Skip to comments.Gingrich, Backed By Ethanol Lobby, Supports Subsidy
Posted on 12/09/2011 3:02:10 AM PST by 1010RD
The worlds largest ethanol producer is one of Newt Gingrichs biggest donors, reports USA Today. A long-time supporter of the controversial subsidy, Newt is also the only GOP candidate to unequivocally support ethanol subsidies.
The political action committee of ethanol producer Poet and its employees including CEO Jeff Broin have donated $20,000 to Gingrichs campaign. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, this makes Poet and people connected to the company the second largest donor to his campaign.
But the ties go deeper. Broin also serves as the chairman of ethanol lobbying firm Growth Energy, the same firm that hired Gingrich as a consultant in 2009. From 2009 until early 2011, Growth Energy paid Gingrich $575,000. It was one of many gigs that earned Gingrich millions in the years after he left Congress.
Its a tradition that every four years, candidates come to Iowa to swear allegiance Iowa corn growers and the ethanol subsidy a 45 cent tax break for each gallon of ethanol blended with gasoline. But this year is an exception because the party, under increasing influence from the Tea Party, has pivoted on the subsidy. This summer, many Republicans in Washington voted to end the $6 billion-per-year ethanol subsidy. Though it ultimately survived, subsidies have become a rallying call for fiscal conservatives looking to cut waste and Tea Partiers who dont want government picking winners and losers. No other candidate is as uncompromisingly for the subsidy than Newt. Mitt Romney, who has been vague on the issue, most recently says that while he initially supported the subsidy, should not go on forever hardly a comforting position for Iowa farmers. Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum, and Ron Paul have all come out against the subsidy.
While Iowa voters still like it, its no longer a popular position and one that Newt will have to justify going forward.
This was evident in an interview with Glenn Beck on Monday, where Newt sparred with his host on this issue. Beck called the subsidy crony capitalism and a cause of out-of-control spending. Newts response, a response he has given many times, was to stress that ethanol helps America become energy independent. In addition, he told Beck, government investment isnt always bad likely an even harder sell to the Tea Party crowd: Weve always believed that having a strong infrastructure and having a strong energy system are net advantages because theyve made us richer and more powerful than any country in the world, he told Beck. The Erie Canal was built that way.
Newts pro-ethanol view, however, hasnt hurt him yet in Iowa or elsewhere as he continues to rise in the polls.
Georgia Gun Owners Blast Newt Gingrich
Newt will support anyone who gives him money.
Ethanol is one of the biggest scams going.
Please don’t trust him. Don’t be stupid.
To me there’s a huge difference between subsidizing infrastructure projects like highways, bridges, cannals, etc. and subsidizing the making of a product.
Another reason I don’t care for Newt.
1.) Experiment sure, but not as a base fuel, as a Supplement, see no. 2
2.) Check out "Ethanol Boosting Technologies out of Cambridge Mass and their Direct Injection Supplemental system. It turns a V6 into a Diesel Torquing Monster Motor Replacement. If it truly works, it is amazing, their maybe some cost issues for now.
3.) We are using the wrong feedstock, not corn!
And don't forget anti-gun (he wanted gun owners to register their thumbprints with the government).
Hes a tremendously inspirational person as far as rallying troops, he said. But as far as governing, I think he doesnt have the discipline. He doesnt have the capacity to control himself. And he cant stay focused.
Newt cannot stop himself from having sex with women who aren’t his wife. If a man cannot govern his own passions how can he govern a country?
ethanol? C’mon man!
I worked with Newt many years ago prior to his political career. He was a narcissistic class “A” arrogant self serving a$$hole then, and he apparently has gotten worse. WHAT IS WRONG WITH PEOPLE that they can’t see through phony lying hypocrits like Newt. I loath Mittens, but I believe that the only worse president than Newt would be 0, and I’m not 100% sure of that.
Newt should put out bumper stickers that say “Vote for Newt-the best President money can buy”.
he told Beck. The Erie Canal was built that way.
I’m going to have to write up vanity explaining just how bad the Erie Canal was.
Went way over budget
Had a series of management changes due to mismanagement
Took eight years
Was technologically obsolete before it was completed due to the railroad
I doubt Newt could have come up with a worse example of how government can do good with our money.
It makes one wonder what kind of history lecture Freddie Mac got for its $1.5million paid to Speaker Moonbeam.
We have the gift of the worst President in remembered history.
We have the curse of the worst GOP field in remembered history.
Our primary vetting process has given us Newt or Romney?
Romney has one, massive in my opinion, strength over Newt - marital fidelity. In my years of business I’ve never had an adulterer not also cheat in other areas of his life. Well, just one and he ended up in rehab for alcoholism and cocaine addiction. If you cannot be honest with your #1 gal, who will you be honest with?
I am really getting tired of having to choose the lesser evil.
Great book and it covers the folly of government ‘investment’ in railroads, canals, steam boats, etc. Sadly it doesn’t make it up to the 21st century and cover things like solar, wind and wave power.
That is the final nail in Newt’s coffin for me.
For the first time in my life, it looks like I’m staying home on election day.
as bad as it is (Newt makes me throw up a little in my mouth)...nothing can be as bad as the commie we have in office right now.
It is ridiculous that this is the best we can do.
But if we have no choice - then we have no choice.
The country won’t survive 4 more years of Obama.
It just might survive Newt.
Don’t stay home. Vote for your local reps. I’m not pulling the lever for newt or mittens, but I’ll be voting for my congress critter and state legislators.
I somewhat disagree. Bachmann and Perry are both relatively conservative. Perry is a bit of a hispanderer, and is not good at debate, but being slick in the public speaking arena is not what is necessarily good as a president. I'd want someone who studies the issues in depth before embarking on any policy. Ron Paul is a bit loony, but I'd still take him over either Mittens of Newt.
Unfortunately, what gets you elected is not what qualifies you for office. Look at the arrogant stupid ass we have now. I guess he does represent the large segment of the country that thinks other people owe them a living.
“but being slick in the public speaking arena is not what is necessarily good as a president.”
But, after 8 years of insane Bush hatred by the media, it is what is REQUIRED to become President.
That, or the President of NBC Entertainment writing your speeches, and directing your media coverage, like Zucker did for Obama.
Newt the ethanol whore, Newt the Freddie Mac whore, Newt will whore out for anyone who shows him the money. For the life of me I can’t figure out why so many supposed ‘conservatives’ support this slime.
This has been explained by Newt. He does not support ethanol because it is cost effective energy. He supports ethanol because of national security implications.
He wants America totally weaned from foreign oil that does nothing except provide power and wealth to enemies who hate us.
The cost of keeping armies and navies and air force wings in the Middle East or close by the Middle East is enormous. Any energy we produce makes that military expenditure grow smaller.
The security we gain goes beyond the value of a BTU of energy.
That's what I meant when I said what gets you elected isn't what makes you qualified for the office.
I got a news flash for you. Ethanol INCREASES dependency on foreign fossil fuel, because it takes more fossil fuel calories to produce ethanol than you get back out of it. Ethanol as a motor fuel is nothing but a big fat taxpayer funded boondoggle to reward a small segment of the populace at the expense of the rest of us.
Your buddy Newt is, as one of the other posters put it, a whore. I remember when he first whored himself by changing party affiliation from Democrat to Republican because he was paid to do so by then head of Southwire corp, Roy Richards.
First, the net energy ratio of corn-based ethanol (useful energy divided by the energy required to produce a unit of ethanol) is at best 1.25 but in practice a lot worse. Some have calculated a ratio less than one, meaning that it takes more energy to produce ethanol from corn than the energy content of the fuel.
Also, as with any new industry there are efficiencies gained in production. Next, there are new methods and products gained. Finally, there is similarity to other production that is gained.
Current research on cellulose ethanol rather than just corn ethanol will permit the entire plant to be used. This newer method could result in a better fuel ration.
Next, any research on ethanol will benefit methanol. Methanol can be had from coal, and is one form in which clean coal can be used in alcohols. This would be a huge gain.
As always, forward looking by Gingrich is ahead of the naysayers.
State-controlled media will choose our candidate. Again.
A Gingrich bashing thread.
That’s a change. Not.
Not by anyone who has looked at the enthalpy of the entire process. It is now and ALWAYS will be a net energy loser. No process variations are even theoretically possible that allow you to violate the first and second laws of thermodynamics. The only way it could make sense is if we would build another hundred or so nuclear plants to provide the energy needed to produce enough ethanol to provide a significant energy independence, and then ethanol would be an energy carrier for nuclear.
Newt is now, has been in the past and probably always will be a whore without any findamental principles (unless you count the liberal stuff he did with Pelosi) who does whatever he's piad to do.
And the ‘ethanol subsidy’ - which is a actually a tax credit for ‘blenders’ (oil companies) - ends in a couple weeks anyway!
I think I’ll just write in “Mickey Mouse”, and vote for Republican Senators and House members, and pray for four years of gridlock.
As our use of subsidized ethanol has increased so has our dependence on foreign oil. The way to oil independence is to produce oil and improve oil technology as evidenced by oil production from shale in North Dakota. Yet we continue to invest in boondoggles that do not produce one bit of demonstrable energy independence.
Actually, the use of fuel corn has caused the price of corn to increase. The increased fuel price has cut corn subsidies for under-priced corn. Prior to the corn-fuel demand, corn averaged about $2 a bushel. Many small operations found that a price below which they could profitably operate. Now, they’re getting above $5 a bushel, and we are keeping American farmers in business who otherwise would be out.
Additionally, what isn’t factored into the equation is the multiple uses of the corn used to produce the ethanol. After the fermentation, quite a bit of solid product is left that is STILL sold for feed and other uses.
I’m not sure this story is fully told yet.
