Posted on 04/28/2011 12:00:35 PM PDT by 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."
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.
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.
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.
Why would anyone pay any attention to what people in Iowa think except maybe Iowa residents!
They could wipw thw atate off the map and very few would miss it!
Well, from what I’ve seen nobody should be afraid of beating Obama and having to clean up after him, with the brilliance they’ve had to offer up to this point.
Another thing that raises food prices.
And flat out waste. If it ethanol was so great it would have private funding up the wazoo.
Here's an Iowan who heartily agrees. Iowa, however, encourages the worst that either party can offer and the various "worsts" will make sure it remains "first."
Mr. niteowl77
All federal laws that mention energy and/or farming violate the 10th Amendment, and those laws should be repealed.
I’m 100% against farm and energy subsidies.
I oppose ethanol subsidies, but if I had been a Republican running for governor (and then reelection) in MN (where Republicans need all the help they can get) and then was running for president (where doing well in next-door, ethanol-addicted IA pretty much a must if I’m to have a chance at the GOP nomination), I would probably say things like “ethanol subsidies need to be reformed, not eliminated.”
I’d rather had a president who would refuse to compromise on major issues such as national defense, the right to life, keeping taxes as low as possible, the right to bear arms, and enforcement of immigration laws but make deals on relatively minor issues such as ethanol subsidies than the other way around.
I’d rather had = I’d rather have
Gold, I am giving you the AAA (Articulate Answer Award) for this thread.
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.