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.
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).