May 23, 2011
— DrewM Earlier in response to Tim Pawlenty's call to end Ethanol subsidies, Russ made the case why repealing them would either not be that big of a deal or possibly even bad policy. (Just to clarify...Russ writes in an addendum below his post wasn't a direct response to the Pawlenty announcement post but a clarification to the earlier post on Pawlenty's USA Today Op-ed)
Let me say upfront: Russ lives this stuff, I like corn on the cob.
With that said, I will appeal to the authority of the Heritage Foundation.
Ethanol. Henry Ford called it the “fuel of the future” in the 1920s. Decades later, policymakers put laws in place to increase the amount of ethanol in our fuel supply. Environmentalists and the Midwest sold it as a way to decrease American dependence on foreign oil and a way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But it’s accomplished neither and instead become an industry reliant on subsidies, mandates and protectionism. Washington needs to reverse these policies and Senator Coburn’s (R-OK) amendment to repeal the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit (VEETC) is a good first step.The VEETC is a 45-cent blender’s credit that doles out $5-6 billion a year for petroleum refiners to blend ethanol into gasoline. Although some claim this is another handout for oil companies, the credit will be passed up the line to the ethanol producers and corn growers, or as the Wall Street Journal says, ethanol producers “can charge some 45 cents a gallon more than the market would otherwise bear.”
...Although it may be a catchy sound bite, America is not addicted to oil. As the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Marlo Lewis says, “consumers will stop buying gasoline the moment a superior product comes along.” Ethanol and other biofuels may eventually be that superior product. Electric vehicles could as well. But it’s not the role for the government to force these sources of fuel and technologies into the marketplace.
In a free market, fuel producers and users should be allowed to make their own fuel decisions without federal bureaucrats and powerful special interests deciding that for them.
There's more at the link.
Now, this isn't going to solve the deficit or debt problems and I'd really like to see a candidate take on the Ethanol mandate in gas and farm subsidies in general. So you can say this is weak sauce but...at this point it's the strongest one on offer.
Beyond what it does for Pawlenty's own political calculations and positioning is forces every other Republican running to take a stand. Either they will be with the special interest in Iowa or Republican and general election voters.
The structure of government subsidies, market distortions and the picking of winners and losers wasn't created overnight, nor will it be undone overnight. The first step is challenging the assumption that these things always grow and expand.
If we can't get rid of something as simple and demonstrably counterproductive as Ethanol subsidies (and just because a theoretical President Pawlenty would support that doesn't mean Congress would even pass it), what can we get rid of?
What this hopefully leads to is a bidding war between candidates to see who can promise to slay more sacred cows than their competitors. It's about trying to change the political culture and assumptions about the role of government. So much dogma around policy favors Democrats and liberals: expanding government is seen as normal and natural while cutting spending and reducing the reach of government is extreme and cruel.
Pawlenty has made an opening offer, it's a good start but we should be forcing him and the other candidates to up the ante.
As always, keeping them to their promises once they are elected is essential but until we get some folks elected who at least make the right promises, we'll never get anything done.
UPDATE (Russ): Thanks for the kind words, Drew. In response to your information from the Heritage Foundation, I just have one question for you. Are ethanol prices in your area less than straight gas? Here in Iowa, ethanol prices run about $0.10 a gallon less than regular unleaded. Back when prices were lower (around $2), the difference was exactly $0.06, which corresponds to the total federal & state tax credit for blending ethanol.
That means that currently the blenders are selling the fuel with a greater discount than that provided by the tax credit, reflecting the produced cost of ethanol being less than the refining cost of gasoline. When you figure that ethanol blends here are 10%, a $0.60/gallon tax credit on the straight stuff works out to a tax credit of $0.06 a gallon. This 10% blend will also make many of the arguments about the BTU content of ethanol moot. If you compare pure gas to pure ethanol, I believe the ethanol has approximately 70% of the BTU content that the gasoline has. If you figure out the BTU content of mixed fuel (10%x70%xBTUgas PLUS 90%xBTUgas), you come up with a final BTU content of of 97% for E10. This means that E10 fuel has 97% of the trapped energy that gasoline contains.
(To expand on my point: Ethanol blended fuel here in Iowa is sold to the consumers in a way that passes the ENTIRE tax credit on to the consumers, in addition to an extra $0.04 per gallon that reflects the lower price of pure ethanol related to pure gasoline. So, instead of a "tax break for millionaires", I think you could call this a "tax cut for consumers". I can only comment on what I know, so if this is not the case in your area we're not talking about the same thing.)
