Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ethanol Subsidies, Newt Gingrich, and the 2012 Election
Brian Koenig ^ | 2/6/2011 | Brian Koenig

Posted on 02/06/2011 9:12:07 PM PST by Freemarkets101

With the 2012 presidential election already on presidential aspirants’ front doorstep, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is hiking the campaign trail, stomping the path of ethanol subsidies.

Last Tuesday, the former Speaker visited the Renewable Fuels Association summit in Des Moines, touting the praises of ethanol and its progressive impact on the environment. He then tenderized the farm industry saying, “We have had a problem of farm income back to the 1890s and 1880s [and] the fact is that every time the farmers start to do well someone starts to attack them.”

A battle between Gingrich and the Wall Street Journal is now raging, as Gingrich accused the Journal of being “just plain flat intellectually wrong” about its anti-ethanol views. He then accused “big cities” and “big urban newspapers” of denying prosperity to rural America. The Journal’s editorial board responded, questioning him on his claimed status as a fiscally conservative Republican:

The Georgian has been campaigning in the tea party age as a fierce critic of spending and government, but his record on that score is, well, mixed…. Some pandering is inevitable in presidential politics, but befitting a college professor, Mr. Gingrich insists on portraying his low vote-buying as high “intellectual” policy. This doesn’t bode well for his judgment as president.

The editorial board proceeded to explain the Republican Party’s opportunity to reform government by instilling fiscal responsibility and decreased regulation, but the danger lies with people like Gingrich in the party, who struggle with the addiction of corporate welfare and industry-specific favoritism. The Journal reported this conundrum and honed in on Gingrich’s compromise to Democrats and the Obama administration:

So along comes Mr. Gingrich to offer his support for Mr. Obama’s brand of green-energy welfare, undermining House Republicans in the process. In his Iowa speak-power-to-truth lecture, he even suggested that the government should mandate that all new cars in the U.S. be flex-fuel vehicles — meaning those that can run on an ethanol-gas mix as high as 85% — as if King Corn were in any danger of being deposed.

Gingrich’s argument is most likely of a political nature, considering his assumed desire to woo Iowa caucus participants in the 2012 Republican presidential nomination. This type of political pandering is similar to Democratic politicians who solicit minority votes with divisive rhetoric and government handouts; his rural community indulgences parallel the Democrats’ motif of promoting disenfranchisement to blacks, Hispanics, and homosexuals.

Ethanol as a solution to curing poor air quality is at best questionable. Although the EPA as a whole supports ethanol subsidies, it admits that ethanol use will increase chemical emissions in the ozone. Furthermore, a report by the California Air Resources Board concluded that gasoline containing ethanol caused a 45-percent increase in volatile organic compound emissions when compared to gasoline containing no oxygenates. (Robert Bryce, Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of Energy Independence, 186)

It doesn’t reportedly reduce greenhouse gasses either. Clean New Power asserts:

The impact on greenhouse gases is minimal.

In theory, the advantage over fossil fuels is that plants will absorb CO2 as they grow. It is then released again when burning the fuel, so this should be a carbon neutral process.

But in reality it depends on the efficiency of the production process. If you burn coal to create electricity that is used by an ethanol plant then the net emission of greenhouse gases could be higher than if you just burned gasoline. And then you still have to produce fertilizers.

Ethanol supporters continually repeat the line that ethanol replaces gasoline and reduces U.S. oil imports, despite studies that show that the creation of ethanol from corn is so energy intensive that America derives little if any benefit from switching to ethanol — even as Third World people have seen their food costs skyrocket as we burn food for fuel. In reality, the government has already spent the money to create the infrastructure necessary to allow ethanol to compete with oil, so if ethanol really is as valuable as its touted to be, it could face direct competition without a reliance on government subsidies. But it’s not doing that.

