Posted on 01/21/2016 2:17:48 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
One of the most destructive environmental subsidies in the United States has found an enthusiastic supporter in Donald Trump.
"The EPA should ensure that biofuel ... blend levels match the statutory level set by Congress," he said yesterday in Iowa, adding that he was "there with you 100 percent" on continuing federal support for ethanol. "You're going to get a really fair shake from me."
The ethanol lobby has rigorously courted Trump since April, arranging to speak at least weekly, including at least three in-person meetings, in addition to an ethanol-plant tour, the Wall Street Journal reports.
Trump's support for ethanol may win him votes in Iowa, but federal support for ethanol is a bum deal for Americans.
Under the 2007 Independence and Security Act, Congress mandated that the United States use 36 billion gallons of biofuels, including corn ethanol and cellulosic biofuel, by 2022.
And the federal government not only requires the use of ethanol; it also subsides it. Tax credits between 1978 and 2012 cost the Treasury as much as $40 billion. Moreover, numerous other federal programs, spanning multiple agencies, allot billions of dollars to ethanol in the form of grants, loan guarantees, tax credits, and other subsidies.
Taxpayers suffer in other ways, too. Vehicles can drive fewer miles per gallon using ethanol blends than they would with pure gasoline. So Americans end up spending an extra $10 billion per year for fuel, the Institute for Energy Research estimates.
Ethanol also guzzles 40 percent of the U.S. corn crop, and the resulting scarcity drives up the price of food. This year alone, the Congressional Budget Office estimated, American consumers will spend $3.5 billion more on groceries because of the ethanol mandate.
Rising prices of corn feed have even put some small feedlots and ranches out of business. And as grocery prices increase, so does federal spending on programs like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
In a further hallmark of terrible policy, it's probably not even possible for Americans to meet the ambitious ethanol goals Congress and the bureaucrats at the EPA have envisioned.
Ethanol-intensive fuel blends can wreak havoc on car, lawnmower, and boat engines. In fact, many vehicle manufacturers will no longer offer warranties when ethanol comprises 10 percent or more of fuel; engine erosion simply becomes too common.
So, we can't really increase the total amount of ethanol mixed into our gasoline much more, but - especially as vehicles become more fuel efficient - Americans aren't consuming enough gasoline to meet the Renewable Fuel Standards with a 10 percent ethanol blend. The EPA acknowledged this inconvenient mismatch last spring, setting three-year ethanol-use requirements at 3.75 billion gallons below the legal minimums.
Ethanol's green benefit is also far from certain, explaining why even many within the environmentalist Left question - or outright oppose - the federal government's support.
It takes about 29 percent more energy to refine a gallon of ethanol than gasoline, and that process is often fueled by dirty sources like coal. Factor in the emissions generated during this production process, and ethanol sometimes comes in less green than old-fashioned gasoline. On top of that, burning ethanol also emits higher quantities of the chemical compounds that produce smog.
Then again, perhaps it's not surprising that Trump likes federal support of ethanol. After all, the real-estate mogul's business model has historically hinged on using tax abatements and other subsidies to make his building projects profitable.
(An example: As we reported in August, Trump Tower - which features a Gucci store Trump claimed was "worth more money than Romney" - has received a $163.775 million tax break from the city of New York.)
Many of Trump's constituents have rejected the so-called Republican establishment because of its corrupt preferential treatment for Wall Street and Big Business. But Trump's support for ethanol belies his populist Main Street rhetoric. In reality, he's just another rich, East Coast politician who would prop up special interests at the expense of the taxpayer.
-Jillian Kay Melchior writes for National Review as a Thomas L. Rhodes Fellow for the Franklin Center. She is also a senior fellow at the Independent Women's Forum and the Tony Blankley Fellow at the Steamboat Institute.
Thank you for the info.
I’m a major taxpayer. All the money goes out. I don’t get jack from the government. So no, it isn’t likely you can find a government program to cut short of those mandated by the constitution that would get me excited in a bad way. If you can think of some that are likely candidates I’d answer honestly.
“Still trashing Trump without having anything good to say or post—ever—about Cruz.
You must still be working for the GOPe.”
Interesting Comment -
1. Cruz is PRO LIMITED Federasl G’ment - I believe he will appoint limited G’ment type people to he Supreme Court
2. Trump supporters are today’s version of Perrot’s supporters - Pro America, but not very conservative or for a Limited Fed. G’ment
When you act like them you become them.
The Panderman shows he is no conservative once again. We are sick of subsidizing rich corn farmers in Iowa with our dwindling pay checks. We can’t afford to buy votes for that “very very rich” man.
And the Kardashians are very "popular" too. I will give them credit however, for being very savvy business and publicity wise, not unlike Trump, a fellow TV "Reality Show Celebrity" in a lot of ways.
We've reached peak Idiocracy as far as I am concerned.
If something makes economic sense to do, no one has to mandate it, people do it save money/make a profit. That's how capitalism works.
The rationalization that goes into justifying forcing consumers to buy something they don't want is amazing. It is how crony capitalism works. And who gets what is dependent on who has the best lobbyist and is why DC is a cesspool...
What are you smoking?
Whatever it takes to win Iowa. Even “selling his soul” isn’t too high a price to pay, according to an earlier post defending Trump’s position.
Cruz is my first choice and Trump second—but this thread was posted by a paid GOP operative. Last round she was paid by Perry, this time by the Walker team until he went belly up and by some kind of GOPe Trump oppo group ever since.
say anything you want for as long as you want but this issue is political dead meat for Cruz,, It’s all Levin has left to talk about on his radio show and it won’t move the polls one percent either way
Trumpen Conservatives behold your hero.
If you truly believe this rot, YOU pay it. Don't let Pander Bears like Trump force ME to pay for it through high taxes. Capitalism has proven to work in this country for more than two centuries. Socialism always fails. Price supports are socialism.
THIS IS A FLAT OUT LIE.
Engines are lasting longer than ever and fuel economy is better than ever and food prices are deflationary. Ethanol is not causing any of the problems you attribute to it. It is, however, keeping our food prices, our food supplies, and our food industry stable. Injecting politics into the food supply like this is dangerous.
You are correct. Market forces should determine the market. Any time government perverts the market by creating artificial market demand, we have trouble; especially when in involves the corruption of crony capitalism.
I’m sorry that you don’t know what you’re talking about. For the good of our country though, I truly hope a radical like you never has the opportunity to disrupt our food supply and destabilize our society.
One more article paid for by big oil including Middle East producers. What are we to do when capturing sunlight and carbon dioxide from air by corn plants proves a better alternative than providing more support for our enemies oil profits?
I'll buy my fuel from Texas and North Dakota. Don't you know that now the US is now nearly energy independent. And we would be totally independent if the government didn't force us to waste our resources on the ridiculous notion that you can turn corn into automotive fuel. That's only true if you ignore the diesel fuel, and petroleum based fertilizers used to grow it. In most cases, it takes more oil to produce corn than in the energy it provides.
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.