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.
Could be a RINO head fake. Say one thing and fund it through a back door.
Then move on to the next boondoggle.
CA requires it, so all that means is prices go even higher for the junk.
“We need to end our current farm policy of over production.”
Is someone forcing farmers to grow crops they don’t want to grow?
Watch the appropriations for biofuels. Scream now in protest, or scream later from pain as we pay for it.
You need 51. But it's a start.
They aren’t forcing anyone no, but they make it much much easier to play ball than go your own direction. Somewhat of an offer you can’t refuse.
Sad to say, but this subsidized idiocy is one of President Bush's brainstorms and crowning acheivements.
Dont we also need to end the over production of house’s brought on by the Home mtg int. deduction........
there are way too many houses, they take way too much wood to produce, they can be bought by the rich and middle class without govt subsidies.......
and with the number of people taking the deduction vrs a blenders credit for ethanol........it would bring in a heck of alot more back to the Fed. Treas. for the Left to spend.
and besides gas wont go up approx 54% by removing 10% of the fuel supply if the Home Mtg. Int. deduction is removed.
Soros just shorted corn, or maize for our Indian brothers who just got approval of their reparations.
So in other words, the subsidy may end but the mandate won’t. Therefore, the price of ethanol crap gas will skyrocket.
an edit
54 cents per gal est. gas price increase without the ethanol production which amounts to 10% of total supply...
......a box of corn flakes goes up maybe 5.4 cents a box, meat up 15 cents a pound when corn price doubles....
its the middle man folks, the middle man.
Soros just shorted corn, or maize for our Indian brothers who just got approval of their reparations.
I hope it ends too but here many distributors (jobbers?) are ignoring it anyway. My chemical test kit has not detected ANY blended ethanol lately.
sounds like they got a look at Intel estimates on Global Food Prices over the next couple of years and it made their blood run cold.
While we are at it, reduce the diesel fuel standards to pre-2007 standards, relax the emissions standards for large trucks, and exempt the military from emissions standards.
Ethanol manufacturers were going bankrupt with the subsidies.
Anyone need a job producing ethanol? There’s a company near Madison, WI recruiting. BTW, the plant in question went belly up not to long ago. Someone knows something that we don’t.
I forgot to add- I wouldn’t touch the job with a ten foot pole.
A big (S) sarcasm
Win win!!
Econ 101....10% less supply proabably means a price increase of at least 54 cents a gal....
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.