Posted on 02/05/2011 7:55:03 PM PST by SeekAndFind
Newt Gingrich got himself in a bit of hot water in some conservative circles recently with his support of Ethanol subsidies. It drew the scorn of the Wall Street Journal editorial board, who implied that the former speaker might have more than a passing financial interest in propping up King Corn. On Thursday Newt took to the “letters” pages of the WSJ to fire back. In the interest of fairness, we should allow him to make his case.
Second, I am not a lobbyist for ethanol, not for anyone. My support of increased domestic energy production of all forms, including biofuels and domestic drilling, is born out of our urgent national security and economic needs. It is in this country’s long-term best interest to stop the flow of $1 billion a day overseas, in particular to countries hostile to America. Think of what $1 billion a day kept in the U.S. economy creating jobs, especially energy jobs which cannot be outsourced, could do. Hence, I have supported measures to increase domestic energy production throughout my career in public life.
For instance, in 2008 at American Solutions, we launched a petition drive that gathered 1.5 million signatures in support of lifting the moratorium on new offshore drilling in America. I also wrote a book, “Drill Here Drill Now Pay Less,” and co-produced a movie with my wife, Callista, “We Have the Power,” that argued for an “all of the above” energy strategy which would maximize all forms of domestic energy production.
Nevertheless, the Journal attempts to equate my career-long commitment to increased American energy production with the anti-energy agenda of President Obama. This is a laughable charge, especially considering I have been one of the most vocal opponents of the president’s energy policies since he took office.
In 2009, I testified before Congress against the Obama administration’s cap-and-trade energy-tax scheme. I have also spoken out against the administration’s move to use the EPA to regulate carbon and the new barriers to offshore energy development imposed by the administration since the Deepwater Horizon accident last summer.
There are many areas of energy policy that Newt Gingrich gets right, and he takes great pains in this letter to point them out. For those he should be applauded. Unfortunately, the reader is left wanting after reading this defense.
The meat of the subject is not whether or not Newt favors energy independence and stands opposed to the president’s drilling permitoreum. That’s never been in question as far as I know. The specific issue which the Wall Street Journal broached was his support of ethanol additives and subsidies. To this, Mr. Gingrich seems to offer short shrift, saying only that he’s in favor of an “all of the above” policy.
I’ve also been in the “all of the above” camp, but we have to be realistic about the science, and after many years and hundreds of billions of dollars, ethanol’s use as a major energy source has turned out to be limited at best and rife with unique problems of its own. Newt fails to address any of the specifics in his rebuttal.
By the same token, being perceived as having gone off the beam on one issue out of so many is hardly reason to throw the baby out with the bath water. But I would definitely like to hear more from him with specifics as to why he’s staying in the ethanol camp.
But I would definitely like to hear more from him with specifics as to why he’s staying in the ethanol camp.
Corn futures?
I don’t trust Gingrich as far as I could throw him.
It’s never a good idea to burn your food.
Could it be that Iowa is the first primary?
Stop ethenol subsidies now.
Pray for America
Ethanol is Washington’s curse on this nation. It is proof that their solutions can only be bad. Screw you Newt!
I love the picture of NEWT&NANCY. He is really annoying. She is a succubus.
And try finding a yellow corn tortilla. Twice the price!!
All the limited yellow corn seems to go into corn chips and cereal. And those have skyrocketed.
yitbos
He failed during the Clinton impeachment,running rather than fighting and has been tilting leftward ever since.Mr.Newt has been trying to grovel to the D.C. crowd and the drive by media attempting to curry favor for the sin of opposing Clinton and the socialist agenda.Kinda like Miss Lindsey Graham.
Newt is an opportunist who will suck up to anyone who can conceivably advance his political career or wealth. Ethanol lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi, corrupt former mayor of Atlanta Shirley Franklin, etc., and then when caught in the headlights tries to weasel out of it with a non sequitur. Conservatives don’t need to support him. When he doesn’t make it in 2012, after living off his campaign fund he’ll end up as DC lobbyist of some organization like the corn producers.
Newt is actually Grahamesty is a patriotic professor’s clothing - Beware!
Proceed with extreme caution!
Lost of your Genuine Conservative Political Bearings are at risk!
DC Insider corruption suspected.
Maybe he “testified before Congress against the Obama administration’s cap-and-trade energy-tax scheme”, maybe he didn’t.
But regardless, he sat on that couch with Stalinist Pelosi and declared with her that Global Warming is the problem and that carbon is the cause. Once he did that, the only “solutions” can be big government interventions of one kind or another. And that means some form of cap-n-trade.
If he tries to say that he and Stalinist Pelosi had free market solutions in mind when they agreed to agree on this “vital issue”... then you know he’s a liar or a dunce.
Former speakers. Former. That’s the good part.
“My support of increased domestic energy production of all forms, including biofuels and domestic drilling, is born out of our urgent national security and economic needs”
Stoooooopid Newt. Increasing food prices means wars and revolutions across the world. How is this in our advantage, especially since the ‘energy’ is affordable only because of huge subsidies.
Dolt!
Maybe Newt realizes the American Consumer is the ultimate beneficiary of all these production enhancement subsidies.
Lets say 5% more disposable income X 300 million people from cheaper supplies of Food, Cotton and Fuel....
300,000,00 X 45,000 income X 5% is some 600 billion
pretty modest compared to 6 billion ethanol subsidies that as per Urbanchuk actually pay back the Treas 3 to 1 basis
You the American consumer can afford IPads and IBM’s because of these subsidies.
Ethanol production has now essentially duplicated all the oil we import from Saudi Arabia.....
Farmers, via self financed coops built the infrastucture themselves.
I’ve used the product for 20yrs in lawnmowers, cars, p/ups, chainsaws, snowmobils, boats etc etc without problems.
I think its basically poor maintainence by people removed from maintainence blaming the problems on ethanol
Uh, no.
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.