Skip to comments.Pawlenty defends ethanol subsidies (First Newt, now Tim, Who's Next?)
Posted on 04/28/2011 12:00:35 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Tim Pawlenty, after being asked yesterday about his support for ethanol subsidies, which is a key issue in Iowa.
"We can't just pull the rug out from under the industry," he said.
"There are going to have to be some changes, but we have to be fair-minded about it."
When Mitch Daniels was sworn in as governor in January of 2005, there was one ethanol plant in Indiana. Now there are twelve operating plants and a thirteenth set to start running early next year.
This isn’t an accident: Daniels aimed to increase Indiana’s annual ethanol and biodiesel production to 1 billion gallons by 2008.
Pawlenty signed legislation mandating that all gas sold in Minnesota contain 20 percent ethanol by 2013, up from 10 percent.... In 2005, Pawlenty also urged other states, at a meeting of the Governors’ Ethanol Coalition (which had 31 member states at the time), to mandate that all gasoline contain 10 percent ethanol by 2010.
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 a president. Even Al Gore now admits that the only reason he supported ethanol in 2000 was to goose his presidential prospects, and the only difference now between Al and Newt is that Al admits he was wrong.
Here’s yet another asshat that we don’t need!
Tiny Tim . Follow the money .
“We can’t just pull the rug out from under the industry,” he said.”
BS!!!!!! There are plenty of people and animals that can eat the corn and I guess NASCAR can go back to using gasoline.
It’s our own fault for allowing IA to have such enormously disproportionate influence in our choosing of a president. Any candidate with reasonable notions with regard to agricultural subsidies (farm welfare) will get clobbered and probably knocked out of the race before it really gets started.
Same to a lesser degree with NH.
F** the Iowa caucuses. King Corn must die!
I feel a “hug Obama” moment about to occur . . .
And one less Republican hopeful to content with. . .
Mark Levin already exposed that Gingrich got $300,000 from the Ethanol crowd. It would be safe to assume the same thing for Pawlenty
Drill Baby Drill!
The only partial agreement I have with T-Paw here is that, yes, getting rid of a government subsidy or tax break typically should be done OVER TIME, not immediately, because folks have made VERY-long-term decisions based on the reasonable (if wrong) view that the government would not suddenly shift its position. I take the same view with most all agricultural subsidies.
But, gutless. What I want is a GOP candidate who, even in Iowa, has the guts to say,
“Look. I know ethanol subsidies are popular in Iowa. But two things: they don’t work, and we’re BROKE ANYWAY. Although I promise to phase them out instead of ending them instantly, I will not B.S. you here and tell you that I favor keeping them. If you’re going to vote against me over this bit of special interest spending, then so be it.”
The only change that needs to be made is to quit doing it. Ethanol wrecks engines and is more expensive per mile than regular gasoline in most cases. And it's putting my dinner in my gas tank instead of in my stomach.
What’s Trump’s position?
Ethanol is a deal breaker for me.
Let me know WHEN you consider to run.
As far as I have heard, I don’t think there are any politicians in the agricultural states, no matter how conservative, no matter if they are new Tea Partiers elected last November, who have dared to come out after ethanol.
That’s one reason why I really like Sarah Palin. She has sound moral principles. She follows her convictions, and she is one of the few politicians I know of who have not only cut state spending projects but have refused handouts from Washington.
Even the most conservative politicians seem to think that as long as the money is coming from Washington, they owe it to their state to take it. After all, if they don’t take it, some other state will.
That’s understandable, but it’s the kind of attitude that has gotten us where we are today. The same with farm subsidies.
No, it won’t be easy to wean the ethanol producers off the government teat. But it must be done, even if not everyone in your community agrees. Sarah is the only politician I know who successfully made that case. She was not forced out of office because refusing the Bridge to Nowhere and similar federal handouts made her politically unpopular. She was forced out of office by dozens of malicious lawsuits that bled away all of her own money. These frivolous suits were funded by the taxpayers, but her successful defenses were not. She had little choice but to step down at that point.
“He who pays the piper calls the tune” Ethanol lobbyists shell out big dollars to Republicans and Democrats.
I would feel better about paying them to crow corn for food not fuel. But we do anyway right?
That's a very astute observation. My work takes me frequently to Iowa and other parts of the upper Midwest. To this day, that "populist progressive" philosophy still lingers from the days of RINO "Fighting" Bob La Follette and his ilk as well as the grange movement. I still come across some people my age (approaching 70) up there who speak fondly of Henry Wallace for his "work" during his reign in the USDA.
I'd sure like to see Oklahoma play a pivotal role in the primaries. It's the one state that had not a single county go for O'Bambi in 2008. Our neighbor across the Red River has two of the most reliably Conservative members of the Senate. And, when I venture up north on I-35, it does "send a thrill up my leg" when I see signs like this at the filling stations:
Another one just bit the dust, IMO.