Posted on 02/01/2011 9:02:58 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Newt Gingrich has been touring Iowa lately, attempting to generate interest in a run for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination, and he’s been going the traditional route of defending farm subsidies, especially for ethanol. Gingrich blasted the media for its skeptical approach to ethanol subsidies, especially the Wall Street Journal, saying that “big urban newspapers want to kill it because it’s working,” and then questioned the WSJ’s values. The editors have responded in an unsigned editorial titled “Professor Cornpone,” and they give Gingrich both barrels:
Here’s how he put in Des Moines, with that special Gingrich nuance: “The morning that I see the folks who are worried about ‘food versus fuel’ worry about the cost of diesel fuel, worry about the cost of commodities on the world market, worry about the inflation the Federal Reserve is building into our system, all of which is going to show up as higher prices, worry about the inefficiencies of big corporations that manufacture and process food products—the morning they do that, I’ll take them seriously.”
The morning Mr. Gingrich read the offending editorial, if he did, he must have overlooked the part about precisely those concerns. He must have also missed our editorial last month raising the possibility that easy money was contributing to another asset bubble in the Farm Belt, especially in land prices. For that matter, he must have missed the dozens of pieces we’ve run in recent years critiquing Fed monetary policy.
Of course, the ethanol boom isn’t due to the misallocation of resources that always stalks inflation. It is the result of decades of deliberate industrial policy, as Mr. Gingrich well knows. In 1998, then Ways and Means Chairman Bill Archer tried to kill ethanol’s subsidies for good, only to land in the wet cement that Speaker Gingrich had poured.
Yet today this now-mature industry enjoys far more than cash handouts, including tariffs on foreign competitors and a mandate to buy its product. Supporters are always inventing new reasons for these dispensations, like carbon benefits (nonexistent, according to the greens and most scientific evidence) and replacing foreign oil (imports are up). An historian of Mr. Gingrich’s distinction surely knows all that.
The WSJ then accuses Gingrich of pandering, but says the problem goes deeper than just check-box politics in Iowa. If Gingrich seriously thinks that the subsidies for ethanol really are working to do anything more than distort markets and put politics above science, then the Journal argues that his judgment is seriously lacking. Ethanol gets lower gas mileage, thanks to its lower energy potential, which is one of the reasons that consumers haven’t bought flex-fuel vehicles. As Jazz Shaw noted earlier, ethanol in higher percentages tends to damage engines not specifically built for the fuel, but this kind of pandering means we’ll all have to deal with those consequences by government fiat.
We have an opportunity to reform government, perhaps the greatest such political opening in almost a century. Farm subsidies in general have to be on the table, but that’s especially true for ethanol and corn in particular. Ethanol has simply proven to be too costly, too difficult to transport, and not an effective enough substitute for gasoline to be practical or cost-effective. Subsidies only hide that fact from consumers at the gas pumps and the showrooms, but the cost to taxpayers for the years of subsidies demonstrate the decades-long failure. Even Al Gore admits ethanol is a bust, for Pete’s sake.
Republicans don’t need a presidential candidate who wants to conduct business as usual by buying farm votes with promises of our money. We need a candidate who recognizes the historical moment for change, rather than the opportunity to sell more of the same.
Aaaaargh!!! I get so sick of the myopic politicians who can’t get this issue right. Farmers aren’t beholden to ethanol. What farmers want is added-value ag opportunities. They don’t care if it’s subsidized or not - they just want a market, something other than putting it on a barge and sending overseas.
They also aren’t beholden to growing corn, beans, or whatever. They just want to grow something profitable. They also aren’t particular about growing one crop, they’ll grow several if that makes them money. Profitable crops and a local market, with investment opportunities in added-value ag (i.e. coop) - that’s all they really want. With all the local jobs it would produce, we should all want that.
Here’s the way to frame the issue:
- We need to think bigger than ethanol and biodiesel.
- We should be looking at all added-value ag opportunities that stand on their own feet so that farmers aren’t subject to the whims of politicians every election cycle.
- We should be looking at taking as many things out of a particular crop that we can, and the higher the value the better.
- We should focus on research and developing technology, and a tax structure that promotes this and investment, especially farmer investment.
- We need to better vertically integrate our ag structure here in America to promote jobs and healthy farms.
There is a conservative way to approach ethanol and added-value ag and not tick off the farmer. It’s not that hard people.
“each gallon of ethanol requires energy inputs equivalent to 1 1/3 gallons of fossil fuel.”