Is 97% better than 100%? Not in any math class I ever took; however, when you consider the multiple benefits of replacing MTBE as an oxygenate (without leaching into the groundwater like MTBE is notorious for doing), providing a small part of our fuel needs, and helping stabilize corn prices in America, I think ethanol is getting a bad rap. Ethanol will NEVER completely replace gasoline, but if it could replace 5-10% of the total volume of gasoline we consume here in America, this would be a good thing - just so long as ethanol isn't used as an excuse to put off American exploration for oil & natural gas.
What pisses me off is all the attacks on me in the comments that assume that I'm all for ethanol mandates, E85 AND unlimited farm subsidies. I never advocated ANY of these things, and anyone who says otherwise can suck it.
Now, getting back to my original question: Are ethanol prices in your area at least $0.06 less per gallon than gasoline? Or are you in a state where E10 ethanol is mandated because of oxygenate requirements? If so, maybe we're not arguing about the same thing. I'm all for free market choice, so if the consumer decides that they don't want to burn ethanol in their car, that's just too bad for the blenders and the farmers. All I ask is that those who decry ethanol rely on FACTS to make their arguments, not "global warming facts".
And just for the record, my post was NOT a response to your T-Paw post about ethanol. I might type fast, but I don't type that damn fast. It was a "clarification" post that I was motivated to write after I read your "Palin/Pawlenty" thread earlier in the day. Ace moved it and delayed publication until well after your thread came out because yours was "breaking news" and mine was "clarification". That's a perfectly understandable thing to do. I was a little peeved about how he seemed to insinuate that I'm only defending farm subsidies because I'm worrying about "my ox getting gored" in his addendum to your post, but then I realized that he didn't read the whole post & just made his comments without really understanding where I was coming from.
So basically, we disagree slightly on this issue. I prefer to think that my "hands-on" experience with agriculture and agribusiness gives me a slightly better viewpoint on the issue, but I think you guys are smart enough that I'd be a fool to disregard your point of view. So that's where we are. No Thunderdome tonight.
Unless we're talking about the Palin thread.........
Posted by: DrewM at
03:56 PM
| Comments (101)
Post contains 1404 words, total size 8 kb.
Posted by: Dan at May 23, 2011 04:04 PM (9L1z6)
Posted by: logprof at May 23, 2011 04:06 PM (BP6Z1)
Posted by: IE Con at May 23, 2011 04:07 PM (/COcn)
Posted by: rdbrewer at May 23, 2011 08:00 PM (9RpU7)
--Brazil uses the leftovers from the sugar cane harvest, so no impact on food prices. Fuck we already protect/subsidize the tiny sugar growing community here, might as well use that for ethanol.
Posted by: logprof at May 23, 2011 04:09 PM (BP6Z1)
Sayin' it don't make it so.
Government starts getting into trouble when it starts picking winners and losers in the first place, rather than just making sure people are playing by the rules. That's the plot line we've lost in the past 230 years or so.
It would be nice if we could get the plot back without another dark age first.
Ethanol might be The Next Big Thing. If it is, it doesn't need government help. If it isn't, then all the government money (subsidy; tax credit; whatever) in the world won't make it so. It'll just move a lot of money from productive people's pockets into unproductive people's pockets--which of course is the current primary function of government today.
Posted by: filbert at May 23, 2011 04:10 PM (smvTK)
Drill baby, drill!
Posted by: Jimbo at May 23, 2011 04:11 PM (O3R/2)
Anybody else here own a boat? Ethanol kills boats, and all other small engines, due to its corrosive nature.
Posted by: Wodeshed at May 23, 2011 04:11 PM (3z55y)
RON PAUL!!!!!
(did I do that right? I'm a Palinista, so, um . . . well . . . no point, really . . .)
Posted by: filbert at May 23, 2011 04:12 PM (smvTK)
I have nothing to back it up at this time.
You smart people discuss it.
Posted by: TXMarko at May 23, 2011 04:12 PM (vquDZ)
If ethanol were not subsidized, and it were magically the same price as gas and could magically run without modifications to all kinds of engines, I still wouldn't buy it, because IT'S A LESS EFFICIENT FUEL.
Thick fucking heads.
Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at May 23, 2011 04:12 PM (bxiXv)
Posted by: TXMarko at May 23, 2011 08:12 PM (vquDZ)
--That is true.
