1 dooooooooooooooooooooh! Curse you and your lousy stinking facts.

2 Shit.  I'm two threads behind.

3 My only beef with Russ's logic is that food prices won't just "go up 3%" if the higher cost of ethanol is figured in.

Think of it as a kind of VAT. Each link in the production/processing/distribution chain will add their 3%, thus making the end cost much higher.

Add increased taxes to pay for the gubmint handouts -- eventually, we will have to pay for all the shit in Osama Obama's "stash" -- and you get some pretty hefty inflation going.

4 Russ, Russ, Russ!

Speaking as a person who has spent his life in agricultural production; the corn ethanol subsidy (along with market protection by tariff AND a federal usage mandate) makes no sense whatsoever, and any "conservative who says otherwise is suspect- or delusional.

First and foremost, from an energy perspective it is a failure.  Any USDA economist (if you put them in a hammerlock and swear not to tell) will inform you that most studies conclude a breakeven energy balance at best.  We are not saving shit!

From a taxpayers perspective, the old rule applies- If it must be subsidized to make it in the market, it makes no sense.  And ethanol has been receiving government support for thirty years.

And last, you corn flakes story is pointless.  Care to guess how much corn goes into putting a pound of beef, bacon, or chicken on your table?  It ain't corn flakes, it's ever pound of protein that is produced in the country- and yes corn is a significant driver of food prices.

Ethanol subsidies need to die, the sooner the better.

5 Burn the heretic!

6 Ethonal is great for your engine......

7 I'm more pissed about the Farm subsidies, where we pay people not to farm. So many wealthy people will buy land in the midwest just to collect money from the government for not producing.

8

I am sure all of the Russ' in the world can make a perfectly logical and passionate argument why their entitlement or pet program should continue.  

 

 

 

9

I'm sick of government sticking its fingers into the economy AND MAKING THINGS WORSE for the sole purpose of garnering votes.

The fact that they've only made it 3% worse is like excusing drunk driving because the driver was only a little over the limit.

10 But Your Honor, my client only 3% raped that chambermaid!

11 Eh. Food crops should be used for food. Use switch grass for fuel, or bacteria, or whatever the latest idea is. Food crops are for humans to eat, not for cars to burn.

12 Screw you Russ. I'll blame the Jews if I want to blame the Jews, and this is the Jews' fault.

13 Subsidies aren't the problem, mandates are.

14 Yeah, I can see how my point that subsidies are not tax credits is really sinking in.  Or not.

15 Also 3% is no big deal? Fine, tell your boss you're gonna take a 3% cut in pay because it's negligible.

16 Rino

17

Great!!! Now- how the hell am I gonna argue with the greenies?

18 And for everyone saying that "Ethanol causes grocery prices to go up": Ninja please. The old "rule of thumb" used to be that the cost of the corn needed to produce a box of corn flakes added up to SEVEN CENTS per box. That rule dates from back when corn prices bounced around between $2.50 and $3.50 a bushel (approximately 56 pounds per bushel of dried corn), so increasing the price of corn to between $5 and $7 a bushel would cost consumers an additional seven cents per box of cornflakes.

Nice dodge. 4 words for you: High Fructose Corn Syrup. It's not the whole corn going into food which concerns people. Doubling the price of corn sends a whole host of foods up in price. 

19 Yes, it is a subsidy when the government creates a specific tax carve-out for one industry at the expense of a.) all other competing industries, and b.) taxpayers, since it's not like Uncle Sam is going to SPEND less, he's just going to BORROW more to make up for the revenue lost to the subsidy. It's not the government "letting you keep more of your own money", it's the government picking specific winners and losers in a market.

Imagine the opposite scenario, where the government levied a special tax on gasoline producers exactly equivalent to the subsidy it grants ethanol producers now. Would anyone argue that the government wasn't penalizing oil producers, and skewing the market? No, of course not. So what's the difference?

20 Posted by: joncelli at May 23, 2011 03:01 PM (RD7QR)

Bullshit. Food crops should be used for whatever the market decides. All I want is a market economy, and not one where significant decisions are made by the Mandarins in Washington.

21 Haven't corn prices quadrupled over the last decade?

22 11 Eh. Food crops should be used for food. Use switch grass for fuel, or bacteria, or whatever the latest idea is. Food crops are for humans to eat, not for cars to burn. Posted by: joncelli at May 23, 2011 03:01 PM (RD7QR) Oh, and get off my damn lawn. Ya whippersnappers.

23

In fact, I think you can make a case that the use of ethanol actually SAVES the government money in direct crop payments.

Yes, and if we ditch subsidies it's a win-win!

T-Paw, feel the feevah.

Seriously, Russ, I'm not buying the argument.  Federal intervention in the market everywhere and always represents a net loss.

24 It's not just corn flakes. With more farm land used to grow corn for ethanol, less is used for other stuff, reducing supply, increasing demand (and imports) for "other stuff" = more expensive.

25 Charles Koch stated in a WSJ oped a few months ago, that the only reason Koch Industries is in the ethanol business is because they would be at a disadvantage due to the subsidies that every other company would get. Ethanol already has a niche for being the replacement for MBTE. They can run with that, without the subsidy and see where the chips fall. But people need to not be anti-ethanol or biofuels because they are our best longterm bet for staying in an IC engine and out of a battery powered car.

26

Posted by: Russ from Winterset at 02:53 PM

For a box of cereal? What about Tortillas, or BEEF, or Chicken.... you know, things that are almost directly tied to Corn prices.

You also do not factor in that the big thing which limits farming, is WATER... thus using irrigated land for more Corn, vice other Agricultural products, raises the prices of all OTHER products...

Food prices Worldwide are up, and some (like meself) realize the historic link between Food Price increases, and Insurrections in countries.... then look at the Middle East...

27 How many people would use ethanol in their cars if there was no mandate? And while we're at it, why not eliminate all agricultural price supports?

28 Get the heck out of my wallet, Russ.

29

Which costs more per gallon, ethanol or gasoline? Which produces less energy per gallon burned, ethanol or gasoline? Which product is only purchased because of government mandates? Which product has proven so unpopular that government is about to mandate the use of even more of it? As Don Juan DeMarco might say, the answer to all is the same:  Ethanol.

It's a beautiful thing. The best part is that it costs more AND gives you less energy per unit burned. That way, prices not only go higher, but you need more of it because you get less bang for your buck. Literally. The fact it creates less energy per unit burned also means you get to buy even more.

30 Is Winterest in Iowa?

31 OK. It's not a "subsidy", per se, it's an unnecessary market distortion. End it.

32

Ethanol is great for huffing.

33 Government involvement does for energy what it does for the cost of health care.

34 The subsidies come in where the government actually gives the people who build the ethanol plants a cash payment.

I hope that is the subsidies that they are talking about killing.

35 Posted by: dananjcon at May 23, 2011 03:03 PM (pr+up)

Left jab...left jab...right cross...

36

I am sure all of the Russ' in the world can make a perfectly logical and passionate argument why their entitlement or pet program should continue.  

 

 

 

Posted by: california red at May 23, 2011 03:00 PM (7uWb

 

  This would be a devastating blow....if only I had advocated the continuation of the farm program status quo.  As it stands, it's just hot air.

37

Ethanol is great for huffing.

I think Russ got that figured out by the tone of this post.

38 If the Corn prices go up  3% , I'll be forced to give out rocks at Halloween instead of cornballs.

39 Cornflakes?
Ppppplease.

40 I want a tax credit for consuming ethanol. Straight up or on the rocks.

41 Also the mandate is killing us that needs to go.

42 It's also important to realize that when corn prices go up, so do the costs of every other substitute product in the market, like wheat, rice, etc, as well as all the products where corn plays the role of a capital good like cows (more expensive baseball gloves and ice cream), chickens, etc. Russ is basically arguing the Broken Window Fallacy, and completely ignoring all the unseen effects of ethanol subsidization.

43 All I know is I want the government invovled in farming, energy production, the rail roads, heavy industry, college education, my diet, private businesses, and a whole slew of other things

44 When government preferences one product over another in the market place, isn't that a subsidy in one form or another? So, if it foregoes the collection of a tax that it collects on all other similar products, it preferences that product in the market place. Artificially. You said it makes the ethanol enhanced product 6 cents cheaper as a direct result. Why would we, as free-market conservatives, accept or advocate that result?

45 Also 3% is no big deal? Fine, tell your boss you're gonna take a 3% cut in pay because it's negligible.

Posted by: Ben at May 23, 2011 03:03 PM (wuv1c)

That's another thing. 3%? Of what the retail price of a box of Kellogg's Corn Flakes?

Most people can't afford name brands anymore and when they can they are using a coupon. So that increase with be more like 6-8% even on a box of Corn Flakes.

46 We need subsidies for Dentists or at the very least the death penalty for people who do not pay their bills. At least that's how I feel

47 What they are is a blender's tax credit, not a subsidy.

You say poTATEo, I say poTATo, lets call the whole thing off.

Either way it distorts the market, the subsidy encourages corn planting at the expense of other crops, which then do go up.

Plus as noted, its crappy fuel.

3%?  Have you been grocery shopping lately?

48 This would be a devastating blow....if only I had advocated the continuation of the farm program status quo. As it stands, it's just hot air. Posted by: Russ from Winterset at May 23, 2011 03:07 PM (T4kFH) I hear arugala is pretty popular these days...