Exactly correct. It’s not coincedence that the price of both food and oil has gone up as the ethanol mandates have kicked in. Using oil to boil the corn to make ethanol is ultra wasteful. The higher price of food and fuel is directly responsible for the riots around the world. People who live on $2 a day are getting crushed. Ethanol is racist, it kill brown and black and yellow people at a much higher rate than white people!
How about a neutral tax structure that does not promote anything?
May I assume that the “we” you refer to is the ag industry? The only thing I really need to know is that I am not taxed to support ag and I am free to buy whatever ag products I see fit.
Instead of trying to figure out how the government can help ag why not focus on getting the government out of ag (and the rest of our enterprises).
Endorsing Scozzafava really was the end of Newt for me.
We as in the govt. A great deal of what the govt needs to do is open doors and get out of the way. How about we just stop taxing period? Taxing return on investment is the dumbest policy there is.
The best way to get the govt out of ag is to get out of the way of added-value ag and let the ag sector get beyond ethanol and biodiesel. Not only will you bring jobs and investment, you’ll allow the farmer to diversify and prevent the boom-bust cycle we’ve seen in ag since we went to the commodity farm policy in the Depression.
Newt’s not the only one. The list of cornsnake oil salesmen includes Mitch Daniels, Tim Pawlenty, John Thune and yes, even conservative hero Mike Pence. But Pence has opted out of the 2012 race for the GOP presidential nomination. Although it’s no excuse, those four are at least from farm states that grow a lot of corn. Newt has even fewer excuses for being a Cornhuckster, hailing as he does from Georgia, where the big four agricultural products are poultry, peaches, pecans and peanuts — not corn.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/255950/cornhucksters-katrina-trinko?page=1
- JP
Some facts: One gas tank of ethanol requires enough corn to feed a family for a YEAR.
Ethanol is a net energy loss in production due to petroleum requirements for transport, fertilization, etc.
Ethanol requires tanker trucks as you cannot put it in a pipeline at all. Even more net loss.
Ag is suffering from an idiotic tax code. That is why a neutral code is needed. One that neither hurts nor helps.
Have you looked at the crap being done in the name of Law Enforcement? Do you want to get rid of all Law Enforcement because of a few bad cops?
I'm sure that for every good thing government can do, that someone can find a way to abuse it. Doesn't mean we need to get rid of government, just means we need to remain diligent.
Yeah; he does need to go away, and take Rove with him. I’m sick of both of ‘em; O’Reilly, too. They do nothing but clutter up the airways with pretense that they know what they’re talking about, when in truth, they try to energize their own agenda. They’re just as aggravating as the libs.
I will never be convinced that he's not in on the scam$$$. He is very intelligent. That intelligence includes how to make MONEY!
FUNGus!
Dave,
“Ethanol is racist, it kill brown and black and yellow people at a much higher rate than white people!”
Precisely! Just as the BOGUS crap re. CFCs — which has nothing to do with the ozone layer but was implemented to prevent third world poor from availing themselves of LOW COST food preservation via refrigeration — so it is with the ethanol madness. BOTH plans are classic Sangeresque eugenics based genocide and dovetail with the elitist Malthusians to bring the planet’s population down to well under 6 billion and reduce those who remain to the serfs of old.
Conspiracy? WHAT CONSPIRACY???
Gingrich is yesterday. He had his chance, and managed to get himself run out of the speakership, and saw the Republican revolution of 1994 turn into the money grab of the new millennium. He can’t recover by being a rino while calling himself a conservative.
Campaign slogan for 2012: No Newt is good Newt.
Newt’s a chubby little douche. He’s the smartest guy in the room. Just ask him. Bwahahhhaha. He needs to go sit on a couch with Nancy pelosi and figure out how global warming is going to affect him
DannyTN is a big government supporter. Read some of his other posts.
First, I apologize for not responding sooner.
Your post is rife with the assumption that issues such as pollution cannot be addressed without regulation. What you fail to realize is that the cost of regulation includes protection from injured parties. In other words, if you follow the regs but screw a community, you're gtg. No fear of lawsuits. This is an oversimplification, but it is an issue. Without regulations, the injured parties are free to demand compensation for injury or damaged property.
Concerning the military, I hate to be the one to tell you, but through the two Bush administrations and the Clinton administration, the military has been highly privatized. Many of the admin functions, including a lot of C3 functions in theater, have been privatized. I'm not complaining, because the food is better.
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.