Posted by: logprof at May 23, 2011 04:14 PM (BP6Z1)
Posted by: Bugler at May 23, 2011 04:15 PM (VXBR1)
Posted by: USA at May 23, 2011 04:17 PM (YZISw)
Yup. Furthermore, there have been several batches of "bad" gas that made it to the pumps which ruined scores of cars. Ethanol is horrible for a multitude of reasons and there are fools in Washington who want to increase the amount of ethanol in gasoline from 10% to 15%. Imagine the hell that will play on the overall vehicle fleet and food prices!
Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at May 23, 2011 04:19 PM (c0A3e)
Posted by: Joe Redfield at May 23, 2011 04:21 PM (GPrxi)
It takes almost 2.5-3 diesel-gallon equivalents to produce, ship and market 1 gallon of ethanol.
That's the math that using subsidies ignore.
Posted by: TexasJew at May 23, 2011 04:22 PM (L8Let)
Posted by: Joe Redfield at May 23, 2011 08:21 PM (GPrxi)
Oh so you hate teh SUN now!?!
Posted by: Oldcat at May 23, 2011 04:22 PM (z1N6a)
My mechanic just told me I better use the highest octane stuff I can because otherwise the Ethanol will kill my engine. So, that's basically an additional $.35 or so/gallon tax I get to pay.
Posted by: DrewM. at May 23, 2011 04:22 PM (WnQJ3)
Posted by: Duke Lowell at May 23, 2011 04:22 PM (iQ1uF)
Posted by: Bugler at May 23, 2011 04:23 PM (VXBR1)
I think there's an opportunity to have a "let's all take a haircut" approach that would possibly sell with rural Iowans (and farmers across the midwest), but as long as you cut Ethanol subsidies alone, while dumping Federal dollars into countless other businesses and Government-favored projects, you're likely to have a crop growers rebellion on your hands.
When we bought our farmland over a decade ago, half was in CRP (having been enrolled some years prior to our purchase). We didn't renew any CRP and took it out, with shocked USDA employees not understanding that I'd rather see lower taxes.
Indeed, their shock was more pragmatic than my foolish idealism. My taxes are racing upward and all of my farm buddies are laughing about "how that tax break is working." CRP is the tax break for all the other things lumped on. Taking off the subsidies will be similarly problematic as other costs have been factored in with the offset. I'd expect that at a minimum, you'll see corn and bean prices shoot up even further, which causes cropland valuations to skyrocket, and fools like myself needing to find some way to pay the tax bill... reverting to more government welfare.
So let's cut it all, not one piece at a time. Let's see the city slickers get skin in the game too. We don't need slickmeisters like Pawlenty coming down and singling us out for his "reforms."
Posted by: Western Hawk at May 23, 2011 04:24 PM (ijdDW)
I freaking HATE the sun. Nuke it! Nuke it from orbit!!!!!
/Oh wait...
Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at May 23, 2011 04:25 PM (c0A3e)
Posted by: steevy at May 23, 2011 04:27 PM (m3WP2)
With ethanol lowering gas mileage the greenies are going to complain about vehicles not meeting the CAFE standards. Also it's a no win fuel as it takes more energy to produe it. Corrosive? You better believe it is.
Electric vehicles are only good for around town and the utiliy companies. (note to self BUY STOCK) . Any thing else and you will have to do a lot of planning about recharging. How many motels have an outlet to do so? Even if they do and you pull in late and leave early you're not going far the next day.
Biodiesel has more promise as it can be made from a lot of things.
Posted by: rick at May 23, 2011 04:27 PM (A6w3Y)
Posted by: Western Hawk at May 23, 2011 08:24 PM (ijdDW)
Sorry, but burning food for fuel is stupid, unless you live in a yurt.
Posted by: TexasJew at May 23, 2011 04:28 PM (L8Let)
Even if we eliminated all medicare, we'd still have one.
That's why it's great that Pawlenty is talking about this in the context of other big solutions. We need to cut a lot of sacred cows in this corrupt government.
He's got no chance of being elected, IMO. People who are serious about cutting spending are eaten alive.
Posted by: Dustin at May 23, 2011 04:29 PM (Q3nWV)
Posted by: Western Hawk at May 23, 2011 08:24 PM (ijdDW)
I won't refuse to get rid of one stupid waste just because I can't get rid of ten.
I'll get rid of one and then work on getting rid of the other nine. Or nine hundred.
