Posted on 06/15/2011 9:15:36 AM PDT by Bigtom67
Several Senate Republicans are angry at anti-tax activist Grover Norquist’s position on a major ethanol vote, creating a rift between one of Washington’s most influential conservatives and a Republican Party that has marched largely in lock step with his campaign tax pledges over the years.
“What Grover Norquist has just done is blown his pledge wide open,” Sen. Mike Johanns (R-Neb.) told POLITICO.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
Grover Norquist is a fly on something, I don’t think it’s “the Wall” however.
Grover Norquist is a fly on something, I don’t think it’s “the Wall” however.
Can anyone explain how cutting a subsidy is a tax increase?
ooops! Sorry for double post.
Watched Judge Napolatano on Fox last night. Ethanol was the topic. Mitch McConnell voted with the democrats in the senate and we lost by ONE vote. The judge stated it cost taxpayers 1.78 a gallon.
It sounds like a bunch of nonsense on both sides. Grover Norquist is not a reliable conservative, and neither are those senate RINOs who voted to keep the ethanol subsidies in place.
Removing ethanol subsidies is NOT a tax increase. If you take the damned ethanol out of gasoline, it will save everyone money. I have to take my weedwhackers and chain saws in to get fixed just about every year, or the damned things won’t start. Ethanol rots out their insides. And the same with my outboard motor.
And I’m sure it increases expenses on keeping my car engine going, too. Plus reducing mileage and making the car cough going up hills.
good points.
ethanol is insane on sooo many levels.
i like Thune, but his math is plain wrong.
they say ethanol reduces our foreign dependence.
but, in the entire (Pop Deming) process,
it takes MORE than a gallon of gas, to make a gallon of ethanol, which produces less btu’s than the original gallon of gas.
so, NET,
it INCREASES our foreign dependence,
and INCREASES the price of oil.
...and costs taxpayers over 6 billion a year, on top!
Good for Chambliss. The day that Grover Norquist ceases to be 'influential' in the GOP will be a very good day.
Such a surprise that they are a part of the Romney team of political hacks.
FU Norquist!
I didnt realize he was this stupid. Surprised he didnt demand Republicans extend Obama’s ‘Making work pay’ tax credit too.
I’ll say it again: using food for fuel is immoral and is the most obvious example of what is wrong with our government.
If you tell a Senator to get in touch with Common Sense he will most likely refer you to the Foreign Relations Committee.
Ethanol subsidies bad, therefore repeal. But no, we can’t do that.
Copyright restrictions also apply downthread.
FUGN!
Get out of politics and take Ralph Reed and the rest of College Republican irrelevant friends a slow boat to China...
>>>Can anyone explain how cutting a subsidy is a tax increase?
Congress has provided the motor fuel industry with a tax incentive for blending ethanol with gasoline in the form of 45 cents per gallon of ethanol tax credit known as the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit.
Why anyone has anything to do with this Muslim terrorist sympathizer is beyond me.
I don’t view the termination of a selective subsidy to be a tax increase. Maybe for those affected, it is. But not to the taxpaying public at large. To me it’s just a return to the normal status quo where they are now being taxed just the same as everyone else.
>>>I don’t view the termination of a selective subsidy to be a tax increase.
Would you view the mortgage interest tax deduction in a similar way?
For me personally, no I wouldn’t view it the same way. But that’s the whole problem with our tax code; it’s really nothing but a fight by special interests for preferential treatment. Your tax cuts should be eliminated but I’ll fight if you want to cut mine. It’s the flip side of the same coin when you talk about the spending portion of public finance. Whether the subsidy exists as the government not taking money in the form of revenue or handing out money in the form of some kind of “entitlement” is only a difference of nuance, not of substance.
In the end, fiscal decisions, both public and private, are not made on the basis of economic efficiency but rather on political connection and clout. And we wind up with a crazy distorted economy that is chasing away jobs and stifling productive innovative activity.
We need a streamlined tax code for everyone, a revenue generating system that is uniform and predictable, and designed only to obtain as much revenue as necessary to fulfill the core functions of government. Arguing over this deduction and that credit is an argument over re-arrangement of deck chairs.
Your logic leads to one inescapable conclusion:
Ethanol belongs in a beer can, not a gas tank. I think I have a new tag line.
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.