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.
Trump is much wiser then most think. Make no mistake. He has more energy then 90 % of us plus he never slows down. Bob Dole just said:”
Dole: GOP would suffer ‘cataclysmic’ losses if Cruz is the nominee.”
LOL! If you've been reading any of my posts, you know that I donate to Cruz...
I just don't get so tore up that I lose my mind when looking at the plus and minus columns - you did much of that "forgiving" when you were backing Walker and seem to be doing it for Cruz too while only looking at potential bad traits in Trump.
When we give up honesty for a cause, the cause becomes tainted - I defend stupid attacks against both Cruz and Trump because ...they're stupid.
More than that, two weeks ago he was accusing Cruz of being in bed with king corn because Cruz was for a phase-out instead of just cutting it off. NOW, Trump's the one in bed with king corn.
What a lying, two-faced, sack of crap.
The land of plenty? where a man works from January to July for the government? You have no idea what plenty is.
So what?
Not quite. Socialist.
No, not dead. It's a bare fact, a principle. Principles do not change. And as it was said, "Sooner of later you run out of other people's money'." It'll happen, sure as God made little green apples. And by then, the pain will be tremendous.
With HUGE TEA Party coattails, too...
And btw, 'we' DID stick together - There just aren't as many of us here as many of us thought. Principled Conservatism has always been a minority here. Many SAY they are conservatives, but don't know what that means, as this very thread so amply displays.
or al-Queda and al-Exxon
That's a false choice. We have more than enough petroleum, natural gas and coal to be energy independent. The problem has always been the government trying to keep us from developing and using the resources we have. Making ethanol requires the expenditure of large amounts of fossil fuels, not to mention the amount of water, fertilizer, etc.
Is ethanol a good alternative energy source? It appears that is an open question, with supporters and detractors. What is NOT in question is that the Federal government should not be involved. If ethanol is a good product, it will have a market and willing buyers without a mandate.
It is amazing to me to see the number of people arguing for government mandates. Most of the people here would say they opposed Obamacare, but are now supporting the ethanol mandate - primarily because Trump is supporting it. It goes to prove the point that most Trump supporters are not conservative nor constitutionalists - they are populists and libertarians that are trying to pass as conservatives.
Welcome back to sanity, FRiend. It may not be popular, but you'll sleep better tonight.
He did no such thing. A five-year phase-out is not a waiver.
So you also support Obamacare, subsidies to Solyndra, wind farms, solar, electric cars, sugar, etc., am I right? You know, when a venture is unprofitable, it is either because no one wants to buy the product at what it costs for it to be profitable, or it is because there are too many people making/providing it and flooding the market. The solution is not for the government to force people to buy it - it is for the market forces to winnow the field so that the the unprofitable businesses either change or get out of the business.
When you quote RINO DOLE you lose.
Dole attacking Cruz speaks well of Cruz.
I can buy my fuel from North Dakota, Texas, California, Colorado, even Florida. Ethanol isn’t fuel; it’s fraud. Forcing consumers to buy a product that wouldn’t exist in a free market is not rational.
Feel free to drink all the ethanol you desire. The rest of us prefer not to subsidize your further destruction of our economy and infrastructure.
Will he become just another politician, and what will be our frustration level in 2018, when he hasn't gotten anything done or if he has, did he selling us all out in the process?
You want to talk about corrosive? That would be beyond the pale.
Here is another thing. In the 80's they asked lee Iococca to run. They showed him what a mess it was and he told them "No" I can't fix it. It is way more fubard now. What does Trump actually do or get done?
Well he already has dialed back his 'immigration' stance to a touch-back amnesty similar to the Gang of Eight bill that Cruz fought so hard against.
Remember he started with 'build the wall, and go door to door and throw the bastards out'. and now he is talking the GOPe company line on immigration.
You will never, ever get Conservatism of any kind out of a NY Liberal Yankee. The two ideologies are diametrically opposed. This guy is a bigger mistake than Romney - And he'll be doing it in the name of Conservatism with Palin hanging on his arm.
Foolish.
If you like your engine, you can keep your engine.
But we're gonna force you to buy it regardless.
Market forces keeps farming profitable.
Subsidies (regardless if ethanol, sugar, milk, etc.) make whores of farmers and the taxpayers the dupes
Subsidies (regardless if ethanol, sugar, milk, etc.) make whores of farmers and the taxpayers the dupes
Amen!
In what country?””
I am in flyover country. I did serve 6 years in the CA Bay/Gay/Queer area, but got out a few decades ago. See, I wasn’t forced to live there.
What work are you involved in?
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.