Posted on 01/21/2016 6:38:39 AM PST by SeekAndFind
One of the most destructive environmental subsidies in the United States has found an enthusiastic supporter in Donald Trump.
"The EPA should ensure that biofuel . . . blend levels match the statutory level set by Congress," he said yesterday in Iowa, adding that he was "there with you 100 percent" on continuing federal support for ethanol. "You're going to get a really fair shake from me."
The ethanol lobby has rigorously courted Trump since April, arranging to speak at least weekly, including at least three in-person meetings, in addition to an ethanol-plant tour, the Wall Street Journal reports.
Trump's support for ethanol may win him votes in Iowa, but federal support for ethanol is a bum deal for Americans.
Under the 2007 Independence and Security Act, Congress mandated that the United States use 36 billion gallons of biofuels, including corn ethanol and cellulosic biofuel, by 2022.
And the federal government not only requires the use of ethanol; it also subsides it. Tax credits between 1978 and 2012 cost the Treasury as much as $40 billion. Moreover, numerous other federal programs, spanning multiple agencies, allot billions of dollars to ethanol in the form of grants, loan guarantees, tax credits, and other subsidies.
Taxpayers suffer in other ways, too. Vehicles can drive fewer miles per gallon using ethanol blends than they would with pure gasoline. So Americans end up spending an extra $10 billion per year for fuel, the Institute for Energy Research estimates.
Ethanol also guzzles 40 percent of the U.S. corn crop, and the resulting scarcity drives up the price of food. This year alone, the Congressional Budget Office estimated, American consumers will spend $3.5 billion more on groceries because of the ethanol mandate.
Rising prices of corn feed have even put some small feedlots and ranches out of business. And as grocery prices increase, so does federal spending on programs like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
In a further hallmark of terrible policy, it's probably not even possible for Americans to meet the ambitious ethanol goals Congress and the bureaucrats at the EPA have envisioned.
Ethanol-intensive fuel blends can wreak havoc on car, lawnmower, and boat engines. In fact, many vehicle manufacturers will no longer offer warranties when ethanol comprises 10 percent or more of fuel; engine erosion simply becomes too common.
So, we can't really increase the total amount of ethanol mixed into our gasoline much more, but -- especially as vehicles become more fuel efficient -- Americans aren't consuming enough gasoline to meet the Renewable Fuel Standards with a 10 percent ethanol blend. The EPA acknowledged this inconvenient mismatch last spring, setting three-year ethanol-use requirements at 3.75 billion gallons below the legal minimums.
Ethanol's green benefit is also far from certain, explaining why even many within the environmentalist Left question -- or outright oppose -- the federal government's support.
It takes about 29 percent more energy to refine a gallon of ethanol than gasoline, and that process is often fueled by dirty sources like coal. Factor in the emissions generated during this production process, and ethanol sometimes comes in less green than old-fashioned gasoline. On top of that, burning ethanol also emits higher quantities of the chemical compounds that produce smog.
Then again, perhaps it's not surprising that Trump likes federal support of ethanol. After all, the real-estate mogul's business model has historically hinged on using tax abatements and other subsidies to make his building projects profitable.
(An example: As we reported in August, Trump Tower -- which features a Gucci store Trump claimed was "worth more money than Romney" -- has received a $163.775 million tax break from the city of New York.)
Many of Trump's constituents have rejected the so-called Republican establishment because of its corrupt preferential treatment for Wall Street and Big Business. But Trump's support for ethanol belies his populist Main Street rhetoric. In reality, he's just another rich, East Coast politician who would prop up special interests at the expense of the taxpayer.
-- Jillian Kay Melchior writes for National Review as a Thomas L. Rhodes Fellow for the Franklin Center. She is also a senior fellow at the Independent Women's Forum and the Tony Blankley Fellow at the Steamboat Institute.
“Then again, perhaps it’s not surprising that Trump likes federal support of ethanol. After all, the real-estate mogul’s business model has historically hinged on using tax abatements and other subsidies to make his building projects profitable.
(An example: As we reported in August, Trump Tower — which features a Gucci store Trump claimed was “worth more money than Romney” — has received a $163.775 million tax break from the city of New York.)”
Big Government, anyone?
Is Jillian defining Iowa as a special interest lobby?
Because we all suffer because of that state and who they elect
I would support scrapping the ethanol program.
But let me ask you this:
In what states, post-Iowa, is ethanol an issue in the primary campaign for either party?
NH?
SC?
Florida?
NV?
If not any of them, which super-Tuesday states?
You know the answer: none of the above.
And do you know why, because VOTERS ELSEWHERE LOOK AT THIS AS A SMALL ISSUE IN THE OVERALL CAMPAIGN.
And let me ask you this:
If this is such a big issue, tell me in which year the non-Iowa states (you know, the other 49 states) have made this a big issue on the Senate floor, or on the floor of the House?
2015?
2014?
2013?
Any year in this century?
What about the 90s?
Sure, you can google this issue with regard to congress and get plenty of hits, there have been plenty of proposals, but in which year did congress say: no more ethanol.
After all, Iowa is only 1/50 states. (Notice I am using the 50 number, not the Obama-count 57 number which might change the math somewhat if used.)
The answer is: this issue has NOT been addressed by this country as a whole and everyone just assumes that it is just part of the quirky nominating process in the US to give Iowa their damn ethanol subsidies.
Do I like it? No. Has ANYONE done anything about it? No.
Is it my Number One issue (stacked against things like the Muslim Invasion of the Western world): no.
Is it the Number One Issue of Trump Voters (stacked against things like the Muslim Invasion of the Western World): no.
So Trump is not going to fix this for you, Oh Great Conservative Purists.
Deal with it.
I want a wall.
I want the muslim invasion kept out.
I want an end to ethanol subsidies (but not as much as I want a wall and the muslim invasion kept out).
So go ahead, whine, wail, gnash your teeth, jump up and down, hold your breath until you turn blue... or even something more futile, vote Canadian in the primary... but it won’t change the minds or votes of the broad majority of the Republican voters in ANY of the post-Iowa states.
So deal with it.
If Trump stops illegals, builds the wall, and stops Muslim immigration, I don't care if the government pays IA farmers to grow pistachios and pickles.
May be, but ethanol will not destroy the nation. Immigration will, and that very soon.
Is tax payer money for Planned Parenthood an issue in the primary campaign of any state at all?
RE: May be, but ethanol will not destroy the nation. Immigration will, and that very soon.
So, why not support someone who will build a wall AND stop ethanol subsidies?
The two policies need not be mutually exclusive.
Do you collect baseball cards?
The initial subsidies for Ethanol (EtOH), under Jimmah Cahtahr were to extend the volume of automotive fuel available.
Once gasoline availability became more consistent, the Ethanol industry lobbied for subsidies claiming “oxygenation” properties that “enhanced” or “increased” MPG numbers.
The latter argument is untrue and the former is only true at the 5-10% level.
I can go to my local gas-station and test for EtOH in the fuel stream and find upwards of 14%; there are no QC standards. That value will cause any “plastic” or butyl-rubber fuel line to dry out, crack and fail.
I support the only person who CAN and WILL build the wall.
RE: I support the only person who CAN and WILL build the wall.
I don’t think Trump is the only person who fits the above bill.
RE: Do you collect baseball cards?
NO. WHY?
One non-sequitur deserves another.
If you want to talk about ethanol on this ethanol thread, I will do so.
If you want to change the subject, I get to change the subject too.
I choose baseball cards.
Please explain why you do not collect baseball cards. Is it something about your relationship with your parents?
If Iowa wasn’t the first primary state, we wouldn’t have the ridiculous engine clogging mandate.
We need multiple primaries on the first day.
Actually, ethanol is a big issue in all protein farming states as it raises the cost of corn.
It should be an issue in all states that consume protein as it raises the price of Pork, Beef, and Chicken.
Like that ethanol in your tank? Like the current cost of a hamburger?
Obviously someone straying so far and so quickly from their upfront and bold declaration that they are beholden to no one is not an issue for you.
What Cruz thought was bold politics by doing what was right, Trump considers a stupid and schmuck thing to do. So what else will Trump fold on if needed.
Read my post #19. It is a matter of trust.
He has the intent. I don't think he has the wherewithal. Nothing in his senate record shows that a) he will stand up for the right thing (except his one-time short filibuster), and b) without question his senate career shows he can neither bully nor forge a coalition. You have to be able to do one or the other.
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.