49

Russ,

Right now they are looking for new ways to raise the fuel tax because there isn't enough money to repair/replace the roads. So any tax break we may be getting now has a short fuse and I am not sure you are correct about that anyways. Part of the tax credits go to the refineries to offset the extra cost of blending the fuel.

The corn used for corn flakes is not the same corn used for ethanol. Sweetcorn is used for cornflakes and feedcorn is used for ethanol. Feed corn is the biggest cost in raising animals we eat. When feed corn goes up 3 times so does steak and hamburger.

50 If they are no big deal, why the protest when that subsidy/tax credit is threatened?

However the implementation, if ethanol at its actual price (including taxes, which everyone else has to pay) can't compete, well that's the breaks.

Now if you were asking for those taxes to be reduced for everyone, I'd listen to that.

51 Down, sock!

52

We need subsidies for Dentists or at the very least the death penalty for people who do not pay their bills. At least that's how I feel

heh.

53 If you plant more of your fields to corn that means that you have less fields devoted to other crops.  The supply of other crops decreases as the supply of corn increases.  Therefore the demand for these other crops increases as supply dwindles.  That is why planting more corn increases all food prices.

54 Is Winterest in Iowa?

Posted by: Truman North at May 23, 2011 03:06 PM (K2wpv)

What's your point?

55 If God had meant us to burn cornflakes for fuel he would have made cars with spoons! Uh, or something! Why are you still on my lawn?!

56

Posted by: Russ from Winterset at 02:53 PM

The only difference between a Tax subsidy, and a Tax Credit, is where it comes out of the balance sheet...

The end result is still the same, as far as the consumer is concerned.

57 The PBS ag talking heads in my state say the ethanol subsidy or whatever is supposed to end this year.  Is this just something Congress renews all the time before the bell?

58 As loopy as this thread is, it's a gem of clarity compared to Captain's Boy Ed on his Ustream show now... with all that is going on they have spent the last ten minutes talking about the freaking rapture distraction. Sheesh.

59 So cons get to endorse subsidies for every business and coorporation, but yet decry SS and Meedicare subsidies for individuals as socialsim?

60 Ha! So doubling the price of corn is a good thing... only in Iowa. And if the tax credit is such a good idea why not put the credit at the pump instead of directly into blenders pockets. After all, shouldn't I get the benefit from using ethanol.

61 I grew up on a livestock farm. Trust me when I say, ethanol subsidies increase the price of feed for livestock. Which gets passed down the line, of course.

62 Tax credits for blogs. Yes, it's like a laboratory for democracy.

63 In the name of Odin, lift me and smite the troll! Let it be done!

64 62 Tax credits for blogs. Yes, it's like a laboratory for democracy. Posted by: Mitt Romney at May 23, 2011 03:13 PM (+vkOU) I second that!

65 Not to fret though, Manchelle's going to make them sell fresh produce in the liquor store. BOGO corn product bonanza!

66 Corn flakes too expensive? Next up...Government mandated Portion Control.

67 In fact, I think you can make a case that the use of ethanol actually SAVES the government money in direct crop payments. Under the Farm Bill, counter-cyclical payments are made to farmers when grain prices fail to meet a minimum level.

Is there a "minimum level" for car prices, house prices, shoe prices?  I should be grateful for being forced to buy a product I do not want so that I will not be forced to subsidize a product I do not want?

Again, get your hand out of my wallet.

68 Russ, From a purely regulatory drag perspective, simply having fewer cutouts, swaps, and other switches between a tax-credit-here-for-a-subsidy-there swaps should improve economic efficiency. Past that, by keeping one form of tax credit apart from direct subsidies means that, in the long run, you'd have to repeal two things, rather than the previous one thing in order to return to status quo ante. BRD

69 Notice how the blender gets the credit but I'm the one paying the taxes. Do you really support this evil? Really?

70 Posted by: The_Vig at May 23, 2011 03:10 PM (HWXlA)

Decrease in supply does not correspond to increase in demand.

It corresponds to increase in price.

71

The corn used for corn flakes is not the same corn used for ethanol. Sweetcorn is used for cornflakes and feedcorn is used for ethanol. Feed corn is the biggest cost in raising animals we eat. When feed corn goes up 3 times so does steak and hamburger.

Posted by: robtr at May 23, 2011 03:09 PM (MtwBb)

 

So you're saying that corn going up 300% (which it hasn't, BTW) would increase the cost of beef by 300%?  The cost of corn is the ONLY input cost for beef?  Are you high?  Do you not have a grasp of basic math?

And sweet corn in cornflakes?  Really?  You're going with that?

72 So, what you're saying is that a Republican  campaigning with the argument that if the federal  fuel tax can be decreased by, oh, 6 cents per gallon by eliminating the ethanol tax credit + decrease the price of cornflakes by 7 cents a box + lower the cost of poultry, pork, and beef by a lot - then that would be a bad thing?

It's that credit for using biomass to produce alcohol  ...  if the US gov't is willing to forego 6 cents per gallon at the pump for an ethanol blend, then it really doesn't need the tax revenue  anyway.  Consumers should  be allowed to decide with their wallets whether they want blended fuel or not.

73 Can Jean Crowden fucking read? At all? This thread is full of comments decrying the subsidy. Dumb ass.

74 My problem with ethanol subsidies or tax incentives or whatever you want to call them is the fact that it takes more than a gallon of fossil fuel to create a gallon of ethanol.

http://tinyurl.com/2afceu

a recent report that estimates that making ethanol from corn requires 29 percent more fossil energy than the ethanol fuel itself actually contains.

Do away with all tax incentives - including price subsidies on corn to growers.  This is not free market when the only way an industry can survive is by direct interference by the feds.

75 6462 Tax credits for blogs. Yes, it's like a laboratory for democracy.
Posted by: Mitt Romney at May 23, 2011 03:13 PM (+vkOU)

I second that!

Posted by: Sen. Scott Brown at May 23, 2011 03:14 PM (EQNrw)

But of course, once you get Blog Subsidies you will have to meet certain... standards... of decorum... and we'll be watching...

76 10 But Your Honor, my client only 3% raped that chambermaid!

Ah yes, the old "Just the Tip" defense.

77 So cons get to endorse subsidies for every business and coorporation, but yet decry SS and Meedicare subsidies for individuals as socialsim?

You're not to smart are ya Miss Jean.  If you could read, you might find that many conservatives here are saying NO to any subsidies for ANYBODY.  Dumbass.

78

 When feed corn goes up 3 times so does steak and hamburger.

 

speaking of which, has anyone else noticed the nothing on the dollar menu at McDonalds and Wendy's actually costs a dollar anymore

79 What does production of all those Cornhole bags do to the market?

80 In fact, I think you can make a case that the use of ethanol actually SAVES the government money in direct crop payments. Under the Farm Bill, counter-cyclical payments are made to farmers when grain prices fail to meet a minimum level. The increased demand for corn due to ethanol fuel has helped increase prices to a point where almost NONE of the corn farmers are receiving payments for selling their prices below the federal minimum levels.

The fact that market distortion A is counteracted by market distortion B only shows that there are too many market distortions.

Its like having a brick on the accelerator and the brake petal at the same time.

81

Russ,

All well and good.

My rebuttal:  Ethanol is a dumbshit way to make energy.

Next.

82 Posted by: Jean Crowden...not a Palin fan at May 23, 2011 03:12 PM (SHvKp)

Ah, now I understand. You can't read. You must be one of those autistics who can type, eat their own feces and calculate the day for every date in history...but can't understand basic speech.

83

I can never get past the idea that we should turn food into fuel, when we have a shitload of fuel we can't eat.

Can someone explain this to me please? It seems contrary to simple logic.

 

Also, are there any mechanical engineers here, or even mechanics? I've been told by several people I trust on the subject that ethanol damages engines and also results in lower gas mileage.

84 I gotta say, the sky high price of bacon these days more than makes up for how hungry I am.

85 Class, CLASS!!  Master Crowend would like to finish his po-em.  Go ahead now, continue...  umm... ummm...   ummmmm...

86

Its like having a brick on the accelerator and the brake petal at the same time.

Or like releasing mongooses to kill the snakes that you released to kill the birds in your yard.

87 I confess I just like to bag on Captain Ed, but seriously... they are STILL talking about the absurd, insignificant rapture story on his Ustream show.

88

So cons get to endorse subsidies for every business and coorporation, but yet decry SS and Meedicare subsidies for individuals as socialsim?

Jean, you have now gone full-on stupid.

Oh, and you have a reading comprehension problem.  Let's try this again, slowly...

We're not for subsidies to anyone.  You on the other hand are all for compulsory charity.  Good for you.

Are all libs this stupid?  Or just you?

89 Who's up for Palin/McCain?

90

Posted by: Ben at May 23, 2011 03:20 PM (wuv1c)

As a Non religious Semi Libertarian... I see good and Evil through the lense of the Survival of the Human Race...

Lieing is wrong, because without trust, we cannot cooperate... stealing is wrong, for the same reason...

Thus, turning Food, into fuel, when we have adequate fuel sources? but people are dieing of starvation???? Pure Evil IMO.

91 Ask any farmer in Texas.  The feed they buy for raising cattle has gone up more than the .07 a box of fucking Corn Flakes. 

Sorry, but that dog is not hunting but laying on the front porch licking it's ballsack.

92 So, if the Ethanol subsidy/mandate is removed, federal tax receipts and engine performance go up.  Sign me up.  And, if food prices come down a little, bonus (or do they go up, because fuel got more expensive, or down again because mileage went up; head spinning to hard ...)

I also didn't get the impression that TPaw was specifically talking about Ethanol, but about all farm price supports.  Will this cost him Georgia, the peanut lobby is know to be fierce.

93 America needs to establish an equation: one barrel of oil equals 2 bushels of wheat. Same for corn.

94

Some farmers get tons or government aid - others do not. I'm not sure what's going on- but I'm fairly certain if it's leaching tax dollars and causing negative "unintended" consequences, a democrat and a lousy idea about "fairness" are to blame.

95 Who's up for Palin/McCain?

I'm up for some Cherry Pie.

96 ethanol damages engines and also results in lower gas mileage.

It does damage engines that were not designed for it. IIANM it erodes the rubber fittings and seals.

And it gets about 15% less gas mileage.

97

Posted by: FEC and FCC at May 23, 2011 03:22 PM (NtXW4)

 

Ewwww... sock fail...

98 Posted by: Jean at May 23, 2011 03:23 PM (WkuV6)

You are much more interesting than your retarded copycat.

99 Ninja please.

How much would that effect my corn fed beef which by the time a cow is ready to be made into Porterhouses will be over half the investment in the animal as it will be consuming more than 20 pounds a day. What about my corn fed pork products. THINK OF THE BACON FOR CRYING OUT LOUD.



How much will it effect the cost of the following food additives
Corn starch
Corn syrup
Corn meal
Corn oil
Corn flour
and on

and on

and on

Corn is the most mass produced foodstuff in the world. Not only as corn flakes and canned corn, but as a myriad of other additives and of course as grain feed for popular meats.

Corn is as close to an across the board food cost increase as you could possibly get in a single crop.

100

Thank you Russ!  Best post today.  Time for some on our side to calm down about this non-issue and quit threatening our own financial support base.

 

101 Tax credits are a subsidy.  Every last one of them.  Don't care if it is for kids, seniors, or corn.  If you get to pay Uncle Sam's preferred price for output to market then you are subsidized.

102 Posted by: Vic at May 23, 2011 03:23 PM (M9Ie6)

10% ethanol blend gets 15% less mileage? I doubt that.

103 I confess I just like to bag on Captain Ed, but seriously... they are STILL talking about the absurd, insignificant rapture story on his Ustream show.

So do I get to bag on your for admitting that you listen to that??

104 I want a Cherry subsidy

105

Posted by: Reactionary at May 23, 2011 03:25 PM (xUM1Q)

Ahhh... I see the Moron's Congress Delegate from Iowa has arrived...

106

Ethanol is a government-sponsored boondoggle that cannot stand on its own two feet.  It's a less efficient source of energy than gasoline, it requires special (and very expensive) storage and dispensers with water condensation removal systems so engines don't get damaged, all crap that operators have to buy and install.

In the early part of the Sperminator's administration, CA bought a fleet of 1,400 E85 vehicles.  Only they didn't think about a lack of E85 dealers, so they're burning unleaded gasoline and putting out even more emissions than the same vehicles with non-modified engines. 

Ethanol goes to California in storage tanks on wheels.  Pulled by freight trains.  That burn diesel.

Left to its own, it would simply die like all the other bad ideas.

107

I want a Cherry subsidy

We want a Cherry pie subsidy.  Let's deal.

108 10% ethanol blend gets 15% less mileage? I doubt that.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at May 23, 2011 03:26 PM (LH6ir)

Maybe pure ethanol is 15 percent less efficient than pure gas. Therefore 10 percent ethanol would about 1.5 percent less efficient.

109 What were Elvis's last words? . . . CORN?!?

110 Hey how much could we save if we eliminate busing school kids. There ya go saving serious amounts of fuel per year. Then we could subsidize NASCAR with free Sunoco! Whos with me?

111 Posted by: Romeo13 at May 23, 2011 03:27 PM (NtXW4)

The Stormfront site must be slow today.

112 I can read just fine thank you...too may of the comments here are just "Obama sucks he's a socialist, bible bible gun gun bible", and I start to glaze over after a while.

113

So you're saying that corn going up 300% (which it hasn't, BTW) would increase the cost of beef by 300%?  The cost of corn is the ONLY input cost for beef?  Are you high?  Do you not have a grasp of basic math?

And sweet corn in cornflakes?  Really?  You're going with that?

Russ it takes about 30 bushels of corn to produce a slaughter ready beef, 6 bushels to produce a slaughter ready hog (Bacon!), and 70 % of the cost raising a broiler chicken is CORN.

The price of corn is a major predictor of protein costs.  Now if corn prices are driven by the market- short harvests, flooding, drought- that is fine.  But for the government to interfere is unconscionable.  This is a classic case of the government picking a winner in the market at the expense of other business interests and the consumer.  IT SUCKS.

114 My tinfoil hat version of ethanol subsidies is that the ethanol is needed to drive the older cars off of the road; the UAW needs some structural job support after the damn Japanese forced them to make cars that didn't fall apart at 60,000 miles.

115

Ethanol is a government-sponsored boondoggle that cannot stand on its own two feet.  It's a less efficient source of energy than gasoline, it requires special (and very expensive) storage and dispensers with water condensation removal systems so engines don't get damaged, all crap that operators have to buy and install.

.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at May 23, 2011 03:27 PM (WvXvd)

And that ethanol could be better used to make fine Val-U-Rite products.

116 You suffer the fatal conceit.

Government incentivizes crop growers through the subsidy for ethanol by inducing growers to plant more corn for use in ethanol. It doesn't matter that it is the mixers/refiners who see a competitive edge for their product, the end result is the same: a product that would not be on the market if consumer choice prevailed.

Forget all the real problems with ethanol (energy input v. energy output, etc...) the economic ones are a skewing of market prices giving a sub-standard product to consumers. And you if think that we get to keep our money when govt. gives a tax-break the blended fuels, you are failing to grasp the fungibility of money.

117

The old "rule of thumb" used to be that the cost of the corn needed to produce a box of corn flakes added up to SEVEN CENTS per box. That rule dates from back when corn prices bounced around between $2.50 and $3.50 a bushel (approximately 56 pounds per bushel of dried corn), so increasing the price of corn to between $5 and $7 a bushel would cost consumers an additional seven cents per box of cornflakes.

Russ, I appreciate the point you're trying to make, but I have to take exception to this part of your argument.  I'm sure others have already mentioned this, but corn is hardly a standalone product.  Corn goes into many, many more products than just corn flakes.  It's cattle feed.  Poultry feed.  Tacos.  Corn syrup.  I can handle spending another $0.07 for my breakfast cereal, but tack that same percentage increase onto the cost of everything else in my shopping cart and I start to get anxious.  

118 Note the many trial balloons being thrown up about taxing miles driven vs gallons consumed. CAFE standards have reduced usage, and that supply is stretched using 10% ethanol. So revenues have dried up. This means road maintenance funds are coming up short, as that is where the gas tax money is supposed to go towards. Add in the rising price for bitumen as oil prices have risen, and roads are not being maintained. Roads are even being converted back to gravel in some states.
 
Subsidy or tax credit, the effect is same. One industry is being favored over another with the same end use.

119 Ben, it lowers  mileage by about a third, which is roughly proportional to the difference in price between regular gas and E85.  So from the driver's perspective, it's pretty much a wash as far as saving money. The price gap fluctuates somewhat (for what reason, I don't know) and sometimes you gain a little by using ethanol, other times not. And of course, none of this matters if you don't have a flex fuel vehicle, but most new trucks can burn either.

As far as damage to engines, i think that's pretty  much a thing of the past. Older engines had parts that weren't compatible with alcohol, and would degrade, and that still is a common belief even though it's not true of new flex fuel engines. They recommend changing your oil a little more frequently when you burn ethanol, but I know of no other affect it has on maintenance, repairs or reliability. 

But you are right: why the heck should we even be doing this when we have so much fossil fuel in the ground? We all know why, of course, but it has little to do with common sense.

120 Jean, the glazing has been there a while darlin'

121 Favoring a less-productive market option over a more-productive option is always bad market policy. It is misleading to talk about the price of corn vs. the price of corn flakes in terms of food impact. As has been mentioned, the price of corn has an impact on multiple foods because of its use as a feed stock. It impacts beef, poultry, pork, milk, eggs, cheese, etc. It also impacts the price of soda and other items that use corn syrup as a sweetener.

122 10% ethanol blend gets 15% less mileage? I doubt that.

That is about the difference in gas mileage I get.

123

...too may of the comments here are just "Obama sucks he's a socialist, bible bible gun gun bible",

Ah, yes, I see scrolling back through the archives that this place is a veritable font of theological insight.

Did they throw you out of Kos?  That's why you're here?

124 Yeah, Russ is being too clever by half.  If the tax exemption carved out for ethanol isn't a subsidy then they'd be producing ethanol even without it, right?  And if they wouldn't be producing ethanol, or at least not to the same degree without the tax exemption, then the exemption amounts to a subsidy in comparison to the taxes on its competitor.

And even that is before considering the states that mandate 10% ethanol, which makes the tax break just a way of avoiding revealing the true market cost without a really direct subsidy.

All around, a special tax break for one particular product in an otherwise taxed field is not the hill that conservatives need to die on.  And I'm surprised you expect to get a hearing for that on this blog.

And on the food cost too, the "no big deal" argument cuts both ways.  If ethanol production has no significant impact on the broader market, then ethanol production can't be all that high, and Iowans should be able to let it go without too much pain.  You can't have it both ways, claiming its no big deal, no great cost, certainly not classic rent-seeking, then throw a fit when a politician dips their toe into the water of phasing it out someday in a time of fiscal crisis.

125 Russ, you're a man among Morons, but I have to respectfully disagree. Just don't ask for my child tax credit or home interest deduction in return. That social engineering I like, because I'm greedy and lookin out for #1. ;-)

126 Let me be clear, it ain't the subsidies - it's the evil, greedy speculators.

127 113 I can read just fine thank you...too may of the comments here are just "Obama sucks he's a socialist, bible bible gun gun bible", and I start to glaze over after a while.

Posted by: Jean Crowden...not a Palin fan at May 23, 2011 03:29 PM (GIB2y)

Yeah, I just can't read all these comments what with all their bible-thumpin', snake-handlin', and deity-worshipping. Why, "bible" is mentioned in every comment except yours.

128 I don't know much about ethanol, but I did bag edith in high school

129   On a per BTU basis, unsubsidized methanol costs $17.61 per million BTUs. You can buy ethanol today – ethanol that has received billions in taxpayer subsidies – for $1.60 per gallon. On a per BTU basis, heavily subsidized and mandated ethanol sells for $21.03 per million BTUs. 

130 I think right wing social engineering by way of stopping ethanol subsidies is just as bad as left wing social engineering by way of offering ethanol subsidies.

NUANCE!!!

131 No Sean someone over at LGF mentioned this font of psycho right wing crazy and I just had to come see. So far you cons have not dissapointed. I am just surprised I haven't seen anyone call Obama a muslim terrorist yet.

132

I need to think more on subsidies vs tax breaks.

I'm pro-govt taking less money from producers. However, if the govt is providing tax breaks only for corn because they want a certain outcome then they are taxing other more marketable crops at a higher rate. It's not as if they are providing actual money, they are not taking, but they are then obviously taking more from more marketable products.

They are still fucking with the market to get the result they want and in doing so driving up the cost, if not of corn, of the other products which aren't incentivized.

 

133 My problem with ethanol subsidies or tax incentives or whatever you want to call them is the fact that it takes more than a gallon of fossil fuel to create a gallon of ethanol.

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at May 23, 2011 03:16 PM (f9c2L)

Your info is out of date. 

"In June 2004, the U.S. Department of Agriculture updated its 2002 analysis of ethanol production and determined that the net energy balance of ethanol production is 1.67 to 1. For every 100 BTUs of energy used to make ethanol, 167 BTUs of ethanol is produced. In 2002, USDA had concluded that the ratio was 1.35 to 1. The USDA findings have been confirmed by additional studies conducted by the University of Nebraska and Argonne National Laboratory. These figures take into account the energy required to plant, grow and harvest the corn—as well as the energy required to manufacture and distribute the ethanol."

The new ethanol plants will beat this.  If we eventually switch to sugar beets it will be yet better. 

134

Russ, the bottom line is, if ethanol is such a great deal, then why can't it stand without subsidies?  Why can't the free market make it profitable?

You can't answer those questions convincingly, so every other defense of ethanol - even when made by a card-carrying Moron - is just window dressing.

But I love ya.  C'mere ya big lug.  Gimme a hug.

135

So you're saying that corn going up 300% (which it hasn't, BTW) would increase the cost of beef by 300%?  The cost of corn is the ONLY input cost for beef?  Are you high?  Do you not have a grasp of basic math?

And sweet corn in cornflakes?  Really?  You're going with that?

Posted by: Russ from Winterset at May 23, 2011 03:16 PM (T4kFH)

Yeah pretty much, that's what the charts show that the beef industry puts out anyways. Yes sweetcorn is used for cornflakes. Sweet corn is grown for human consumption, cornflakes, corn on the cob, mash whiskey.

Dent corn is grown for feed and ethanol. You should try using some of those interweb search engines, when you're finished with your faux outrage.

http://tinyurl.com/3vo9667

 

136 Imagine how cheap crude would be if it were only used  as a fuel in cars it would be cheaper too.But it's used to make tires, tupperware, and thousands of other products.

137 Jean, tell us what a great President George Bush was. Any thoughts on him?

138 So if there is not "subsidy" how do you explain the .45/gal tax credit in the Bush Tax cut extension bill that was passed in Dec?

http://tinyurl.com/3l5jygl

Who gets that credit?

139 But... what about the children?!?

140

Posted by: Jean Crowden...not a Palin fan at May 23, 2011 03:34 PM (GIB2y)

Ahh, so Stormfront's down. That explains everything. Give Charlie a lick on the ass when you go back to LGF!

141 From Consumer Reports:

We put our 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe FFV through our full series of fuel-economy and acceleration tests while running on each fuel . When running on E85 there was no significant change in acceleration. Fuel economy, however, dropped across the board. In highway driving, gas mileage decreased from 21 to 15 mpg; in city driving, it dropped from 9 to 7 mpg. You could expect a similar decrease in gas mileage in any current FFV.

142 Obama is muslim terrorist

143

I am just surprised I haven't seen anyone call Obama a muslim terrorist yet.

Me too, seeing as how I got to hear how Bush = Hitler everyday for 8 years over at lib sites.

Good God, man, give it a rest.

(Oh, damn, I said God.  Was that too much Bible for you?  Did your eyes melt?)

144 No Sean someone over at LGF mentioned this font of psycho right wing crazy and I just had to come see. So far you cons have not dissapointed. I am just surprised I haven't seen anyone call Obama a muslim terrorist yet. Posted by: Jean Crowden...not a Palin fan at May 23, 2011 03:34 PM (GIB2y) Is that you KKK? Crawl back to the swamp

145 Someone's tin foil hat has a whole. Someone call Reynold's wrap and sent them a new gross.

146 The Stormfront site must be slow today.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at May 23, 2011 03:29 PM (LH6ir)

LOL... is that the best ya got??? Calling me a Neo Nazi???

/shakes head in wonder...

I see you are sticking to your normal 'high' brow debate standards...

147 Jean, I thought your cult left with the Rapture?

148

OK, OK, no need to go hatin' on Russ from Winterset.

There is some interesting insight into how the ethanol thing works, here.

That being said, I can't help but think that this is only part of the story. Is a 6 cent tax break for "blenders" incentive enough to cause doubling the price of corn? Seems like a stretch (but I could be wrong). Somebody mentioned mandates - that's got to be the important factor at play with ethanol.

Perhaps Pawlenty should be calling for an end to "mandates" instead of "subsides" (or, more correctly, "tax breaks").

Regardless, this interference in the free market is having the inevitable destructive effect, and should be stopped.

149

Ethanol is not an efficient use of corn, therefore the government must create incentives for people to grow crops for ethanol and for people to use the machine-destroying toxic gas in their motors.

"Ethanol is the dominant reason for this year's increase in grain prices. It accounts for the rise in the price of maize because the federal government has in practice waded into the market to mop up about one-third of America's corn harvest. A big expansion of the ethanol programme in 2005 explains why maize prices started rising in the first place.

Ethanol accounts for some of the rise in the prices of other crops and foods too. Partly this is because maize is fed to animals, which are now more expensive to rear. Partly it is because America's farmers, eager to take advantage of the biofuels bonanza, went all out to produce maize this year, planting it on land previously devoted to wheat and soyabeans. This year America's maize harvest will be a jaw-dropping 335m tonnes, beating last year's by more than a quarter. The increase has been achieved partly at the expense of other food crops."

Food prices Cheap no more Rising incomes in Asia and ethanol subsidies in America have put an end to a long era of falling food prices

http://tinyurl.com/3fflyxv

 

150 Never in the history of man has ethanol melted steel.

151 Jean, just because he loves them, that doesn't make him one.........

152 While I normally don't give a shit, and take what I wants, I have to say that this whole ethanol business hits womens and minorities the worst, and I will not stand for it! (Although I will walk backwards in slow motion for it).

153

Ahhh... I see the Moron's Congress Delegate from Iowa has arrived...

Posted by: Romeo13 at May 23, 2011 03:27 PM (NtXW4)

And who the fuck are you?  The guy who makes the aiming corrections necessary for the Republicans to shoot themselves in the foot over and over again?

Ethanol subisdies are waste.  But they're OUR waste.  Cut it.  But cut it LAST.  Cut wind, solar, and "green appliance" subisides.  Why do we insist on fretting over this issue when there are far worse problems to deal with.  If we had any sense we'd smash those subisides/industries that favor the Libtards.  Kill the enemy first. 

Is this such a hard idea to understand?

154 No Sean someone over at LGF mentioned this font of psycho right wing crazy and I just had to come see. So far you cons have not dissapointed. I am just surprised I haven't seen anyone call Obama a muslim terrorist yet.

Posted by: Jean Crowden...not a Palin fan at May 23, 2011 03:34 PM (GIB2y)

KILGORE, we missed you.

155 The new ethanol plants will beat this.  If we eventually switch to sugar beets it will be yet better.

That's great.  So ethanol producers don't need a tax credit.   Win/win.

156

An E.R. doctor I know told me in college, as a chemical engineering major, for a senior group project they tried to design a system whereby ethanol wouldn't be an inefficient use of corn.

 

His teammates and him were unable to do so.

 

Now, we know ethanol eats up small engines.

 

The problem with ethanol is that it settles, creating an uneven mixture as the fuel sits in storage. Also, ethanol blends tend to run leaner and hotter; while newer cars can tolerate that, many smaller engines cannot.

Another troubling aspect of ethanol is that it can degrade fuel lines. That plus more heat creates double trouble: the risk of fuel leaks and fire.

“We have to change our whole mindset on this,” said Reggie Sherburne, owner of Bradstreet Lawn and Garden in Brewer. Sherburne said his technicians routinely test the fuel in power tools that come in for service. They have concentrations of ethanol as high as 18 to 20 percent, way too high for the small engines.

When a tool is under warranty, the first question manufacturers ask is, “What was the ethanol content?” If it’s too high, the warranty may not offer the owner much in the way of compensation. "

http://tinyurl.com/3j3gvew

 

 

 

157

I have the solution to those who object to Russ' favorite government handout....

Let them eat cornflakes!  Let the cows and hogs eat cornflakes too!  After all, Russ tells us that the price on cornflakes will only go up 3%!  Just think of how far and fast beef and bacon prices will fall when my idea is implemented....and your colons will be a lot cleaner too.

P.S. I'm going long on General Mills...

158 On farm subsidies in general, I think they should be capped so that giant farms and industrial outfits aren't the beneficiaries.  If we, as a nation, think that preserving the farming skill set is a national priority, we should support small farmers.

159

Ethanol subsidies are a waste.  But they're OUR waste.  Cuty it.  But cut it LAST.

That's not exactly a principled position.  But hey, that's your position.

How about we cut it all and cut it now so my 6-month old daughter isn't a slave to whoever has their hand out for some sweet gubmint money.

Oh, hell, who am I kidding?  She already is.

160

And who the fuck are you? The guy who makes the aiming corrections necessary for the Republicans to shoot themselves in the foot over and over again?

Posted by: Reactionary at May 23, 2011 03:41 PM (xUM1Q)

Well... first... I'm not a Republican, I'm a Constitutional Conservative...

So... as one of my Favorite Master Chiefs used to say... 'blow me'.

Ethanol is a stupid waste of Taxpayer money... and I see you are more worried about the Repbulicans, than THAT issue...

Intersting you are so Partisan, that you will do somthing you admit is wrong, to support YOUR side...

161 My butt smells like ethanol. All three of my regular posters will attest to this fact, and if you deny it you are anti-science.

162 Jean, tell us what a great President George Bush was. Any thoughts on him?

Posted by: Cherry π at May 23, 2011 03:36 PM (+sBB4)

Where do you want me to start? At class, patriotism, or maybe humility ... how about teaming up with Cheney ...

163

Any discussion of ethanol in gasoline should address the fact that as a portion of your gasoline it is just not a very good fuel.  Putting in 10% ethanol decreases the fuel efficiency of cars. 

In my old car, when I drove to an area of the state where it wasn't a 'non-attainment' area, I would fill up without ethanol and immediately see markedly better gas mileage.  How much better?  10%!!  So for my old car, I was getting essentially NOTHING from the ethanol in the fuel.  I'm not saying that's the norm, but if the norm is half that you're talking about a huge waste of fuel.

For my current car, I don't know the difference because you can't get non-oxygenated gasoline (i.e., no ethanol) anywhere in the state.  Because it's so awesome!

Other reasons not to extend a tax credit to the fuel:  1) it is NOT good for the environment, 2) the problem it is supposedly solving is a made up scam, 3) it isn't going to be the long term solution to a true alternative fuel (and we don't know what that is.  It's not solar, wind, ethanol, nuclear, nor a combination) and 4) screw Iowa! Just because it has it's caucus first every candidate has to walk around the state giving free blow jobs? 

164 #164 i think they were directing that to Jean....not an eighth as smart as Palin

165 If we, as a nation, think that preserving the farming skill set is a national priority, we should support small farmers.

The last thing in the world that "preserves a skill set" is government "support".  All government can do is promote inefficiency and dependency.  If you want to see a bunch of fuckwits who haven't the slightest notion of how to farm, have the government subsidize them. 

The reason for giant farms and "industrial" farms ( a misnomer btw), is that they are successful in the market.  I agree, no farm, no industry should be recieving government subsidies, but there are reasons any enterprise grows-  They beat the competition.

166 Let's take 25 states and drop all federal mandates, subsidies and regulations. Even ones deemed Constitutional. Then drop all Federal taxation for those states corporations except for a small tax tied directly to defense and minimal administration of D.C. Let these states compete with each other in the levels of taxation and social engineering. Leave the 25 most liberal states at status quo. Wait 20 years, compare and contrast...

167 Posted by: Romeo13 at May 23, 2011 03:38 PM (NtXW4)

I was referring to "reactionary," not to you.

168 @160 Just curious: why support the small farmer? IF you(in general) can't make it, sell and move on to something that provides a living for you.

Would you support taxpayer dollars going to 'small bakeries', because, you know, they cannot compete with the big boys?

We gotta lose this 'Little House On The Prairie' nostalgia.

Sink or swim, boys. Someone will always pick up the slack when you sell out.

169 OK, OK, no need to go hatin' on Russ from Winterset.

Well he completely underestimates the importance of corn to the human food supply. Maize is produced in larger quantities than either Rice or Wheat by about 20%. Corn doesn't affect the human food supply, it IS the human food supply.

170 Dumbest post here evah (or at least today) So, this wonderful non-subsidy is the reason why gasoline prices have fallen below $2.00 a gallon, corn is selling for pennies a bushel, and there is no food scarcity, even in the poorest countries on Earth.

171 @167 Right on: if the 'industrial' farms can do it better and cheaper, more power to em. Get rid of subsidies and let the chips fall where they may.

172 I'm not hatin. I'm disagreein.

173 You have to admit that Iowa has pulled a giant scam off pretty well.

174 Oh, and I just saw this howler, what do you think causes "higher transportation costs", Einstein?

175

132 ... someone over at LGF mentioned this ...

How is ol' GuyWhoIWillNotName? Has he finally gotten some help after his nervous breakdown, or whatever the hell that was? How about you? You have to be some seriously damaged goods, to hang there these days.

176 All I know is the ethanol blend destroyed my T-Bird's V8 and is killing my yard machines engines. So it can go to hell.

177

Intersting you are so Partisan, that you will do somthing you admit is wrong, to support YOUR side...

Posted by: Romeo13 at May 23, 2011 03:45 PM (NtXW4)

I said cut ethanol subidies LAST, not NEVER.  My fellow conservatives are eager to prove how pricinpled and noble they are by allowing the Libtards to keep every moonbat-crazy subsidy until such time as we have killed off all those that benefit our side.  Talk about the "purity" problem. 

Life requires that we choose priorities.  That means some things get more immediate attention, and more resources, than others.  This should not be a foreign concept for grown ups.  In this instance the choice is clear - cut the enemy's subsidies first.  Once that is done, move on to those which are less harmful. 

 

178

How about fuck ethanol?  I mean, since it takes more energy to make than it provides, why don't we just, I dunno, GROW CROPS FOR FOOD?

How's about that?

179 gun gun Posted by: Jean Crowden...not a Palin fan at May 23, 2011 03:29 PM (GIB2y) Interestingly, the American people are over 75% pro-gun. Your idol Obama realizes this, causing him to avoid the gun issue like the plague. Your anti-gun views are those of a tiny fringe minority of weirdos. If Obama does get reelected, as you claim he will, it will be because he had the minimal sense required to ignore the anti-gun 25% like you.

180 A "dominant" reason for increased corn price is the weak dollar.  Has ethanol caused gold to increase five fold?  Corn has only increased three fold.

There is a large energy gain from turning corn to ethanol.  That has been proven repeatedly, but "ethanol deniers" still use Pimentals 30 year old BS study.

After the ethanol is made, the protein from the grain is STILL used to feed cattle.  WINNER!

OPEC controls oil prices, we benefit by increasing ag prices.  (I'd favor cutting many farmer subsidies, like their insurance ... farmers are making big bucks now) ... but high grain prices helps our trade deficit.

Sure corn is used for HFCS (sweetener), but much (most?) of the food increase price is from production, middle men and oil and transportation costs.  Whether it's corn flakes or anything with HFCS in it ... the corn portion is minor.

There may be better things to grow for ethanol, but for now, we have an excess of corn and ethanol has been a good use of the excess. 

These are a few things to consider.  Plus, is everyone is now against ethanol ... it must be right.  When something good comes along, a confederacy of dunces will certainly oppose it. 

you should post more Russ 

181 Why do we insist on fretting over this issue when there are far worse problems to deal with Because I'm sick of getting beaten about the head and shoulders with this argument from left wingers and because they are right? How about that? Does that work for you? I'm all about prioritizing. But let's make sure that folks know that this shit is on the chopping block, same as anything else. And not tap dance around it and make excuses because it's "our" subsidy. There's a long "think piece" post in here somewhere about the difficulty of cutting government back when everyone's got their fucking hand out for something or another.

182 Does anyone think ethanol would be subsidized were Iowa not first in the primary pandering line? It's that simple, people.

183 Plus, is everyone is now against ethanol ... it must be right.  When something good comes along, a confederacy of dunces will certainly oppose it.

What a canard.  Eliminate the ethanol tax credit and let ethanol compete with other energy source in a free market.

184 Oh, and I just saw this howler, what do you think causes "higher transportation costs", Einstein?

Posted by: Chuckit at May 23, 2011 03:58 PM (BVDQi)

Well, I can't speak for Einstein, but I'm pretty sure that has something to do with sky high gas taxes, the refusal to open up drilling the Gulf, disruption of the Libyan oil supply, aging oil fields in Saudi, and spiking demand for oil from China and India.

185

I said cut ethanol subidies LAST, not NEVER.  My fellow conservatives are eager to prove how pricinpled and noble they are by allowing the Libtards to keep every moonbat-crazy subsidy until such time as we have killed off all those that benefit our side.  Talk about the "purity" problem. 

Posted by: Reactionary at May 23, 2011 04:00 PM (xUM1Q)

I seem to recall Iowa electing some Democrats, so its not only benefiting our side.

186 but "ethanol deniers"

Argument lost right there....

187

Argument lost right there....

Exactly.

188 Plus its hardly the case that if corn growers lost price on that crop, that they would be unable to grow corn at all, or switch to a crop that profits them more as they see fit.

189

Argument lost right there....

Exactly.

Posted by: Sean Bannion at May 23, 2011 04:07 PM (sbV1u)

But he didn't compare us to Hitler yet!

190

But he didn't compare us to Hitler yet!

Or being a racist.  But I'm sure that's coming soon.  Stay tuned...

191 Remember when Bush eliminated all the mandated blends for gasoline. Gas prices dropped in half in three months.

192

Thank you Russ!  Best post today.  Time for some on our side to calm down about this non-issue and quit threatening our own financial support base.

 

Posted by: Reactionary at May 23, 2011 03:25 PM (xUM1Q)

 

Methinks you need to read the first 100 comments.

193 I'm all about prioritizing. But let's make sure that folks know that this shit is on the chopping block, same as anything else. And not tap dance around it and make excuses because it's "our" subsidy.

There's a long "think piece" post in here somewhere about the difficulty of cutting government back when everyone's got their fucking hand out for something or another.

Posted by: Fred at May 23, 2011 04:02 PM (xWGQr)

Absolutely. There are few supporters of the military stronger than I am, but I am sure there is plenty of crap in there to cut to save some money. Not at the sharp end, but elsewhere.  Its all on the table.

194

If gov't is using its power to try and get consumers to pick one product over a similar, competing product, that is a subsidy and is not conservative in any way.  So, even if what you say is true (and it isn't) gov't is subsidizing ethanol by taxing it at a lower rate than competing products - i.e., gas without ethanol.

Your argument just proves that even conservatives will suck at the gov't teat and fight to teh death to keep that teat providing nourishment from the taxpayers.

Ethanol is a much, much less efficient product and is unecessary.  Despite your argument, without gov't intervention (subsidy) nobody would use or want ethanol.  Your fear of market forces demonstrates this exact point. 

If ethanol could compete - it would not need the special "tax credit" or subsidy, or whatever semantics you want to use to protect it.

195 Let them consume cornflakes via their cornholes.

196

who let Arianna HuffNPuff start a thread..??

When nearly half the Minnesota corn crop goes to ethanol, guess what happens to the price of the rest? Hmmm? In case you hadn't noticed corn is used extensively for animal feed. Then there's the corn tortilla eating folks who can't afford their staple 'bread' because the price of corn shot up. My fellow morons and moronettes have listed all the other negatives about this corn ethanol scam.

Go flog youself about the head and shoulders Russ. I'm to engrossed in hobo hunting at the moment to do it for you.

197 Yeah, I can see how my point that subsidies are not tax credits is really sinking in.  Or not.

Posted by: Russ from Winterset at May 23, 2011 03:03 PM (T4kFH)

Why should the gov't provide support to one product over another?  I'm all for tax breaks for business or anyone else, but not for tax breaks for one competitor over another.  How is that not liberal intervention?

And, you are being completely disengenuous in your argument.  The gov't mandates use of ethanol in gasoline - which is a subsidy.  To claim otherwise is really dishonest.

198 I believe farmers are being paid to produce corn for ethanol rather than feed, as in "paid by the federal government." That's a bit different than the blend tax credit you refer to.

And every penny that a product goes up at the initial step is greatly increased each step along the process, through production all the way to the shelf. So that tiny bit of price gets multiplied several times, over and over, for nearly every product on the shelf.

Nice attempt to defend the debacle, though. You are Iowan, after all.

199 ethanol deniers ... now I don't care who you are ... that there was funny.  But you guys are humorless I guess, if someone disagrees with you.  the confederacy of dunces was humor too ... no dunces one attacked my real points I see.

200 Wait 20 years, compare and contrast...

Posted by: MostlyRight

 

Already done it, see Michigan, Detroit...

 

201

And, you are being completely disengenuous in your argument.  The gov't mandates use of ethanol in gasoline - which is a subsidy.  To claim otherwise is really dishonest.

Posted by: monkeytoe at May 23, 2011 04:15 PM (sOx93)

Have to disagree there. The mandate is a mandate, subsidy a different thing.

What they all are is different flavors of government market distortion. A subsidy is a cash payment to produce, the credit allows the product to compete at a lower than true price, and the mandate forces the market to buy it even if it would not by free choice.

202

Right now they are looking for new ways to raise the fuel tax because there isn't enough money to repair/replace the roads. So any tax break we may be getting now has a short fuse and I am not sure you are correct about that anyways. Part of the tax credits go to the refineries to offset the extra cost of blending the fuel.

 

Which is, of course, mandated by the gov't.  If the gov't makes you use a product (particularly a less efficient, inferior product like ethanol) - it is a subsidy to that industry.

I'll tell you what Russ.  I'll agree to let Ethanol keep its .06 / gallon tax credit if you agree to remove all mandates requiring the use of ethanol.  I have a feeling that the tax credit for using ethanol would be moot as nobody would use ethanol.  So how is that not a subsidy again?

203 ethanol deniers ... now I don't care who you are ... that there was funny.  But you guys are humorless I guess, if someone disagrees with you.  the confederacy of dunces was humor too ... no dunces one attacked my real points I see.

Posted by: Illini bill at May 23, 2011 04:16 PM (tvb5Z)

Since only one of the 200 posts used the "costs more to produce" argument, accepting your statement that it is flawed changes only that one post.

204

You also do not factor in that the big thing which limits farming, is WATER... thus using irrigated land for more Corn, vice other Agricultural products, raises the prices of all OTHER products...

Posted by: Romeo13 at May 23, 2011 03:05 PM (NtXW4)

Ethanol production itself requires huge amounts of water.

205 A "dominant" reason for increased corn price is the weak dollar.  Has ethanol caused gold to increase five fold?  Corn has only increased three fold.

Buzz thanks for playing. A quick look at other markers
And durable goods?
And automobiles?
And copper?
And iron?
Indicate that anticipation of a weak dollar is driving gold and other "precious" metals but not every possible global commodity, the dollar has not lost 2/3rds of its value....yet. So other increases must have other serious factors pushing them.

206

Have to disagree there. The mandate is a mandate, subsidy a different thing.

What they all are is different flavors of government market distortion. A subsidy is a cash payment to produce, the credit allows the product to compete at a lower than true price, and the mandate forces the market to buy it even if it would not by free choice.

Posted by: Oldcat at May 23, 2011 04:18 PM (z1N6a)

While I understand what you are saying, and generally agree, that is all semantics.  The credit, subsidy, and mandate are all used to prop up an industry that would never survive without gov't coercion and support.  In effect, all of those acts "subsidize" the industry. 

Russ is trying to use the semantics to claim "ethanol doesn't get any subsidies" - by which he apparently means "direct payments".  That is simply dishonest b/c he knows that the ethanol industry receives the same value as direct payments in the other forms of market distortion to prop up a ridiculous industry (and to do so for political reasons only - there is no valid reason for the gov't to be engaged in teh ethanol business).

207 but that was only one of my points oldcat ... and reactionary covered it anyway, while I was typing.

The biggest point is that gold has gone up five fold while yellow corn and yellow soybeans are up much less.  It is LARGELY a dollar issue.  ALSO ... this year planting is late, much is getting mudded in .. 

208

...too may of the comments here are just "Obama sucks he's a socialist, bible bible gun gun bible",

You couldn't be more wrong.

It's ...  Obama sucks he's an affirmative action, pin-dick commie, Valu-Rite, Valu-Rite, Valu-Rite, Valu-Rite, longbows.

Get it straight, you useless twat.

 

209

Ethanol sucks..  I don't get a price break on it in Texas ; my gas mileage is worse, the Ethanol fuel kills small engines, like my mower and generator and edger;  and due to the ethonol boom, my deer corn is $3 more for 40lb bags than before.  End it now.

210 Illini bill at May 23,

Humorless?  I think not.  I actually found your entire post quite amusing.

If it is refutation  you want, you shall have it.  I (as an ag economist working in the private sector) speak to USDA economists on a regular basis.  Little known fact: there are actually some highly competent folks working in USDA, but they know when to keep their mouths shut.  Privately to a man (and woman) they know that the energy balance on corn based ethanol is real-world breakeven.  You know the simplest way to prove a process or product is inefficient?  When it would disappear without a subsidy; and ethanol has been subsidized in some fashion for thirty stinkin' years!

Again with the "corn flakes" and HFCS!  Big effin deal.  Beef, pork and poultry are all driven by corn price.  Not to mention that in Latin America corn- field corn- is the number one staple.  And there is no surplus of corn.  Corn is planted based on price and supply forecasts; there has been in fact two significant shortages of corn in the past two years-  Because we are stupid enough to burn it at the taxpayer's expense.

211 Sweet Baby Jesus. It's always fun to see otherwise reasonable, erudite and thoughtful people go WILD with the specious arguments.

Ethanol is just a bad deal. Nobody wanted it but the enviro-ideologues, nobody needed it, it's not a s good as other fuels, but a coalition of bureaucrats, corporate farmers and enviro-ideologues managed to get the shit mandated, and now it's an 800-lb gorilla jumping around wrecking your furniture.

Cut. It. Loose.

And seriously, Reactionary? "Our" pork? Willie Nelson is "ours?"

The big problem with letting shit like this get started is that people almost immediately grow dependent on it and then they're willing to fight for it to continue, usually harder than others are willing to fight to cut it. That's the whole guiding principle behind the "socialization" industry, like ACORN. Get people dependent and they will fight to keep their goodies, giving you more and more power (and or "breaking the bank" which they think will help them.

In the end, there will be only chaos, we're boned, collapse, bankruptcy, zombie apocalypse, Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome, etc.

So give up the fucking goodies. It'll be better for you in the end anyway to have a stable, ongoing nation that allows free enterprise than to have momentary government goodies (subsidies, credits, mandates) that either get yanked away or result in a financial collapse.

Or, you know, just keep sucking the teat and hope you die before the country does.

212 Reactionary, how is it that corn subsidies are a republican or conservative subsidy?  IA voted 54% for President Jugears. Bush won the state with 49.9% in 2004, and lost it in 2000.  So how is that a red state?

I'm looking forward to your rationalizations.

213 No, it's "just keep sucking the teat and hope you die last"...

214 Professional corn hole bags are filled with plastic pellets. Corn filled bags lose weight over time.

215 end all subsidies ... open all our drilling ... use coal ... we are paying government unions too much and they retire early ... fire the $100,000/year lifeguards ... quit subsidizing Goldman Sachs and Fannie Freddie gamblers  ... quit subsidizing those with homes on the coast that get hit by hurricanes or storms ...

reactionary has a point ... aren't there a hundred higher priority subsidies that the left loves, to be ended before ethanol?

216 After the ethanol is made, the protein from the grain is STILL used to feed cattle.  WINNER!

Um a little physics for you. Those calories lost are still lost. You could have fed them to the animals (Whom BTW can convert starches into proteins; neat being an animal huh?) or you could have fed that starch to humans directly.

Not to say that that in itself is wrong, if the surplus is there and the market says that is the most cost effective use. It only becomes wrong with government mandates, and structured society tax scheme.

I understand a bit about farming; and if corn is in perpetual surplus as you say, and it stays that way long enough, farmers will convert to growing other products as their return on corn is simply not profitable enough.

But my gut is, based on corn prices, that corn is not in surplus at all. The price per bushel is way above where it "should" be, and I think the fact that

40%

of US corn is used to make ethanol could possibly be a driver on that issue.

Really? 40% of the corn yield is consumed making shitty fuel both mandated and given government incentives, and you argue that has no bearing on the price of corn and corn products?

That is simply ignorant.

217 reactionary has a point ... aren't there a hundred higher priority subsidies that the left loves, to be ended before ethanol?

Make no mistake, I want to see an end to all of them.  But if we play this "You first" bullshit game, nothing will get done.  To defend one subsidy demanding the cessation of the most frivolous first is to be without principle.  That is why I am proud of T-Paw, and have been thoroughly pissed at Chuck Grassley. 

We are on the edge of financial collapse.  Only a principled stand will save us- Not defending those idiotic programs we believe are just a little bit less iditoic.

218

Russ is trying to use the semantics to claim "ethanol doesn't get any subsidies" - by which he apparently means "direct payments". 

Posted by: monkeytoe at May 23, 2011 04:24 PM (sOx93)

In a general sense, subsidy can be used as a synonym for 'market distorting preferential government policies'. Once the semantic card is played, you might as well just shift to a more precise term for what you actually meant - that you (and I) see no value in supporting this industry.

Otherwise you just give him an excuse to dismiss what you say.

219 thanks alamo .. but you only "refuted" one point .. and with no facts, just "trust me".  I'm not saying you're wrong, but that is not what I've read, and you offer nothing.

Yes, cattle prices are driven by corn ... but of course protein is still used after the ethanol process.  So how does that fit your ethanol boogey man argument?

You didn't address my other points ... and as I said, they were only things to consider, which usually get left out.  End ALL subsidies ... open up drilling ... coal ... nukes ... etc.  

220 Reactionary, how is it that corn subsidies are a republican or conservative subsidy?  IA voted 54% for President Jugears. Bush won the state with 49.9% in 2004, and lost it in 2000.  So how is that a red state?

I'm looking forward to your rationalizations.

Posted by: Phil Smith at May 23, 2011 04:31 PM (gMPJM)

In all fairness, ethanol is a bi-partisan subsidy - both parties vote for it and neither party votes against it.

I think that leftists glom on to the fact that republicans won't get rid of it and bow down to it every 4 years to claim HYPOCRISY, which to a leftist, is the only true sin (and only if you are a conservative).  And, b/c republicans actually support this idiocy, they conveniently forget taht dems support it just as much and try to lay it entirely at the GOP's feet.  Typical lefty logic.

so they then use that to claim "you favor subsidies for business (i.e., those who create wealth, employee people, etc) but not for poor people" and therefore you are evil.  Taking away the issue of whether ethanol is a good policy, leftists fail to understand taht providing a business with a tax credit, etc is good for everyone b/c it helps the economy, whereas giving money to a poor person tends to keep that person poor - which is bad for everyone.

221 reactionary has a point ... aren't there a hundred higher priority subsidies that the left loves, to be ended before ethanol?

Posted by: Illini bill at May 23, 2011 04:34 PM (tvb5Z)

Not really. If they were supporting ethanol to make something useful, like liquor or corn syrup, that would be one thing. To support it to make a good fuel bad, then force people to buy it moves it up to top-shelf stupid.

222

Bars should get a blenders tax credit,there's a  government subsidy I can get behind and  support

223

If you want to save oil, mandate that oil fired power plants convert to natural gas, and offer homeowners with oil fired furnaces a tax break to convert to gas. Give vehicle owners a tax break to convert to natural gas. Car engines last much longer (gasoline and diesel wash the oil off of cylinder walls and comtaminate the lubricating oil.

224 mike the moose ... 40% is not used for ethanol ... you have to factor the part of that (the valuable protein part) that is then fed to cattle.  I don't know how to convert that, but it would be "simply ignorant" to not consider that. 

And I didn't say ethanol would have no effect on price ... I think actually alamo said "protein costs" effect beef prices ... and the protein is passed along.

225 but of course protein is still used after the ethanol process.  So how does that fit your ethanol boogey man argument?

The corn is still nutritionally depleted.

1. Rudiments convert sugar to protein and fat. They're digestive system is geared for breaking down hydrocarbons too complex for humans. But they still needs them starches. Also rudiments cannot convert protein to fat.

2. Pigs do OK on protein about as well as a person, but it leads to an undesirable leanness of the animal.

Because if you want fat you need to feed one of 3 things.
1. Fat
2. Sugar
3. Starch

But lets assume that the protein in the corn was good enough all by itself:
So corn which is (according to nutritional analysis) is 82% carbohydrate and only 7% protein which means you need to feed an animal what was 11 pounds of corn to get the same caloric value as 1 pound of corn.

Again basically you're saying extracting more than 80% of the nutrient value from 40% of the US corn crop (Math *** 1/3 of the total caloric value of all of US corn) has absolutely no major pressure on price?

Not realistic.

226 oops .. no, alamo said "corn price" ... around here corn is just a supplement for cattle that are mostly on grass ... not sure how the feed lots do it.

227 Bill,

I guess I didn't realize you wanted me to substantiate my "facts" to refute your unsubstantiated "facts".  You know, the ones that you "read".  There are several good, peer reviewed and published papers that establish the energy balance of corn ethanol.  You can find these yourself if you must have "proof".  As an intelligent man however, you can save some time by just applying what all real conservatives know as a universal truth-  If you must subsidize a product for it to compete in the marketplace, that is because there is no rationale for it to exist.

The corn gluten argument is specious and meant to obfuscate the real situation- and it works for people who do not understand animal nutrition.  The major value of corn is ENERGY (kcals), that part that is extracted when making ethanol.  The leftover protein (9-11% of corn by weight is protein) is a byproduct and still requires that the energy in a ration be made up of whole corn or a grain that competes with corn on the market.  Net / net?  Ration prices are dramatically increased. 

I obviously don't expect that my assurances of experience in the area of agricultural production and economy are sufficient to swing your opinion, but I work in ag every day and have for 30 years.  My friends, family, and co-workers are dependent on agriculture, and I'm telling you ethanol is one of the biggest frauds ever perpetuated by our government.

As for eliminating other subsidies and utilizing our abundant oil and gas resources-  I'm with you brother.

228 you have to factor the part of that (the valuable protein part) that is then fed to cattle.

That's only 7% of corn.

7 f*ing percent.

That's all that's left after you take out the starches. That's why corn aint in the meats and nuts food group.

You still wasted over 80% of that corn. 80% that could have been fed to cattle, (Yes they do make protein out of starch that's pretty much why we domesticated them) or humans, gone.

You are simply not seeing it. You might as well have burned one third of the US corn crop. Because in reality that is exactly what you are doing.

229 Russ, the "tax credits aren't subsidies" line is pure crap, and your "I'm right, or you have to believe low taxes are subsidies" is a spectacularly dishonest false dichotomy.  Simply reducing the tax rates across the board would be one thing, but you're claiming that the government making special rules such that companies in a very specific business don't have to pay the same costs as other companies, not to mention forcing consumers to use the products of that business, isn't a subsidy?  Come on.  You could make the argument that it isn't a technical subsidy since it's money not being taken, rather than being paid out, by the government, but the net effect is identical:  It's a functional subsidy.

230 Ethanol from corn is a shit fuel. It takes two gallons of potable water to produce a gallon of ethanol - major fail. It is hygroscopic, making it very hard and costly to store and transport - fail. It produces less energy per gallon than straight gasoline - fail. It raises hell with small engines and sucks as a marine fuel given its hygroscopic nature - fail. It distorts the pricing on other crops since farmers are planting more corn at the cost of soybeans, wheat, etc. Given a choice between ethanol and non-ethanol fuel, I always purchase the latter.

231 not sure how the feed lots do it.

Depends on what you are doing with a cow. A USDA Choice/Select/Prime cow is going to enjoy a lot of grain on the tail end of its life. As they approach that magic time in their life, t-bone junction, they are fed ever increasing amounts of grain to increase fat content and improve flavor. By the end they will be entirely corn fed, and eating 20 or so pounds of it a day. Chickens eat a lot of grain. Pigs eat a lot of grain.

232 thx Mike .. i AM a little surprised that corn is only 7% protein ...

farmers grow corn, wheat, soybeans ... I guess they could grow other things ... but are geared for that.  Ethanol sure seems better than burying hogs or paying farmers not to grow. 

And helping our trade imbalance is not a bad thing.

But inputs are up little from last year, so profits on corn ground will be maybe $4/bushel instead of $1/bu ... so they will be buying lotsa equipment for their shovel ready projects.   heh  But they don't need no steenkin subsidies, especially not the rich big operations, who work hardest at abusing the system.

Anyway ... I just think it is a little more muddy than most think.  

233

I assume the average Iowan is a fat, rich, white welfare king wannabe who cares nothing for the starving children their policy on ethanol helps create.

Were these starving-child enablers not white, race would be an issue with anyone who attempts to stop the child killing via predictable starvation.

 

"People are now starving to death because of this transfer from food to fuel," said Sen. James Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, the ranking Republican on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

http://tinyurl.com/3ghr4yz

 

 

 

234 I will consider it "fair" when I can keep track of all the E85 I buy during the year and I can get a direct tax CREDIT of .45/gal off of my income tax.

235

Look here -- no -- HERE!

I'm in the horse business.  Raise 'em, breed 'em, buy 'em, sell 'em, train 'em, yadda yadda yadda.

Five years ago, when corn was around $2.45/ bu I paid $3.79 for a 50 lb. bag of premium (Purina) horse feed, and around $6.40-ish for a 50 lb. bag of ultra-soopah-ne-plus-ultra (Purina) horse feed.

I'd paid those prices for at least 5 years, give or take .50 up or down depending upon market swings.

Today?

HAH!  CHEAP horse feed is $6.50, Premium horse feed is now $9.00, and Soopah Premium is now $14.00+ for the same 50 lb. bag.

We all watched those prices rise by the week as the ethanol foofaraw took hold.

Whaddaya suppose a nearly three-fold increase in the cost of feeding a horse did to my business? 

IT CUT IT IN FRICKIN' HALF is what it did. 

Who wants to buy a horse when it costs TREE TIMES AS MUCH TO FEED!?!?

Pawlenty, or anybody else in the Conservative Wing, if you can get away with this, more power to ya, and I'll back ya the whole way.

Oh ... for you skeptics out there ... how d'ya like your beef prices?  GREAT, aren't they? 

We think so, too, which is why we've ADDED beef cattle to our pastures which NO LONGER HAVE HORSES IN THEM.

Feeders, six hundred pounds, are fetching nearly $2.00/lb today.  AND WE FEED 'EM ON GRASS!!!

But I miss the horses, though.

 

236 The left over mash produces almost all fat and no lean meat. Not a bad thing for bacon which is now over $5.00/Lb. When I lived in Kentucky, if the packing plant caught a farmer feeding it they docked them. I think it had enough residual alcohol that the pigs were happy.

237

Anyway, my people call it "maizenthal".  So, there is that.

238 alamo, I think reactionary stated something that said 1.67 more energy produced than used, that is what I had seen ... another advantage is turning coal or nat gas into a liquid fuel.

There has always been a carryover of corn, as far as I know ... maybe this year will be different.  I get that ethanol on it's own would not work, BUT, if you look at a US cartel competing against OPEC or other nations, are we better off making twice as much for our commodities where we have a surplus?

What would farmers produce instead of corn, wheat, soybeans, cotton?

Some real questions, not saying I know the answer.

Anyway, I do like hearing from you smart guys (not being sarcastic) ... I'm just on part of the old family farm (where I hung out but didn't farm) and am new to farming my few acres.  Couldn't afford the big crop acres that got sold off to the "big players".  With big money comes lawyers, fraud, and assholes ... so I understand about the dislocations government interventions can cause.

cheers

239 Why does Russ want to subsidize corn growers and ethanol producers at the expense of the public? Why not subsidize onion growers as well? How about carpenters. Can't they have a few $billion in government subsidies tax breaks too? It's not that big of a deal, right?

Sheesh.  I never thought I see a blogger on AoS supportive of letting the government control the direction of the free market.

240 If we end the corn subsidies, will that create a corn hole?

241 Feeders, six hundred pounds, are fetching nearly $2.00/lb today.  AND WE FEED 'EM ON GRASS!!!

Denounce yourself, kulak!

242 If the relief is for just the growing of a particular crop, yeah, it's a subsidy

243 Speaking of "aristocracy" (weren't we) ... I wonder how much land the big lawyers bought up, or other big players, that now have a voice in who gets to retire early on their farm ground "royalties" that renting farmers are making for them.

The game of running interest rates down to "subsidize" bankers can be played with the dollar or commodities ... drive out the small players (oil down to $10/brl) then run prices UP ... maybe it really IS a conspiracy.

Fortunately I have enough beer ... let THEM eat cake.

244 Food prices have most definitely increased due to ethanol subsidies, and yes eliminating a tax on ethanol blended fuel has the same effect as the government subsidizing it on the market. For food prices specifically, it's a very simple process. Creating ethanol requires a large amount of energy, acreage, and water to grow the necessary corn. Since ethanol slated corn is comparatively more profitable than other food crops, a higher percentage of arable land will be utilized for ethanol and less for food crops like grains that make less profit after the tax breaks for ethanol are introduced. With less food crops supply will decrease while demand remains relatively unchanged. This results in an increase in prices. Additionally, as ethanol fuel becomes a larger share of the energy market, government tax revenues fall. So either the income must be made up with additional taxes or roads fall into a greater state of disrepair. Removing tax obligations for ethanol is no different than any other "green" industry. Solar and wind plants having no tax obligation while leaving nuclear/oil/gas taxed would result in a similar situation of leaving everyone worse off because the economy utilizes greater amounts of a less efficient form of energy generation and results in higher energy prices for everyone.

245 Farmer, I hear ya ... but my old (now dead) uncles couldn't figure why people would want all the work of horses now that we have tractors ... makes no sense.

246 Sjg ... there will be a lot of taxes on $6 corn .. but oil we buy from the ME will help people that want to destroy US (the great Satan) ... but better yet, produce our own coal, nat gas, oil, nuke energy ... and give a little not a lot to the hippies that still believe wind and solar will make US holy.

247

Farmers and "Big Ethanol" are a convenient scapegoat for higher transportation costs, labor costs & packaging costs in the wholesale & retail food industry.

So, wait, are you claiming there's generalized inflation?  It's not just the evil famrers? That's not what Uncle Sam tells me! 

248 Thieving Iowa scum.  Get out of our pockets!

If ethanol were so great, why don't we let cheap, environmentally-friendlier sugar cane ethanol into the country without heavy tariffs?

Because the thieving Iowa scum corn barons don't make any money off of it, that's why.

249 Russ.
I'm in the oil business.
I know energy very well.

Your premise is bullshit.

250 Yup. Gubmint subsidies on the ethanol end will actually save money by pinching off subsidies on the corn end. Well done, Russ.You have a bright future in gubmint.

251 My kitty litter is made of corn. How cheap does corn have to be that you can make kitty litter out of it?

252 I'm way late to the discussion, but the problem with ethanol subsidies isn't their resulting retail cost, relative to straight gasoline. It's that they're a shitty substitute for gasoline, and are a net energy loser to produce. They're not green, they're not good for my car, I affirmatively don't give a fuck about farmers claiming the opposite, and I'd like to see corn-based ethanol production ended in the US. Sugar-based ethanol? A completely different story, but yet another farmer-protectionist set of regulations precludes that, too.

253 So basically, I am hearing someone claim that Corn ethanol is a perpetual motion machine which somehow produces more energy than it expends in its production?|