Skip to comments.Six Republicans Sign Letter Demanding Ethanol Subsidy Extension
Posted on 12/02/2010 5:55:44 AM PST by red meat conservative
The ethanol mandates are one of the most regressive socialist interventions into the free market that have been peddled by the progressives. [Here is our editorial on the costs of ethanol] Unfortunately, many Republicans, red state ones at that, are signing onto the extension of these backdoor taxes on food and fuel. 6 Republicans joined seven Democrats in penning a letter to Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell demanding that the subsidies be renewed before the end of this congress.
Here is a list of the Republicans who signed the letter together with their socialist compatriots.
Chuck Grassley Kit Bond Sam Brownback John Thune Mike Johanns Mark Kirk
Mark Kirk is no surprise. He has wasted no time in voting with the democrats on virtually every issue since the minute he took office. The rest of these guys are from red states. Did we gain anything from the midterm elections, or did it never take place? Kit Bond and Sam Brownback are retiring and it remains to be seen if Moran and Blunt will be any better on this issue. Chuck Grassley? Well, he is .... Chuck Grassley after all. Johanns and Thune are really upsetting. Is this the best we can do from ruby red states? John Thune should kiss his bid for the presidency goodbye.
Gee, I wonder what was promised to them after they retire?
Ethanol subsidies are pork-barrel-ish and counter-productive. Cut them. Cut all of them.
>> Is this the best we can do from ruby red states?
They’re ruby red states that grow lots of corn. If you scratch them, I bet the majority derive personal economic benefit from the ethanol boondoggle.
Self interest above national interest is the name of the game inside the beltway, no matter what they say during their campaign.
Phase it out instead of cutting it all at once.
Principle or not, no one is going to vote to eliminate their job and their neighbor’s job if the alternative has no personal downside.
Republican senators from the Corn Belt. No one should be surprised. And such very specific subsidies as the ethanol subsidies may not be called earmarks, but they are some of the most expensive earmarks in the federal spending.
Let’s place all squarely on the RINO crosshairs.
It is not good for America to subsidize this crap.
Nah, abolish it. There is no reason for it to exist.
Never takes RINO’s long to poke up their smelly little heads after an election.
This is a great test to see if our RINO party is still full of ....
RINO’s Gone Wild
I knew this would happen. I knew the RINO’s would ally themselves with the Democrats and not be kowed by the election results.
Eliminate Ethanol completely as a Federally sanctioned energy source. If the Ethanol program is incrementally wound down, it ‘s open to being resurrected with little effort, and therefore could be quickly placed back in operation should the political climate change once again.
Chopping “cold turkey” everything possible that is of Leftist source is the only way to go. Deal with the consequences by making jobs easier to obtain. Good energy policy, cut taxes, and get the government the “H” out of the way.
Let the Free Market reign.
I see its the usual suspects again. Yeh lets use our eating corn to make ethanol. Great idea. I need to lose some weight anyway.
IMHO, there is no chance that this will be done during the lame duck session. Some of the votes were, no doubt, politicians giving a meaningless gesture. That said, we should end this and other distortions of the free market system. This is just a warm up for the FARM BILL, which has become a massive spending bill.
You mean after mandating the use of ethanol, they are STILL receiving a subsidy? This is rediculous and unconscionable!
I was a proponent of ethanol, then known as gasohol, in its early stages over 30 years ago. I wrote a major college term paper on it. I had no problem with tax breaks as they were meant to spur a fledgling business— give it time to establish itself, overcome some of its drawbacks and make it an economically viable product.
I wish I could find that paper now, but I do remember some of those drawbacks included a net negative in energy output, harm to the engine, not as high an octane and transport by truck only (not pipeline). Hmm, sounds strangely familiar to today, huh? Why are we mandating a non-economically viable fuel, and retaining its subsidy as well? Isn’t a mandate enough of a subsidy? And does this subsidy include providing money or grants in addition to the tax breaks?
And of course, the mandate caused more ethanol producing plants to grow in rural areas which, according to an article in the Minneapolis City Pages alternative paper, is causing water shortages for rural communities because of the amounts needed for production. In the last paragraph or two, one of the state proponents admits that it is a transitional fuel and will never be a major source of auto energy.
So our stupid congress mandated use of a product which uses food to run our cars (which increases prices of all sorts of food products, meats and more), runs aquifers short on water, uses more energy to produce than it creates, doesn’t work as efficiently as a fuel and will never replace more than 2-3% of our gasoline. What’s not to like?
John Thune is a nice guy, but unfortunately he is a shill for the ethanol industry.
Hey, sickoflibs. It's *your* RINO party, not mine. I think I've finally, irrevocably, gone over to Libertarian land...Well, except for the insistence on legalization of all drugs....and the whole "really, really, really open borders" thing...Right, then, I'll just remain in "Independent" la-la land...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.