Ethanol plays a key role in politics, as it is an effective way for Washington to grant subsidies in return for campaign contributions and political backing. In late November of last year, a bipartisan group of 15 Senators assisted in extending federal tax provisions on domestic ethanol production. A Center for Responsive Politics analysis claimed the Senators collaborated on two fronts: “geography and contributions from political action committees of ethanol producers, high-profile ethanol promoters and the leading industry groups for corn.”

The Senators demanded extensions on U.S. ethanol subsidies. Naturally, during the past six years all 15 Senators have received campaign contributions from pro-ethanol companies and interest groups. On average, each Senator received “$5,000 from bioengineering and agricultural chemical company Monsanto, $4,100 from farming giant Archer Daniels Midland, $1,600 from the National Corn Growers Association, [and] $1,200 from ethanol producer POET LLC.”

They defended their position by claiming an expiration of the subsidies will destroy thousands of jobs, further deteriorate the environment, and increase our dependence on foreign oil.

Gingrich, along with his ethanol hawking colleagues, have friends to repay, and promoting policies that will benefit the Corn Belt may present campaign assets for the 2012 election — for both money and votes.

But Gingrich and other “conservative” Republicans who support ethanol subsidies are risking the dreaded label of “fiscally irresponsible bureaucrat.” Currently these subsidies amount to about $6 billion annually and with the current drive for decreasing government spending, particularly among tea party supporters, pro-ethanol politicians may become heated targets.

The question is will such popular dissent overpower the benefits of supporting the ethanol lobby? The answer is probably not.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Politics
KEYWORDS: energy; ethanol; mtba; newtgingrich; ntsa

1 posted on 02/06/2011 9:12:08 PM PST by Freemarkets101
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Freemarkets101

Just say ‘no’ to Newt.


2 posted on 02/06/2011 9:17:24 PM PST by ReneeLynn (Socialism is SO yesterday. Fascism, it's the new black. Mmm mmm mmm.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Freemarkets101

We won’t be shedding Ethanol subsidies any time soon - the whole election begins with some of the biggest corn producers int he country. They love that federal gravy they get through those programs.


3 posted on 02/06/2011 9:17:24 PM PST by TheBattman (They exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #4 Removed by Moderator

To: ReneeLynn

It’s pretty obvious that the newt wants to run, but taking a boneheaded position like this guarantees that he’ll lose - badly. Leftists would never vote for him for any reason and again he marks out territory to intentionally piss off the right.

One of the dumbest bright guys I know.


5 posted on 02/06/2011 9:29:42 PM PST by rockrr ("I said that I was scared of you!" - pokie the pretend cowboy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Freemarkets101

Having Iowa as the first state in the primaries is fine...until it starts destroying this country and causes overthrows and riots in other countries (i.e., Tunisia and Egypt, due to high food costs - caused by Ethanol).

Enough is enough - let’s get rid of that stupid caucus once and for all.


6 posted on 02/06/2011 9:33:31 PM PST by BobL (PLEASE READ: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2657811/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Freemarkets101

Just a few years ago Newt was leading the charge on Drill Baby Drill - now he’s back to being a Greenie Weinie - what a disappointment.....


7 posted on 02/06/2011 9:37:15 PM PST by Intolerant in NJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Freemarkets101

exporting corn is stupid.

better to burn corn in a stove or car,

than feed our enemies.


8 posted on 02/06/2011 9:41:28 PM PST by Talf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Freemarkets101

Newt simply doesn’t know what he’s talking about.


9 posted on 02/06/2011 9:49:57 PM PST by bigbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Freemarkets101

Newt & McCain. Synonymous.


10 posted on 02/06/2011 9:50:16 PM PST by taxesareforever (Release Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich and let him and his family get on with their lives.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #11 Removed by Moderator

To: Freemarkets101

Apparently the jackass wasn’t paying attention when Gore admitted he made a mistake, and only backed ethanol for political gain.


