Pawlenty defends ethanol subsidies (First Newt, now Tim, Who's Next?)

The Hill ^ | 04/28/2011 | Christian Heinze

[SeekAndFind]

Tim Pawlenty, after being asked yesterday about his support for ethanol subsidies, which is a key issue in Iowa.

"We can't just pull the rug out from under the industry," he said.

"There are going to have to be some changes, but we have to be fair-minded about it."

Earlier this year, the National Review's Katrina Trinko detailed the ethanol records of Mitch Daniels and T-Paw, among others.

She found that both were good friends to the industry -- an uncomfortable, ideological brotherhood, but politically-helpful in both Iowa and their own states.

When Mitch Daniels was sworn in as governor in January of 2005, there was one ethanol plant in Indiana. Now there are twelve operating plants and a thirteenth set to start running early next year.

This isn’t an accident: Daniels aimed to increase Indiana’s annual ethanol and biodiesel production to 1 billion gallons by 2008.

As for T-Paw:

Pawlenty signed legislation mandating that all gas sold in Minnesota contain 20 percent ethanol by 2013, up from 10 percent.... In 2005, Pawlenty also urged other states, at a meeting of the Governors’ Ethanol Coalition (which had 31 member states at the time), to mandate that all gasoline contain 10 percent ethanol by 2010.

And it goes on.

The Wall Street Journal also slammed Newt Gingrich for his coziness with the industry, concluding:

Some pandering is inevitable in presidential politics, but, befitting a college professor, Mr. Gingrich insists on portraying his low vote-buying as high "intellectual" policy.

This doesn't bode well for his judgment as a president. Even Al Gore now admits that the only reason he supported ethanol in 2000 was to goose his presidential prospects, and the only difference now between Al and Newt is that Al admits he was wrong.

So T-Paw's not alone, although it's a lonely cause outside the Iowa GOP.

[11th Commandment]

What’s Trump’s position

Snooze, I would like to know Bachmann's position..

[Night Hides Not]

It’s our own fault for allowing IA to have such enormously disproportionate influence in our choosing of a president.

Any state with a lib senator like Harkin should have no influence in choosing the Republican nominee for President.

[Abathar]

Reach down and remind yourself you’re a man and take a stand you fence sitting wuss.

He’s trying not to offend either side of the issue which just gets both sides irate when they’re this far apart and resolute. Don’t tell the Iowa farmers what they want to hear and the New Hampshire taxpayers something else, be a man and pony up with what you really would want to see happen.

People have had enough of wafflers in the party, try being firm and make a stand. One side might not agree with it, but at least both sides will respect you for it.

[pogo101]

Heh. But this kind of tough, candid talk is the best way — or the least-bad way — of dealing with it.

If only Chris Christie were conservative across the board!

[GOPsterinMA]

“AMEN” to that!

What f**king genius thought converting the most commonly used food stuff in America into fuel was a good idea?

Even if you ignore the scientific shortcomings of Ethanol, there are many, many, many other source materials to use to produce Ethanol...sources that won’t cause the price of food to increase.

Whores. All whores.

[Neidermeyer]

Tim , you never were on my short list and you have now been permanently banned from that list ... I got REAL GAS a few weeks ago with no ethanol and my mileage jumped by over 10% ... I thought my odometer was off..

[ncpatriot]

ok, that does it for me. anyone who supports ethanol subsidies does NOT get my support. apparently, the RNC must support these subsidies.

[re_nortex]

Any state with a lib senator like Harkin should have no influence in choosing the Republican nominee for President.

Add to that list of disqualifiers the Des Moines Register. Because of the older demographics there, people in Iowa are still newspaper readers. The Register is the defacto paper of record for the state and has a long heritage of so-called "progressivism" (going back to the Cowles era).

In its present incarnation, it's among the most steadfastly liberal daily I've encountered. That's made worse by the effective monopoly it has statewide. There's not a newsstand from Council Bluffs to Davenport where the vile Register isn't prominently displayed. And too many people there take its editorial pronouncements as gospel.

[Gilbo_3]

‘direct, honest and principled is no way to go thru a political career son’.../dean wormer...

[DallasDeb]

No subsidies for any industry. Let the market run naturally.

[DallasDeb]

Government frequently pulls the plug on industry. Look at defense contractors. They hire lots of engineers to develop a program then Congress cuts the program. I’m sure it happens elsewhere, too. Businesses should NOT ever depend on the government for their profits.

[frankenMonkey]

Top Ethanol Producers:

1	Iowa	3.59M Gallons
2	Nebraska	1.74M Gallons
3	Illinois	1.22M Gallons
4	Minnesooota	1.11M Gallons

[Dead Corpse]

An entire industry receiving money it should not be getting, and we can't stop it?

Would this apply if someone was stealing money from you on a regular basis? Would you want to taper them off gradually? Or just get them to stop period?

[stocksthatgoup]

Gasoline (base)[2] 1 US gallon 114,000 BTU/gal

Ethanol fuel (E100)[4] 1.500 US gallon 76,100 BTU/gal

[stephenjohnbanker]

I have never seen such an aggregation of RINO Loser Flake Cowards as we seem to be entertaining for POTUS.

[pogo101]

I agree with that but would be willing to compromise SOME by having a phase-out over a period of years. Maybe that is all that T-Paw is really saying here ... but he sure is IMPLYING that he’s more pro-ethanol subsidy, just with “some changes.” Whatever that means!

What puts me in mind of phase-outs is this. My dad was one of a handful of investors who built a small condo complex in Florida (10 units) in the early 80s. Then the 1986 tax changes took away all of the tax breaks on which the whole investment relied.

Now, I am not saying that my dad “deserved” a phase-out or should not have factored in the risk of a change in the tax code. But I believe that such big, tectonic changes are sufficiently, well, important that they should be phased in or out over, say, five years. JMO

[TheOldLady]

Flying Dolphins Say Support Free Republic

Give what you can
Or donate monthly, and a sponsoring FReeper will contribute $10

Save Lazamataz! He’s fading fast!

[frankenMonkey]

My bad on my chart. 3.59M should be 3,590 Million, or 3.59 Billion gallons, if my public edjamacation serves me correctly.

[org.whodat]

Phase out!!!

[sand88]

The only partial agreement I have with T-Paw here is that, yes, getting rid of a government subsidy or tax break typically should be done OVER TIME, not immediately, because folks have made VERY-long-term decisions based on the reasonable (if wrong) view that the government would not suddenly shift its position. I take the same view with most all agricultural subsidies.

Everyday businesses go under and people lose their jobs. The most sure way to make sure the subsidies are ended is to do it ALL at once. They must be wholly eliminated and, ideally, the Federal employees in support of these programs should also be fired (that will never happen).

Timid steps towards Liberty always have bad results. People need to understand the nature of government -- when slashing, it is best to do it fast and deep.

Government at it's core is force. If one considers the totally of misery caused by governments at all levels it boggles the mind. If we take timid steps to take on the evil parasite class, it is almost certain the parasites will badger the elites enough to keep the hard earned tax money pouring into their corrupt pockets.

I have absolutely no pity on those taking ethanol subsidies. Let them face the reality of sudden job/income loss.