It’s obvious you don’t like Gingrich and that I do. I don’t know that we’ll ever come together on this, but I know that we’ll agree on defending America, supporting our troops, and retaining our rights. We’ll just disagree sometimes on how best to get it done.
Have a great day, from occupied ga, and keep up the criticism. You prevent us from being complacent and force us to look up facts.
You do a great service. Thanks.
I think fossil fuel is the best fuel available right now. I’m a long-time advocate of coal.
At the same time, I firmly believe in developing alternative fuels, and this nation has a history of government being involved in the R&D end of that.
Nuclear, for example, would NOT have come about in a timely way except for the government program that split the atom.
There are huge possibilities in biomass, wind, hydro, geo, solar, and in the same way as the gov’t helped in many ways in the opening of the west, in the trans-continental railroad, and in the development of waterways, I see nothing that violates conservatism in the government being involved in R&D in projects TOO BIG for an individual, a community, or a corporation to undertake.
Because they aren't Thinking Conservatives, they are Lemming Groupies.
And since the government still controls the technology, we came to a dead stop on improvements in nuclear power generation some decades ago.
There are not huge possibilities in hydro. Read 'The Cadillac Desert', we've exhausted the possibilities for sizable dams in this country. Smaller dams aren't that economical. There are also problems in scaling wind, solar and biomass.
None of these alternatives are 'too big' for a corporation to take on. They are only too risky for a corporation to take on in a large scale manner. Only the government is stupid enough to do something that risky at large scale.
wind, geo, solar, and biomass and hydro can be worked on one tower at a tie, one plant at a time, one dam at a time without worry too much about scaling it up. Once you have a MW of solar, you just need more land to get to 1000MW.
Or, if you want to use lots of small generators, you just need to figure out how to circumvent the losses involved in coordinating those generators. But this can be tested in a college lab, it doesn't need 1000x1MW in generators for proof of concept.
Nukes are the best choice for greatly increasing our energy output at reasonable cost. And there's lots of possibilities out there for increasing the safety of nukes, most of which are not the product of government sponsored research.
Yes, ethanol subsidies are at the top of EVERY voter’s list of concerns. And yes, radical left sites like TPM are where ALL conservatives should get information and advice on which GOP candidate they should support or not support. /sarc
Ironically, I was just debating a liberal about this very thing. Don’t be fooled. You have to read this article:
Don’t stay ignorant to the Big Government ‘investment’ lies and you won’t fall for Newt’s tricks. He’s not that smart or forward thinking, he lacks self-control, and he lays down with liberals/liberal policies for personal gain.
I probably know him better than you do. But... It's good having a discussion without personal insults that so many on this site feel that they have to add. Have a great day.
national security implications - LOL.
It's when they subsidize things as if they are ready for market but are not proved to be effective that I disagree.
Most of the so called green products are simply not ready for prime time and should not be touted as if they are.
When does the ethanol mandate expire?
I agree. There needs to be a way to get the R&D money and then forever cut the gov’t out of the commercial application end of it.
I’m not really sure we’ve even hit on the right combination with solar. These little solar cells, panels, thin-sheets, etc. are basically the focus for years now. Surely there’s a better way than that to get at all the heat bombarding this planet.
Come on - 8 billion a year to burn up 40% of our corn crop in order to water down our gasoline is a GREAT INVESTMENT (in the political future of anyone running for office in or around the Corn belt).
Bachmann supports ethanol subsidies, Perry supports solar and wind subsidies (not sure if he supports ethanol).
With the added benefit of higher food prices to consumers.
Don’t forget about lower gas mileage.
It’s a win-win-win for America!
Don’t shoot the messenger.
Are you saying that Gingrich doesn’t support ethanol subsidies by government?
Does he support the ethanol mandate?
Is ethanol a national security issue or a boondoggle?
Are there any alternative methods not involving taxpayer money that would expand energy alternatives and lower the cost of American energy?
There is a way: private money. There are plenty of billionaires and they can spend their cash hunting the solutions, not ours.
Surely theres a better way than that to get at all the heat bombarding this planet.
Petroleum is the result and we should be using it. Look at Thorium as a potentially safe nuclear alternative. Newt is behind the curve on this and is bent on money.
Bachmann doesn’t have the resources. You’re left with Newt, Mitt and Perry. All flawed candidates. What you can look at is executive experience and being a legislator isn’t the same. Newt did a great job with the Contract and then couldn’t keep his mouth or his zipper shut.
He’s a terrible executive.
That leaves Mitt and Perry. I’ll take Perry flaws and all. He’s been governor our 2nd largest state, team him with Rubio and you’ve got a winning ticket. Obama loses all he’s invested in the 99%/OWS crowd. That entire meme dies with two self-made men one a small town rancher and the other the son of Cuban immigrants.
We need both Houses and the WH to right our country. If we cannot gain the WH we need to take the Senate and hold the House. That’s my... well I was going to say two cents, but it looks like twenty five at least. ;-]
If he wins the nomination, I'll be all for him.
Best of luck.