White House: What, repeal this expensive, dirty boondoggle of an ethanol mandate? Ridiculous!

HOT AIR

July 18, 2013

Oh, I’ll tell you what’s ridiculous: That the artificial incentives (hint: mandate) created by the Renewable Fuels Standard are messing with worldwide food prices, to the detriment of the poor; that both environmentalists groups and oil companies now think that ethanol is a generally terrible idea; that all of this biofuel production is turning out to be demonstrablynot even a little bit “green,” as it brings marginal lands into production and costs more carbon to produce than it actually saves; that Europe (Europe!) is now scaling back on what they’re beginning to admit is one heck of an expensive taxpayer subsidy; that the federal government’s arbitrary standards are a factor in rising gas prices; and that somehow, somehow, the Big Ethanol Lobby and the bureaucrats who love them are still able to say that this was ever a worthwhile endeavor while maintaining a straight face. That is all highly, wildly ridiculous.

But let none of that deter the oh-so-august policymakers of the Obama administration. Over the past few months, there’s brewing storm over the RFS, which requires refiners to blend an ever-increasing volume of specific biofuels into the fuel supply or else buy increasingly pricey credits, and even Congress has been examining the possibility that it would really just be better for everyone if we flat-out got rid of the whole accursed thing.

CONTˆNUED:  http://hotair.com/archives/2013/07/18/white-house-what-retract-this-expensive-dirty-boondoggle-of-an-ethanol-mandate-ridiculous/

Gas Prices: We Are Being Played by the Government

As gas prices rise and demand decreases due to economic conditions, the following excerpts show how energy and food are being used by the government to manipulate these commodities for their own purposes.  The Obama administration's views on energy have been inconsistent and without logic. The coal industry has been decimated by government regulations and labor unions to make the cost of this form of energy necessarily skyrocket.

The law requires 40% of corn production in the United States to be used to make ethanol. The energy required to make a gallon of ethanol is approximately the same energy that is released in its combustion so the net energy production is zero. The reality is that ethanol reduces the mileage per gallon so the average American must buy about 10% more ethanol based gasoline to drive the same amount of miles.

Who wins? The government collects another 10% in taxes. What are the consequences?

1. Reduced mileage/increased energy usage
2. Increased taxes
3. Motor/hose corrosion
4. Higher corn prices
5. Higher livestock prices

We are being played by the government but the real goal is control. Whoever controls your food and energy controls you. Liberty guarantees our freedom and it will be defended. How do I know? Because the government understands this core founding principle and knows we will defend ourselves but more importantly, we will defend Liberty. Do you really think the National Weather Service will be receiving those hollow point bullets?

CONTINUE READING:  http://www.teapartynation.com/profiles/blog/show?id=3355873%3ABlogPost%3A2160660&xgs=1&xg_source=msg_share_post

NEWSMAX

Ethanol Production Fueling ‘Food Inflation’


While rising food prices have been a factor in recent riots in Egypt, Tunisia and elsewhere, the United States is continuing to increase its use of corn to make ethanol, pushing up grain and meat prices worldwide.

“The global economy is getting back on its feet, but so too is an old enemy: food inflation,” The Wall Street Journal states in an editorial, noting that the United Nations benchmark index for food reached a record high in December, “raising fears of shortages and higher prices.”

In 2001, only 7 percent of America’s corn crop, about 707 million bushels, was used to make ethanol fuel for vehicles. By 2010, nearly 40 percent of American corn went for ethanol — almost 5 billion bushels out of total U.S. production of 12.4 billion bushels.

American farmers account for about 39 percent of global corn production, and about 16 percent of the crop is exported, so America’s ethanol production can influence world prices.

March futures for corn recently hit a 30-month high of $6.67 a bushel, up from $4 a bushel a year ago.

Also, since 40 percent of U.S. corn production is used as animal feed, rising corn prices push up the cost of beef, poultry and other items as well.

“This trend is the deliberate result of policies designed to subsidize ethanol,” and it “coincides with a growing consensus that ethanol achieves none of its alleged policy goals,” The Journal observes.

Ethanol supporters claim it reduces American dependence on foreign oil, but a Cornell University scientist calculated that even if the entire American crop was used for ethanol, it would satisfy just 4 percent of our oil consumption.

And the Environmental Protection Agency has downplayed assertions that ethanol provides a cleaner source of energy than gasoline, saying it “has a minimal to negative impact on the environment,” according to The Journal.

The American Thinker on Monday observed: “Today there is a global food shortage and sky-rocketing prices. This has become the underlying factor in the riots in Tunisia, Algeria and Egypt, where up to 56 percent of a person's income is dedicated to the acquisition of food. These riots are now leading to the upheaval of governments and the very real possibility of the ascendancy of the radical elements into control.”

A significant factor “in the overall global food situation is the American decision to, in essence, burn food in its cars, a policy championed by the environmentalists since the 1990s,” American Thinker also noted.

“There is no quicker way to foment riots and revolution than to deprive the populace of food, particularly when so much daily income goes into feeding oneself and one's family. The pictures we have seen in North Africa may well be repeated elsewhere throughout the world.”

Noting that Congress recently voted to extend the $5 billion tax credit for blending ethanol into gasoline, The Journal concludes: “At a time when the world will need more corn and grains, it makes no sense to devote scarce farmland to make a fuel that exists only because of taxpayer subsidies and mandates.

“If food supplies tighten and prices keep rising, such a policy will soon become immoral.”

http://news.newsmax.com/?Z6O6YsduR8ijg3PlHXRUmnumz3ykbLR1Z

Last Call for Ethanol--Taxpayers for Common Sense

Last Call for Ethanol


Volume XV No. 28: July 16, 2010

Like a sailor on a late night bender, corn ethanol boosters are belly up to the bar trying to cajole another drink from the subsidy tap before the lights come on. Some in Congress seem all too ready to give in, costing taxpayers billions in the process. But in light of the yawning budget deficit and the failed promise, ethanol should be forced to make its own way in the marketplace.

Like alchemy of old, the idea of turning corn into fuel is an attractive one - a renewable, domestic, more efficient fuel. So for years Congress has lavished a tax credit, import tariff on foreign ethanol, usage mandate, and other subsidies in an effort to give the industry a leg up. But these efforts have yielded as much success as the alchemist had turning lead into gold. And according to a new Congressional Budget Office report, corn ethanol costs taxpayers $1.78 to reduce gasoline consumption by one gallon.

To promote the use of ethanol, we give fuel blenders (generally the big oil companies) a 45 cents per gallon tax credit. That costs more than $5 billion per year. But the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit (VEETC) expires at the end of the year, and the industry is scrambling to keep the subsidies flowing.

The Renewable Fuels Association and their allies are trying to get something – anything – in place. The tax writers in the House are considering a proposal to extend the tax credit for another year, but at a lower rate – 36 cents per gallon. That would still cost $3.8 billion. And under budget rules, Congress would have to find offsetting spending cuts or revenue increases to pay for the extension.

Just this week another ethanol enabler, Growth Energy, rolled out a plan to end the subsidies. Well, not really. Sure, they called for phasing out the tax credit – so far so good – but then replace it with infrastructure subsidies so that ethanol could compete in a "fair and open market." Apparently the irony was lost on them. Instead of tax credits, Growth Energy wants money to pay for pumps at gas stations and pipeline infrastructure. Oh, and a mandate that all vehicles sold in the U.S. be flex-fuel.

Let's not forget, VEETC isn't the only subsidy the ethanol industry is bingeing on. There is a renewable fuels mandate to use biofuels, predominantly corn ethanol. The Government Accountability Office has pointed out that this mandate, which will go up to 15 billion gallons by 2015, is the primary driver of ethanol production. So why should we just give billions in tax credits to oil companies to use something they were going to use anyway?

After more than 30 years of subsidies, it's well past time for the ethanol industry to grow up and stand on its own. In light of our current fiscal situation, we cannot afford to keep picking up the tab. So rather than handing the subsidy-addicted ethanol industry another last swig, Congress should show them the door and let the credit expire at the end of the year. Then taxpayers will have something to toast.

http://taxpayer.net/sarticle.php?proj_id=3625&t=Last