12 posted on 02/06/2011 9:59:02 PM PST by Cobra64
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Freemarkets101; Fiddlstix; Fractal Trader; FrPR; enough_idiocy; meyer; Normandy; Whenifhow; ...
 


Beam me to Planet Gore !

13 posted on 02/07/2011 4:12:33 AM PST by steelyourfaith (ObamaCare Death Panels: a Final Solution to the looming Social Security crisis ?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Freemarkets101

Ethanol is a commie means to a commie end.


14 posted on 02/07/2011 4:43:05 AM PST by BuffaloJack (Re-Elect President Sarah Palin 2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Freemarkets101

Newt has been in D C far too long and believes his own press at this point
Give it up Newt, go make nice with Hillary and Nancy some more
And just go away


15 posted on 02/07/2011 4:43:26 AM PST by Joe Boucher ((FUBO))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Freemarkets101

Personally I don’t see ethanol being an issue in 5 to 10 years. Technology is going to take care of the problem.


16 posted on 02/07/2011 6:12:47 AM PST by Free Vulcan (Vote Republican! You can vote Democrat when you're dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BobL

There is zero link between corn prices and what’s happening in Egypt and Tunisia. They eat rice and wheat.


17 posted on 02/07/2011 6:15:29 AM PST by Free Vulcan (Vote Republican! You can vote Democrat when you're dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Free Vulcan

“There is zero link between corn prices and what’s happening in Egypt and Tunisia. They eat rice and wheat.”

Directly, yes. Indirectly NO!! The West eats corn, wheat, and rice. So, what do we do when corn gets expensive...move over to wheat and rice, to some extent...and put pressure there.

The bottom line is that there is a relatively inflexible food supply, and when some new user comes in and consumes a big chunk of it (for stupid political reasons), the only response is for prices to rise.


18 posted on 02/07/2011 5:07:21 PM PST by BobL (PLEASE READ: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2657811/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: BobL

We don’t eat field corn that’s made into ethanol. It’s mostly used for animal feed, soda pop, and corn starch.


19 posted on 02/07/2011 7:39:23 PM PST by Free Vulcan (Vote Republican! You can vote Democrat when you're dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Free Vulcan

It all bumps over (and I’m sure you know that). Farmers that have a choice as to which crop move towards corn (any type) if there’s a greater demand there. It all (essentially) coming from the same amount of land...although, eventually, market forces should bring the supply up (assuming that we don’t go to 15% ethanol first).


20 posted on 02/07/2011 8:01:25 PM PST by BobL (PLEASE READ: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2657811/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: BobL
USDA stats:

Corn acrerage for the last 20 years. It's went up around 12% from the average.

Soybean acreage however is way up...

Which accounts for the loss in wheat but soy isn't used for ethanol. Increased acreage in corn and beans together pretty much offset losses in cotton and sorghum acreage as well as wheat. Cotton isn't food, sorghum is raised for sweetener and not food.

However, wheat production is about at the average of the 20 year production line. Losses of acreages attributable to soybeans than corn hasn't affected our wheat output. What's going on in Egypt has nothing to do with ethanol.

21 posted on 02/07/2011 8:45:12 PM PST by Free Vulcan (Vote Republican! You can vote Democrat when you're dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: rockrr
Tricky Ricky supported a mandate on ethanol and look what he told the voters in Iowa

Inconsistencies Though Santorum made few flip-flops during his congressional career, a notable exception was his shifting stance on federal ethanol subsidies. “Prior to 9/11, I was not a big fan of ethanol subsidies but 2001 changed my mind on a lot of things, and one of them was trying to support domestic energy and this is part of it,” Santorum told IowaPolitics.com January 27, 2011. “My pledge to you is to work with this industry to create a bigger and bigger place in the market for domestically produced ethanol biodiesel.”

22 posted on 03/17/2012 4:11:30 PM PDT by katiedidit1 ("This is one race of people for whom psychoanalysis is of no use whatsoever." the Irish)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

Comment #23 Removed by Moderator

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson