Posted on 01/21/2016 2:17:48 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
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.
And what does that have to do with anything. The government should not be in the business of picking winners or losers.
Even if you could make a constitutional case that they should be, which I am positive you can’t, what is the government’s track record in picking winners to subsidize? Solyndra?
The market was ready for a correction because it had been overbought and China’s problems loom because of dynamics in China—not because of the price of gas.
Yeah, some energy stocks have taken a hit, but other stocks are doing better than they would have been doing without the break in gas prices that has given consumers and businesses more spending money across the country.
You should get yourself out of the corn fields and into an economics class.
You may get a wall if Trump is elected. And you will have touchback amnesty, making the wall meaningless.
Trump has been on both sides of every issue and simply should not be trusted. He has already talked about cutting deals with Congress.
You implied. You get the best at the best price but never cheap enough. Why not attack real welfare and not the working stiffs paying the bills and supplying the goods. It is like the left wing sleepers emerge against the nation’s #1 and best industry.
Obama printed trillions of dollars and passed much of it through the banks. The banks didn’t loan it out, they bought stock for a higher return. More demand for stock drives the price of stock up. It’s a viscous cycle until the newly printed money runs out - it running out.
-— Ethanol is about the 98th most important issue facing the country -—
And yet Trump is caving to the special interests.
No corrupt deal is too small for Trump.
You speak of “welfare?” And are in favor of ethanol subsidies? Jeepers.
You’re living in the land of plenty friend. If you have a problem with all this prosperity, you should move to Africa but please, don’t try to recreate Africa here by bankrupting our agricultural industry.
Why don’t you quote me where I implied food prices were cheaper outside the country. I look forward to this... Is English your first language?
That is true and it is a legitimate issue that ought to be addressed.
Welcome to the new Free Democratic Underground Republic where conservatism is optional and everything needs to be fair.
What about the 99%? /sarc
I suspect you need to rethink your line-of-argument, somewhat. If I am living in the “land of plenty” (your term), then why do I need to subsidize ethanol production?
I was 6... Wasn’t driving much...
It becomes an important issue when one group decides they want to start experimenting with the food supply.
So you can continue to live in the land of plenty instead of the land of hunger and despair.
-— Trump is a force of nature, the imperfect hero of the caliber we so admire in history and literature. -—
We do? He seems more like a vacuum cleaner salesman with a bad haircut to me.
Who cares if it’s bad for America? It’s good for trump!
That’s usually what people say, when they really are arguing that I need to open my pocketbook and pay my “fair” share.
Ethanol keeps Archer Daniels Midland profitable.
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.