage added-value ag, just not subsidized and mandated.
There IS good news tonight!!
Small step by small step we will take back our country.
There’s a communist in Iowa with a last name rhyming with “barkin” who will detonate himself if this happens.
I’d love to know who voted for this waste of money, and who of that group is still in Congress...especially on the R side of the aisle.
Obviously, the corn industry didn’t make a big enough donation to candidates, and now the politicians are teaching it a lesson.
Hey, just because the economy is bad and your business is hurting is no reason to cut back on your political donations.
About figgin time!
Subsidies so we get a fuel which delivers less MPG.
Only liberlas could deliver such a braindead scheme.
I’m going to keep banging my drum on this issue.
If you don’t like subsidies for corn ethanol, you are going to HATE the subsidies required for ethanol from cellulosic sources (like switchgrass). The cellulosic sources of ethanol are going to be a huge burden on the federal budget. It is a byproduct of the global warming agenda through carbon sequestration. If we hold congress accountable for this wasting agenda they are going to shove this down our throats.
If we “don’t” hold congress accountable...
“a fuel which delivers less MPG”
And destroys older cars! The govt care so deeply for the poor! s/
Can someone explain what is really going on behind the scenes? After decades of politicians bowing down to every wish of the corn industry:
(1) Al Gore comes out and says corn ethanol was a mistake.
(2) Then just days later, congress moves to cut corn ethanol subsidies.
SOMETHING happened to cause this sudden change. It didn’t just happen overnight without someone behind the scenes orchastrating it.
BTW, I was in South Dakota a couple of years ago and noticed they had “flex fuel” gas (very high alcohol content) for well over a dollar less than regular. I did some math regarding the energy content of alcohol vs gasoline and the percentage of alcohol in the fuel and determined it was still cheaper to buy the “expensive” gasoline because of the significantly better mpg I could expect.
And if this subsidy goes away, I have a feeling flex-fuel will too, unless people will really be willing to pay more for significantly less energy.
All in all, this is a VERY good development.
Whatever- This is simply in the publics mind because of the media talk, the pumps with the E85, the mandated use/mix of ethanol in non-E85 fuels...........
Reality is the government as dozens of subsidy programs it's essentially wasting money on to chase some “green” agenda that sounded good.
Green subsidies amount to scams where often lobbyists and big business are actually using the eco agenda to get some free money. Of course anything "green" cannot be criticized or questioned and is viewed as the automatic moral high ground and underdog even if in reality it's big business that's largely pushing this......i.e. CFL.
Move Iowa caucus back 60 days and no more asking the rest of us to bend over for them.
RE: SOMETHING happened to cause this sudden change. It didn’t just happen overnight without someone behind the scenes orchastrating it.
And look at the signatories -— Dianne “freakin’” Feinstein !!, Barbara “cap and Trade” Boxer, Chris “The bearded marxist” Coons !!
The world has changed !! I just saw a pig fly.
“Can someone explain what is really going on behind the scenes? After decades of politicians bowing down to every wish of the corn industry:
(1) Al Gore comes out and says corn ethanol was a mistake.
(2) Then just days later, congress moves to cut corn ethanol subsidies.
SOMETHING happened to cause this sudden change. It didn’t just happen overnight without someone behind the scenes orchastrating it.”
Notice that algore came out against “first generation” ethanol - derived from corn.
This is a step to mandating “second generation” cellulosic ethanol from grasses and other sources. The science IS NOT THERE to make this feasible. This effort is part of the green agenda. There are a several global warmer senators who signed the letter.
Don’t be fooled. Ethanol from corn is multiples more efficient than ethanol from grasses - including the famous switchgrass. Let congress know that you do not support this ethanol from grass boondoggle.
“And look at the signatories -— Dianne “freakin’” Feinstein !!, Barbara “cap and Trade” Boxer, Chris “The bearded marxist” Coons !!”
The world has not changed. They are digging deeper into the junk science of ethanol from grass.
It’s “green” doncha know.
I believe that the EPA has control over at least part of the mandate. The EPA will allow (require?) 15 percent ethanol content in 2011. Originally the EPA required ethanol usage as a replacement for MTBE. Congress passed a law with huge biofuel mandates in 2005 and increased in another law in 2007. I doubt that Congress will repeal the mandates although the mandates are absolutely preposterous.
My bet is that they’re going to up the tax at the pump.
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.