Yeah, I get the argument that you'll only get the one, but I don't want this one, so I'll take it and keep working.
Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at May 23, 2011 04:30 PM (bxiXv)
Posted by: Bugler at May 23, 2011 04:30 PM (VXBR1)
It appears to me that for every subsidy, we have a corresponding "correction" elsewhere. No doubt the transition would be painful (catastrophic, from some points of view) but I think that once the dust settled, we'd be far better off.
Posted by: Damiano at May 23, 2011 04:30 PM (3nrx7)
Posted by: Cicero at May 23, 2011 04:31 PM (QKKT0)
Posted by: Cherry π at May 23, 2011 04:31 PM (+sBB4)
Posted by: Cherry ð at May 23, 2011 08:31 PM (+sBB4)
I thought we already were?
Posted by: Red Shirt at May 23, 2011 04:32 PM (FIDMq)
Posted by: Dustin at May 23, 2011 08:29 PM (Q3nWV)
If you're right, then we are, as Monty says, DOOMed.
Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at May 23, 2011 04:32 PM (bxiXv)
The idiocy of all these subdsidized premises is breathtaking.
Posted by: TexasJew at May 23, 2011 04:32 PM (L8Let)
Not this time. I would argue that any R candidate that doesn't talk like this stand no chance of being elected. I wasn't real excited about Pawlenty, and I'm still not, but this is a good start.
Posted by: Duke Lowell at May 23, 2011 04:33 PM (y9We1)
The idiocy of all these subdsidized premises is breathtaking.
Ignoramus. Chevy Volts get their energy from a wall outlet. That's the cleanest source of energy there is.
Posted by: Typical Libtard Douchbag at May 23, 2011 04:34 PM (QKKT0)
Posted by: Palerider at May 23, 2011 04:34 PM (dkExz)
Sorry, but burning food for fuel is stupid, unless you live in a yurt.
Posted by: TexasJew at May 23, 2011 08:28 PM (L8Let)
They burned used food, i.e. dung. So we are dumber than they were.
Posted by: Oldcat at May 23, 2011 04:34 PM (z1N6a)
Posted by: Duke Lowell at May 23, 2011 04:35 PM (y9We1)
Posted by: Dustin at May 23, 2011 08:29 PM (Q3nWV)
If you're right, then we are, as Monty says, DOOMed.
Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at May 23, 2011 08:32 PM (bxiXv)
If thats the case, might as well vote for the people that promise to give us the most shit so it goes down in flames that much quicker...it has to go down in flames eventually..doesn't it?
Posted by: Red Shirt at May 23, 2011 04:35 PM (FIDMq)
Posted by: Cherry π at May 23, 2011 08:35 PM (+sBB4)
Except bright light bulbs.
Posted by: Oldcat at May 23, 2011 04:36 PM (z1N6a)
Posted by: Typical Libtard Douchbag at May 23, 2011 08:34 PM (QKKT0)
Who needs oil? We ride the bus!
Posted by: Another Libtard at May 23, 2011 04:39 PM (BP6Z1)
If thats the case, might as well vote for the people that promise to give us the most shit so it goes down in flames that much quicker...it has to go down in flames eventually..doesn't it?
Posted by: Red Shirt at May 23, 2011 08:35 PM (FIDMq)
That's the Democratic Socialists / ACORN / Bill Ayers position.
Because they, like the twitchy survivalist pinheads, think they will survive the apocalypse and be the ones to rebuild, whereas they'll both end up trapped in a mud hut and burned to the ground after a couple of years of shit farming.
Dumbest fucking idea ever.
Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at May 23, 2011 04:40 PM (bxiXv)
Do Not Taunt 'Hopey Change Bulb'!
Posted by: SE / SNL Warning Label at May 23, 2011 08:40 PM (hW57F)
Well the poison gas it emits is quite a change, I admit.
Posted by: Oldcat at May 23, 2011 04:42 PM (z1N6a)
We ought to be able to get rid of one or two of those and see if it can survive any kind of free market.
Posted by: dave clark at May 23, 2011 04:42 PM (VFYKw)
Posted by: Cherry π at May 23, 2011 08:35 PM (+sBB4)
I have a shirt that says that.
Under a picture of a GE-33 chaingun.
I used to wear it to school.
Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at May 23, 2011 04:43 PM (bxiXv)
pure-gas . org has listings of ethanol-free gas stations. Found it in an article that was talking about it being bad for lawn mowers:
Also, mechanics say don't let the gas-ethanol mix set for more than 30 days before using in your lawn equipment.
Oops.
Posted by: Mama AJ at May 23, 2011 04:44 PM (XdlcF)
"We must cut government spending (unless I can get a piece of the action)!!!
Posted by: RoadRunner at May 23, 2011 04:45 PM (oJln5)
Posted by: Flapjackmaka at May 23, 2011 04:47 PM (J8NCi)
Posted by: Jean at May 23, 2011 04:48 PM (WkuV6)
You eat corn, you see corn in the toilet.
You ever see a sugar cube in your shit?
Didn't think so.
The science is settled.
Posted by: Dang at May 23, 2011 04:49 PM (TXKVh)
Posted by: Bugler at May 23, 2011 04:51 PM (VXBR1)
Posted by: Jean at May 23, 2011 08:48 PM (WkuV6)
You can't farm propane.
Posted by: Oldcat at May 23, 2011 04:51 PM (z1N6a)
You eat corn, you see corn in the toilet.
You ever see a sugar cube in your shit?
Only RINOs can digest corn.
(You don't want to get some of us started yelling about high fructose corn syrup. )
Posted by: Mama AJ at May 23, 2011 04:52 PM (XdlcF)
Also, mechanics say don't let the gas-ethanol mix set for more than 30 days before using in your lawn equipment.
Oops.
Cost me a lawn mower as well.
Posted by: Jean at May 23, 2011 04:53 PM (WkuV6)
Why does propane/CNG always get left out of the discussion?
Nah, it gets brought up, I post a link to an article about the local E85 station and the buses and few others who use it.
Posted by: Mama AJ at May 23, 2011 04:54 PM (XdlcF)
Posted by: Jean at May 23, 2011 08:48 PM (WkuV6)
It doesn't, it comes up all the time. It came up 26 comments earlier than yours.
The last time we had this discussion, we talked about both propane cars and supplemental propane injection of diesel and turbocharged gas cars, because of its high octane rating.
But for some reason, someone always gets all tin hat and says we never talk about it.
Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at May 23, 2011 04:54 PM (bxiXv)
Also, mechanics say don't let the gas-ethanol mix set for more than 30 days before using in your lawn equipment.
Oops.
Cost me a lawn mower as well.
Posted by: Jean at May 23, 2011 08:53 PM (WkuV6)
Just shake your mower well every other week or so.
Posted by: Oldcat at May 23, 2011 04:55 PM (z1N6a)
Posted by: TWC at May 23, 2011 04:55 PM (7wJBW)
Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at May 23, 2011 04:56 PM (bxiXv)
Also, mechanics say don't let the gas-ethanol mix set for more than 30 days before using in your lawn equipment.
Oops.
Cost me a lawn mower as well.
Posted by: Jean at May 23, 2011 08:53 PM (WkuV6)
Just borrowed my neighbors power washer, wouldn't start, so i checked the tank and took a sniff...straight up varnish in there. It fired after draining a filling with fresh, but it kicked and sputtered for a bit.
Posted by: Red Shirt at May 23, 2011 04:58 PM (FIDMq)
So the government gets left promoting all the bad ideas that industry knows won't work. And then industry gets involved because the government is handing out money to give it another try. So corn+government money=energy. And that's the only way it works.
Posted by: Dang at May 23, 2011 05:00 PM (TXKVh)
Posted by: Jackhole at May 23, 2011 05:02 PM (+qHxi)
Of course it doesn't end for Pawlenty just because he is focusing on ethanol, they'll go down the line until they find something he won't say clearly he will cut. Even if it is defense. Doesn't matter, it shows some seriousness. It's what I've been waiting for from a candidate.
I've listened to Pawlenty and he hasn't been pussyfooting around when talking about entitlements either. I was comfortable he wasn't going to pull a Gingrich and let it stop with "waste, fraud, and abuse." I'm more comfortable today, and curious to see what he says in Florida tomorrow.
Posted by: Dave S. at May 23, 2011 05:07 PM (UvR6d)
Posted by: Tubby Curls at May 23, 2011 05:14 PM (uPJN8)
Posted by: Montjoie at May 23, 2011 05:22 PM (Ca6Iv)
Posted by: chris edwards at May 23, 2011 05:28 PM (evfql)
Posted by: Radar at May 23, 2011 05:42 PM (8xYyJ)
Posted by: jackv at May 23, 2011 05:55 PM (tC37d)
Posted by: DanInMN at May 23, 2011 06:31 PM (Mif1z)
Pawlenty isn't exactly cutting edge on his position on ethanol subsidies. The freaking Farm Bureau has advocated dropping them for over a year now. Ethanol supporters would happily give up the current subsidy (paid to gasoline blenders) that they are so pilloried for, in return for market access independent of oil companies.
Remember, when some conservatives were bitching about "paying farmers not to farm" in an era of low prices that decimated farm states to the point of near collapse, the farmers were developing ethanol plants to use up the huge surpluses of grain. The taxpayer today doesn't pay crop subsidies for grains at all any more as the main result. Jobs were created in rural areas by the tens of thousands, too, which raise incomes across the board in these small towns as well. Young people, an entire generation of which left agriculture during the bust years of the late eighties and early nineties, are getting a start--an important trend, considering the average farmer's age is somewhere north of 60.
No matter what you think about the fuel, ethanol POLICY just isn't as bad as most opponents make it out to be. And that's why it has broad support across parties in ag states.
Face it. Most AoSHQ morons barely make it to and from the grocery store on a regular basis. We can't grow our own food. It is in everyone's best interest that as many farmers as it takes to farm the nation's agricultural ground are there to do so, and do it profitably enough that they continue to do it into the future. If burning ethanol is one way to stabilize the farm economy, then so be it, it's probably OK in terms of policy.
The argument that burns me more, is when people who rail against subsidies complain about higher costs for the stuff that they want, and imply that paying more out of their pockets is somehow wrong. It isn't. At least not in a market economy.
America's percentage of income devoted to purchasing food is at it's lowest level in history. That has an impact on the profitability of agricultural ventures, forcing consolidation and integration at levels that make for fewer rural jobs and put more people on the public dole, or drive them toward the cities looking for other work, competing with you for wages. Most people's opinions of agricultural policy never quite bore down to that level however.
You can have cheap and plentiful food, pay direct cash government subsidies to farmers, and chase away 20% of the workers in the industry like we did in the 80's, or develop new markets for grains to make farming profitable and draw people back into it, but having to pay a bit more for food as a result. That's the way it works!
Posted by: CausticConservative at May 23, 2011 06:52 PM (gT3jF)
What market economy are you blathering about? Because the agriculture "market" sure as hell isn't one.
Try this: Remove the subsidies, price supports and all the other assorted New Deal welfare for farmers bullshit. Let the farmers that suck at it go out of business. The ones that don't suck at it will buy the land of the ones who do at a premium and expand their operations. THAT is a market.
Posted by: DanInMN at May 23, 2011 07:24 PM (Mif1z)
Posted by: DanInMN at May 23, 2011 10:31 PM (Mif1z)
Maybe HoneyBadgerDanInMN should punch himself in the cock. Minnesota is just as much of an ethanol producer as Iowa is. Hell, we don't FORCE drivers to buy ethanol like MN does.
Fix your own house before you bitch about mine, you fucking squarehead.
Posted by: Russ from Winterset at May 23, 2011 07:36 PM (/MEFr)
1) higher corn/food prices: This is having an impact on the world food supply, to some extent. The Governments (not just ours) subsidizing/mandating/trade restricting ethanol is (I suspect without running the numbers) a decent chunk of this. Yes, when you find a new productive use for something the price of it goes up; but I think we're overdoing it.
2) higher fuel prices: The price of ethanol is higher than it needs to be; or at least I strongly suspect so. We'll import oil from terrorists, but we won't buy ethanol from Brazil? That's just stupid. If someone else makes a product that is equal quality and lower cost... um, I think we should consider using it... or at least allowing people to use it. But our current "tariffs" to block ethanol imports must raise the price of fuel (otherwise the tariffs would be pointless, instead of a trading contention between the US and Brazil).
3) The damned environmentalists: This one isn't based as much on facts; more on emotion. If you give me a stick designed to beat environmentalists with... I'm not going to avoid using the stick. The CO2 numbers for ethanol aren't "save the earth" friendly, and the way we do it the costs are "starve the poor" friendly. I realize I'd be a better person if I could avoid grabbing that stick and wailing away on enviro-whackos... but I'm not striving for perfection in my life.
Posted by: gekkobear at May 23, 2011 07:56 PM (n95X9)
Posted by: Patton at May 23, 2011 08:03 PM (+HIl0)
(To expand on my point: Ethanol blended fuel here in Iowa is sold to the consumers in a way that passes the ENTIRE tax credit on to the consumers, in addition to an extra $0.04 per gallon that reflects the lower price of pure ethanol related to pure gasoline. So, instead of a "tax break for millionaires", I think you could call this a "tax cut for consumers". I can only comment on what I know, so if this is not the case in your area we're not talking about the same thing.)
Well no shit the credit is passed on in Iowa. They don't do it in the rest of the country so they can afford to. They wouldn't even do it in Iowa if they didn't have to. The only reason they are is to turn the entire state population into friggin ethanol lobbyists who will roast anybody talking about eliminating them every 4 years during the caucuses.
It is time for Iowa to go to the back of the primary pack and you are a shining example of exactly why that is true.
Posted by: Rocks at May 23, 2011 08:49 PM (th0op)
>Fix your own house before you bitch about mine, you fucking squarehead.
I'm a transplant to Minnesota. That's why it says "in" rather than "from." Family is from Texas and SW Missouri and my heritage is English and Cherokee, so I'm not sure that Squarehead is the appropriate epithet. Maybe "limey dirt-worshipper?" That said, Minnesota isn't anywhere near the problem politically that Iowa is because of the sacrosanct "first in the nation primary." Get rid of that and Iowa assumes its rightful significance in the nomination process, which is to say very little. On the order of half as much as say Minnesota or Missouri.
That said, let me take off my "surly internet asshole" hat for a moment. I'm not sure why you're taking this so personally, and not just from me. I never mentioned or addressed you. Hell, I've liked a lot of the stuff you've posted in the past and will probably enjoy some of it in the future. You're from Iowa. I singled out Iowa, I get that. I was going for irreverent humor not indicating I actually desired to assault someone from a neighboring state. They're mostly nice folks from the ones I've met.
On the other hand, if you're trying to indicate that Minnesota Republicans are equally worthless, you better make room on that bandwagon because I'm jumping on.
Posted by: DanInMN at May 23, 2011 08:55 PM (Mif1z)
On the other hand, if you're trying to indicate that Minnesota Republicans are equally worthless, you better make room on that bandwagon because I'm jumping on.
This is a platform that we can all get behind.
Posted by: Russ from Winterset at May 23, 2011 09:15 PM (/MEFr)
Posted by: Rocks at May 23, 2011 09:41 PM (th0op)
No state that I have ever been in (recently) has different prices for gas mixed with ethanol (NY, NJ, CT, MA, IL) - so that is a fail for Russ.
Regardless of the cost at the pump, the gov't is requiring that distributers mix gas with ethanol. That is a "subsidy" to ethanol, as ethanol is an inferior product that nobody would use absent this gov't mandate.
To claim otherwise is being very dishonest. Russ keeps playing the semantics game of "hey, there is no direct gov't payment for ethanol to producers, therefore there is no subsidy." But he knows full well that there are tax credits and more importantly, mandates for ethanol use, which is a form of subsidy b/c the gov't is picking one product out of a number of competing products and giving it a benefit at the expense of both the consumer and competitors. Absent gov't intervention, ethanol would not be used in any gasoline products and the production of ethanol would be a mere fration of what it is.
So, to claim there are not ethanol subsidies is using a liberal gamebook trick.
Ethanol is simply not good policy. It may not be the worst thing out there, or even a priority to get rid of. That does not make it right, nor does it make it something that conservatives should support.
Posted by: monkeytoe at May 24, 2011 03:58 AM (sOx93)
America's percentage of income devoted to purchasing food is at it's lowest level in history. That has an impact on the profitability of agricultural ventures, forcing consolidation and integration at levels that make for fewer rural jobs and put more people on the public dole, or drive them toward the cities looking for other work, competing with you for wages. Most people's opinions of agricultural policy never quite bore down to that level however.
So, the farm industry should be protected? Gov't should be involved in farm economics? You are either for free markets or not. This same argument can be used for any industry (if we let GM go down, more people will be out of jobs, therefore it is a good idea for the gov't to own and run GM).
Perhaps an argument can be made that for national security purposes or something we need to have the gov't subsidize farming or something, but the argument above is not it.
For some reason people involved in the AG business are very conservative when it comes to everything else, but think the gov't should be intimately involved in running/protecting the ag business. And - they never see the inconsistency. Somehow it's o.k. when it relates to the AG business for gov't to be setting "policy" about how many fields can be planted, what the price of milk should be, etc.
Farm subsidies in general are a prime example of the problem the conservative movement has - which is that everyone is for cutting everyone else's entitlements. Old people are fine with cutting welfare payments - but not SS or Medicare; business people are fine with cutting SS and Medicare - but not various business subsidies; hawks and/or those working near bases are o.k. with cutting everything but military spending; etc., etc. It's the same thing as NIMBY - small gov't is great until it's your program that is getting teh ax.
Until conservatives as a whole wake up and are willing to forego gov't involvement in every area of the economy, including their own pet program, nothing will ever be cut.
Posted by: monkeytoe at May 24, 2011 04:09 AM (sOx93)
Are ethanol prices in your area less than straight gas?
I doesn't matter to me.
Two reasons: First, where I live (New York state) you can't get gas without ethanol any more. Second, if we're talking presidential politics, my party's candidate is in effect chosen by the time I get to vote in a primary.
It's interesting, and there are two nice posts on the topic here, but it's interesting in the way learning about tectonics is interesting -- I really have no say in the matter.
Posted by: FireHorse at May 24, 2011 05:11 AM (Rq1/g)
I have a couple of brother's in law who farm about 1000 acres in Mississippi (there farms are literaly under water at the moment). They used to grow mostly cotton and soy, they now grow corn exclusively. Guarenteed market, guarenteed minimum price.
That's pretty much a national trend. Corn is king in Kansas, not wheat. Other crops are scaling back or dissappearing, and gus what -- supply & demand works there too.
Posted by: pmike at May 24, 2011 05:24 AM (R9qZf)
"ethanol is better than MTBE..."
This is another strawman argument. MTBE was forced on us by the government. Now ethanol is being forced on us by the government. Why don't they leave the car manufacturers and refiners alone so that THEY can figure out what burns cleanest... Hmmm??
There are 39 (THIRTY NINE!) different blends of gasoline to meet all the silly-assed variations of government mandated this and that with regards to pollution. No one refinery can produce that so then our refineries are split up and allocated to this craziness and if one of them blows out then there's a major shuffle to get that fuel available and transport it to that market. Stupid. Expensive. Stupid.
Get the feds the hell out of dictating the solutions.
Posted by: chuck in st paul at May 24, 2011 06:08 AM (EhYdw)
"@35 I'd be very interested to see what would happen if we put an immediate end to ALL government handouts and subsidies. No phase out, no exceptions. Everything, all at once. " - Damiano
HERESY!!
Posted by: chuck in st paul at May 24, 2011 06:29 AM (EhYdw)
Agricultural policy/subsidies are designed to provide consumers with cheap and plentiful food, not to pay off farmers for election votes. If you don't understand this basic point, there's little purpose to discussing other matters of agricultural policy.
The ag sector would be a lot more healthy if consumers were putting 20% of their income toward food, instead of the 14% or whatever it is currently. Of course, then the public would be unhappy about THAT, as we see currently whenever commodity prices rise. Because you all want to complain about the subsidy stuff that supports your bottom line. It's quite hypocritical.
Posted by: CausticConservative at May 24, 2011 09:24 AM (gT3jF)
The ag sector would be a lot more healthy if consumers were putting 20% of their income toward food, instead of the 14% or whatever it is currently. Of course, then the public would be unhappy about THAT, as we see currently whenever commodity prices rise. Because you all want to complain about the subsidy stuff that supports your bottom line. It's quite hypocritical.
Posted by: CausticConservative at May 24, 2011 01:24 PM (gT3jF)
This is not true. But, this whole topic again proves that even alleged conservative have their mouths on the gov't teat - and just like liberals they convince themselves its not about them getting money from teh gov't - no, no - its all about helping "the people". You see, we need gov't subsidies (to include mandates, tax credits, etc) for ag b/c its "for the people"!
Just like we need to keep SS and Medicare sacrosanct or else everyone's grandmother will die!! or we need to keep welfare the same or children everywhere will starve!!
It's the same b.s. just with conservatives pushing it.
Posted by: monkeytoe at May 24, 2011 10:12 AM (sOx93)
People complaining about a rise in commodity prices being reflected in the cost of their food. Demanding something be done about it. They are really demanding cheap food at all times, aren't they? That's what US farm policy is designed to deliver.
Posted by: CausticConservative at May 24, 2011 04:47 PM (gT3jF)
Posted by: km at May 30, 2011 10:56 PM (4h5aZ)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.2443 seconds, 229 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
Posted by: rdbrewer at May 23, 2011 04:00 PM (9RpU7)