backtop


Print 118 comment(s) - last by mindless1.. on Jun 26 at 7:02 PM


39% of all corn produced in the U.S. goes to ethanol production   (Source: washingtonexaminer.com)
House to vote next

Lawmakers in Washington are working hard to write and pass laws that would have fuel efficiency standards in the U.S. changing drastically in coming years. While some in Washington support the new standards for vehicle efficiency, others oppose the standards. Along with mandating better fuel economy across a carmakers fleet, Washington is also seeing green and renewable fuel alternatives for vehicles.

In the U.S., ethanol has been added into the fuel we run in vehicles for years. Ethanol is as high as 10% in fuels today and some that are against ethanol, which is derived from corn, claim that the biofuel is increasing the price of some food items in America. A report published by the GAO claims that the use of ethanol has driven the cost of some food items up as much as 20%.

With all of Washington in cost cutting mode in an effort to shore up the federal budget lawmakers are looking at everywhere money can be saved. One place that some in the Senate want to save money is by repealing the subsidy on ethanol. The Senate voted Thursday 73-27 to end a $0.45 per gallon tax credit on ethanol-blended gasoline starting on July 1. According to those that support the repeal, the subsidy cost taxpayers $5.6 billion last year.

Growth Energy, and ethanol association, CEO Tom Buis said, "The Senate missed an enormous opportunity to take real action on deficit reduction and energy policy when it failed to put oil subsidies and giveaways to the same test as ethanol."

On the other side of the coin, Kate McMahon coordinator of biofuels campaigns for Friends of the Earth said, "Senators scored a win for the public and for the environment by voting to end this $6 billion giveaway." She continued saying, "[the Senate delivered a message] that the ethanol industry's days of living high off the taxpayers' hog have come to an end."

The effort to end the ethanol subsidy now goes to the House for voting. White House spokesman Jay Carney says that the Obama administration supports a reduction in the ethanol subsidy, but does not support a full repeal. Some claim that 39% of the corn produced in the U.S. is currently going into fuel tanks. With the costs to reach the proposed 62mpg regulations for fuel economy reaching nearly $10,000, some automakers are calling for the removal of ethanol from gasoline. Ethanol is renewable and greener than petroleum fuel, but reduces fuel economy.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Duh
By Solandri on 6/18/2011 6:56:59 AM , Rating: 3
Ostensibly, corporate subsidies are used to increase supply of whatever it is you're subsidizing (usually with the goal of a corresponding price drop). It doesn't always work out that way, but that's the rationale.

If you try to apply that rationale to welfare for the poor, then you arrive at the conclusion that the purpose of Welfare is to increase the number of poor people.

So the error that causes this contradiction you're pointing out does not originate in the people you're criticizing. It originates in the person referring to this sort of thing as "corporate welfare". It's not welfare, it's subsidizing - they're different things. You can argue that the subsidy isn't working. Or that it isn't worth it. You can even argue it's corrupt and being abused. But the only way the subsidies can be considered "welfare" is if they're given exclusively to poorly performing companies, but not to successful ones. Like the subsidies for green energy technologies.

While I'm against corn ethanol, this topic has kinda turned into a broader criticism of corporate subsidies and lobbying. Here's the thing. Do you believe in "no taxation without representation"?

If you do, and you also believe in taxing corporations, then that is the same thing as believing that they should have representation - i.e. that they should be able to lobby. If you don't want them to have representation but you still want to tax them, then the fair thing to do is to give that tax revenue back to corporations in the form of subsidies. You can shape those subsidies to fit your agenda (e.g. tax oil companies to subsidize green energy companies). But if 100% of the tax money you collect from business isn't being given back to business as subsidies, then either you don't believe in "no taxation without representation", or you believe corporations should have representation in government (i.e. lobbying is ok).

It is self-contradictory to believe in "no taxation without representation", support taxing corporations while opposing corporate subsidies, and at the same time say corporations should not be able to lobby.


RE: Duh
By YashBudini on 6/18/2011 11:45:14 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
It is self-contradictory to believe in "no taxation without representation", support taxing corporations while opposing corporate subsidies, and at the same time say corporations should not be able to lobby.

Individuals are routinely taxed without any representation. We don't have lobbyists. Taxes are determined by earnings and profits, if they are working properly. To subsidize and tax at the same time is contradictory.

It's "We The People...." not "We The Corporations....."


RE: Duh
By shin0bi272 on 6/19/2011 7:00:59 AM , Rating: 2
lobbyists are not representation... they are people paid to pay off politicians. the politicians they are paying off ARE THE REPRESENTATIVES THAT YOU VOTED FOR. Your idiotic claims are the exactly like those of the whiskey rebellion. They tried to claim the same no taxation argument but president washington rolled out the militia against them because they had the ability to vote for their representatives.


RE: Duh
By YashBudini on 6/21/2011 12:10:17 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
they are people paid to pay off politicians. the politicians they are paying off ARE THE REPRESENTATIVES THAT YOU VOTED FOR.

And the result of what you stated above is my (and everyone else's) representation is thrown out the window by those politicians who are suppose to represent the people who voted for them but now only represent those with the extra payoff.

That's what bribes do, they pay off a person to do something they are not suppose to do, throw a fight, shave points, look the other way, or ignore your constituents in favor of only the corporations with the biggest wad.


RE: Duh
By Solandri on 6/19/2011 10:49:26 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Individuals are routinely taxed without any representation. We don't have lobbyists.

Every individual who is taxed has representation in government. If you chose not to exercise your right to vote, then that's your own fault.


RE: Duh
By YashBudini on 6/19/2011 4:00:28 PM , Rating: 2
Your oversimplification doesn't add credibility. Money outweighs you and what the person you voted for is suppose to do for you.

And speaking of oversimplification, you think only 1 of the 2 parties does this? Both parties are entrenched, both parties do this, and I vote for neither.

Your comment about not voting came out of nowhere, and it's not the only thing you used in your argument from this particular location.


"When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song." -- Sony BMG attorney Jennifer Pariser














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki