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.
Snooze, I would like to know Bachmann's position..
Any state with a lib senator like Harkin should have no influence in choosing the Republican nominee for President.
Reach down and remind yourself you’re a man and take a stand you fence sitting wuss.
He’s trying not to offend either side of the issue which just gets both sides irate when they’re this far apart and resolute. Don’t tell the Iowa farmers what they want to hear and the New Hampshire taxpayers something else, be a man and pony up with what you really would want to see happen.
People have had enough of wafflers in the party, try being firm and make a stand. One side might not agree with it, but at least both sides will respect you for it.
Heh. But this kind of tough, candid talk is the best way — or the least-bad way — of dealing with it.
If only Chris Christie were conservative across the board!
“AMEN” to that!
What f**king genius thought converting the most commonly used food stuff in America into fuel was a good idea?
Even if you ignore the scientific shortcomings of Ethanol, there are many, many, many other source materials to use to produce Ethanol...sources that won’t cause the price of food to increase.
Whores. All whores.
Tim , you never were on my short list and you have now been permanently banned from that list ... I got REAL GAS a few weeks ago with no ethanol and my mileage jumped by over 10% ... I thought my odometer was off..
ok, that does it for me. anyone who supports ethanol subsidies does NOT get my support. apparently, the RNC must support these subsidies.
Add to that list of disqualifiers the Des Moines Register. Because of the older demographics there, people in Iowa are still newspaper readers. The Register is the defacto paper of record for the state and has a long heritage of so-called "progressivism" (going back to the Cowles era).
In its present incarnation, it's among the most steadfastly liberal daily I've encountered. That's made worse by the effective monopoly it has statewide. There's not a newsstand from Council Bluffs to Davenport where the vile Register isn't prominently displayed. And too many people there take its editorial pronouncements as gospel.
‘direct, honest and principled is no way to go thru a political career son’.../dean wormer...
No subsidies for any industry. Let the market run naturally.
Government frequently pulls the plug on industry. Look at defense contractors. They hire lots of engineers to develop a program then Congress cuts the program. I’m sure it happens elsewhere, too. Businesses should NOT ever depend on the government for their profits.
Would this apply if someone was stealing money from you on a regular basis? Would you want to taper them off gradually? Or just get them to stop period?
I have never seen such an aggregation of RINO Loser Flake Cowards as we seem to be entertaining for POTUS.
I agree with that but would be willing to compromise SOME by having a phase-out over a period of years. Maybe that is all that T-Paw is really saying here ... but he sure is IMPLYING that he’s more pro-ethanol subsidy, just with “some changes.” Whatever that means!
What puts me in mind of phase-outs is this. My dad was one of a handful of investors who built a small condo complex in Florida (10 units) in the early 80s. Then the 1986 tax changes took away all of the tax breaks on which the whole investment relied.
Now, I am not saying that my dad “deserved” a phase-out or should not have factored in the risk of a change in the tax code. But I believe that such big, tectonic changes are sufficiently, well, important that they should be phased in or out over, say, five years. JMO
My bad on my chart. 3.59M should be 3,590 Million, or 3.59 Billion gallons, if my public edjamacation serves me correctly.
Everyday businesses go under and people lose their jobs. The most sure way to make sure the subsidies are ended is to do it ALL at once. They must be wholly eliminated and, ideally, the Federal employees in support of these programs should also be fired (that will never happen).
Timid steps towards Liberty always have bad results. People need to understand the nature of government -- when slashing, it is best to do it fast and deep.
Government at it's core is force. If one considers the totally of misery caused by governments at all levels it boggles the mind. If we take timid steps to take on the evil parasite class, it is almost certain the parasites will badger the elites enough to keep the hard earned tax money pouring into their corrupt pockets.
I have absolutely no pity on those taking ethanol subsidies. Let them face the reality of sudden job/income loss.
Any “alternative energy” program, if viable, will be self-supportive. If ethanol were so great, it would be a no-brainer, and would not need subsidies which not only make the cost of our fuel more expensive, but really are an additional tax on all parts of our economy - because what is essentially “burning our food” for fuel causes feed and nearly all commodities to skyrocket.
I’m not and I’m not in favor of “single-issue” politics. But it’s highly depressing or maybe I should say discouraging to see promising conservatives impale themselves on FLAMING BONEHEAD stupidity.
Another one bites the dust.
Only government could come up with an "alternative energy scheme" that a.) made filling your tank more expensive, b.) actually burned more fuel to go a given distance and c.) did nothing to reduce pollution.
And, at the very same time, inflated food prices.
Only government could conceive of such a scheme. If it had been proposed in the private sector, it would've been laughed out of every board room in the country (with the possible exception of General Electric's).
We're in dire straights. And yet, it's not the current condition of my nation that causes me so much consternation regarding the future of my homeland.
It's the realization that despite the glaring need for leadership, there simply isn't any coming from either party, and there is very little on the horizon to instill a glimmer of hope.
...is my favorite campaign slogan.
Color our nation in desperate need of a yep...
I will never vote for a politician who favors ethanol, and if they all support it, I’ll vote 3rd party or not at all. Ethanol is not only bad business and bad for engines, it’s also starving people. Maybe not in the US, yet, but overseas, where poor countries can’t afford to buy as much corn as they used to.
How about being fair to the people who have been paying the bills? I don't care if some people have gotten used to the subsidy. They've leeched off me long enough. Cut them off cold turkey.
I hear you and and am with you.
gotta suck-up to those Iowans with the Hawkeye Cauci coming up (we’ve gotta move some real primaries ahead of this thing)
Same to a lesser degree with NH.
Sums it up rather nicely. Thank you.
1 Iowa 3.59M Gallons Sen. Tom Harkin (D)
2 Nebraska 1.74M Gallons Sen. Ben Nelson (D)
3 Illinois 1.22M Gallons Sen. Dick Durbin (D)
4 Minnesooota 1.11M Gallons Sen. Stuart Smalley (D>
Thanks for the list!