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.

[dalereed]

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!

[ejdrapes]

Using the Donald Trump method 'round here, should we be surprised that T-Paw has support for ethanol considering he comes from Minnesota? I don't like it but it doesn't surprise me.

[DoughtyOne]

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.

[Impy]

Another thing that raises food prices.

And flat out waste. If it ethanol was so great it would have private funding up the wazoo.

[niteowl77]

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

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

[PhilCollins]

All federal laws that mention energy and/or farming violate the 10th Amendment, and those laws should be repealed.

[Impy]

I’m 100% against farm and energy subsidies.

[AuH2ORepublican]

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.

[AuH2ORepublican]

I’d rather had = I’d rather have

[campaignPete R-CT]

Gold, I am giving you the AAA (Articulate Answer Award) for this thread.