Sarah Palin wants to terminate all energy subsidies, including ethanol

The Los Angeles Times ^ | May 31, 2011 | Andrew Malcolm

[2ndDivisionVet]

Sarah Palin was asked Tuesday about the sticky subject of ethanol subsidies, and she said that not only they should they be squelched but that all federal energy subsidies should be eradicated.

"I think that all of our energy subsidies need to be relooked at today and eliminated," Palin told Real Clear Politics at a coffee shop in Dillsburg, Pa. "And we need to make sure that we're investing and allowing our businesses to invest in reliable energy products right now that aren't going to necessitate subsidies because, bottom line, we can't afford it."

Ever the maverick, Palin was responding was in direct opposition to Mitt Romney, who last week in Iowa, came out in favor of government subsidies for ethanol, the fuel produced from corn and other farm products.

"I support the subsidy of ethanol. I believe ethanol's an important part of our energy solution in this country," Romney told a supporter from West Des Moines on Friday.

Neither former governor has officially stated his or her intention to run for the GOP nomination for president; however, Romney is expected to throw his hat in the ring later this week.

One former governor who has committed to running is Tim Pawlenty. In fact, it was in his statement announcing his candidacy that he also backed the elimination of ethanol and other energy subsidies. Unlike Palin, however, Pawlenty wants to take it slowly.....

[Raycpa]

Its not fair you zotted so quick. Even my cat played with its prey for hours before killing it.

[Halfmanhalfamazing]

==========she said that not only they should they be squelched but that all federal energy subsidies should be eradicated.============

Go Sarah! For far too long, progressive republicans have used federal subsidy to grow a welfare/power base amongst corporations.

Sarah isn't a progressive.

[plain talk]

Eliminating subsidies on ethanol I agree with. Eliminating tax breaks on oil companies (which gets passed on to us as higher prices) I vehemently disagree with. I have no interest in giving the feds any more taxes - period.

[Balding_Eagle]

and then what’s left, the complex carbs, are fed to the cattle, but I don’t KNOW that

The thousands of farmers who feed those distillers grains know it, and depend on it for feed for hundreds of thousands of cattle. If you eat beef it's an almost certainty that the beef was produced suing distillers grains..

Out of three semi loads of corn going into an ethanol plant, roughly two come out as livestock feed, one as ethanol.

I can send you links to various university trials supporting the above rough calcs.

Not that ethanol subsidies shouldn't end, I think they should, it's just that a lot on nonsense gets tossed around regarding the efficiency of corn to ethanol.

[Bigtigermike]

She said “All” should be eliminated including ethanol! Read it

[Raycpa]

Her quote is : “I think that all of our energy subsidies need to be relooked at today and eliminated,” Palin told Real Clear Politics at a coffee shop in Dillsburg, Pa.

I do would not assume that she is calling for elimination when at the same time she is saying “relooked at”. Otherwise she would have simply said “need to be eliminated”.

[Buchal]

It has always been obvious that ethanol made no sense other than as corporate welfare, precisely because of what you describe. With corporations and the commies both looting the Feds at will in a “bipartisan” fashion, we don’t have much longer left before a serious reckoning.

[dynachrome]

mewykwistmas seems to have rode the lightning on 5-31-11 in this thread in #21

[alstewartfan]

Oil companies do NOT get subsidies, EXCEPT for the gov’t mandate to add ethanol to their product! Tax credits and deductions are NOT subsidies, and Sarah knows that. Bob

[Navy Patriot]

But now I have a 2007 car that only gets 5% less mpg on 10% ethanol.

It's an engineering gain primarily derived from the gasoline component of fuel.

The accurate analysis of the situation is that no oxygenate is necessary in the vast majority of gasoline fueled vehicles on the road today, with properly refined gasoline.

Additionally, ethanol is grossly more expensive to produce than gasoline, and the subsidy revenue pursuit causes disasters such as the MTBE pollution scandal which purpose was to shift subsidy income from Archer Daniels Midland to more leftist politically connected chemical companies (many foreign) that manufactured MTBE from their waste products.

Gasoline oxygenate additives have NEVER been necessary for pollution reduction, and have always caused a net increase of pollution. It has always been about getting taxpayer funds (subsidies) to crony capitalist political donors, and never been about pollution.

[Bigtigermike]

*sigh* here is the rest of the quote for those that don't research!!! Sheesh! “We’ve got to allow the free market to dictate what’s most efficient and economical for our nation’s economy,” Palin said. “No, at this time, our country can’t afford the subsidies. Before, though, we even start arguing about some of these domestic subsidies that need to be eliminated — should be — we need to look at ending subsidies and loans to foreign countries and their energy production that we’re relying on, like Brazil.”

[plain talk]

I know a subsidy isn’t precisely the same as a tax break. But the way she worded it sounded very broad and concerned me. But you are probably right. Thanks.

[Recovering_Democrat]

I agree with Sarah....ALL subsidies should be eliminated WHILE AT THE SAME TIME corporate and business tax rates should be cut to the bone. The game of “we’re raising your taxes but you can earn a credit if you do such-and-such” needs to end.

[DannyTN]

"It’s a bad solution. It takes MORE than the energy in 1.5 gallons of ethanol to make that 1.5 gallons. "

So what? I couldn't care less about conserving total energy. It matters greatly where that energy came from that went into making that ethanol.

If you said that it took more than 1.0 gallons of gasoline to make the 1.5 gallons of ethanol in order to save the 1.0 gallon of gasoline per tank in my car, then I'd agree with you. It makes no sense because in the end, you're not reducing demand for gasoline.

But if you said it took the equivalent energy of 1.5 gallons of gasoline and that energy was generated from a nuclear or coal or any other non-oil driven power generating plant. Then I really don't care.

In other words I'd be fine with substituting 10x or 20x or 1000x the energy from a nuclear plant for 1x the energy in a gallon of gas. As long as the total cost isn't prohibitive. As long as it meets the goal of reducing demand for gasoline and defunding terrorist states, then by all means waste a little energy and substitute.

Now that said, it did take some gasoline to grow that corn. I just don't know how much. The energy that went into the conversion process probably wasn't oil driven so I don't care about how much energy got used in that process, only about the total cost change.

[Spktyr]

It takes three gallons of gas to make one gallon of ethanol, IIRC. It’s a sham.

[catnipman]

While she’s at it, she needs to terminate all government farm subsidies as well. In fact, terminate ALL government subsidies! Let the damn free market do its job! The sole purpose of government subsides is to buy votes and nothing else, while their side-effect is to distort free-market economics. And, taxpayers end up paying twice for these subsidies: once when they’re taxed to pay for them and a second time when whatever is being artificially manipulated by taxpayer money ends up costing more when the consumer goes to buy it.

[Bigtigermike]

Palin was on the Judge Perino show a few weeks ago and defended the tax breaks that Obama wanted eliminated because she said that it would hurt the smaller companies that are trying to compete and basically said that Obama didn’t know what he was talking about- so she does differentiate between subsides and tax breaks—trust me she knows the oil and gas business

[sand88]

Eliminating tax breaks on oil companies (which gets passed on to us as higher prices) I vehemently disagree with. I have no interest in giving the feds any more taxes - period.

I agree. Any money kept out of the hands of any government helps increase Liberty. Corporate taxes should be completely eliminated,( along with the Death, Capital Gains) as a start. No doubt, when Sarah is elected, she will not do anything that increases the power of government.

[cookcounty]

Good for Sarah. Someone with an actual brain.

[cranked]

I would have great tendency to agree with her suggestion.
If you eliminate them for some; eliminate them ALL....across the board, eh? =.=