by Cid_Yama » Tue 22 Feb 2011, 17:02:50
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')ith the 2012 presidential election already on presidential aspirants' front doorstep, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is hiking the campaign trail, stomping the path of ethanol subsidies.
Last Tuesday, the former Speaker visited the Renewable Fuels Association summit in Des Moines, touting the praises of ethanol and its progressive impact on the environment. He then tenderized the farm industry saying, “We have had a problem of farm income back to the 1890s and 1880s [and] the fact is that every time the farmers start to do well someone starts to attack them.”
A battle between Gingrich and the Wall Street Journal is now raging, as Gingrich accused the Journal of being “just plain flat intellectually wrong” about its anti-ethanol views. He then accused “big cities” and “big urban newspapers” of denying prosperity to rural America.
Gingrich, along with his ethanol hawking colleagues, have friends to repay, and promoting policies that will benefit the Corn Belt may present campaign assets for the 2012 election — for both money and votes.
But Gingrich and other “conservative” Republicans who support ethanol subsidies are risking the dreaded label of “fiscally irresponsible bureaucrat.” Currently these subsidies amount to about $6 billion annually and with the current drive for decreasing government spending, particularly among tea party supporters, pro-ethanol politicians may become heated targets.
link$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')e are also seeing the usual quadrennial pilgrimage of supposedly fiscally conservative Republican presidential candidates to Iowa, where they swear eternal fealty to farm subsidies generally, but, even worse, to ethanol subsidies in particular. Perhaps the most revolting example of this spectacle was former House speaker Newt Gingrich's claim that opposition to ethanol subsidies and mandates stems from "big city" folks who just don't like farmers.
But Gingrich is hardly alone. Mitt Romney defends farm subsidies as a "national-security issue," because somehow if farmers don't get an annual government check, al-Qaeda will hold our food supply hostage. Romney, of course, is also a big backer of ethanol subsidies, as is former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty, who once keynoted the annual convention of the American Coalition for Ethanol. Sarah Palin? Mike Huckabee? Sorry, they are on the farm-subsidy/ethanol bandwagon too. Indiana governor Mitch Daniels sounded promising: "Farm subsidies in general ought to go away," he says. But he too can't break the ethanol addiction. A "national-security issue," he says.
Incidentally, ethanol subsidies were extended as part of the lame-duck session's compromise tax agreement in December. It was pushed in large part by six Republican senators, including John Thune, another putative presidential candidate.
And by the way, Ethanol Subsidies was Bushes baby. Even as researchers were discovering that the "green" benefits of Ethanol was a bunch of Hooey, Republicans were pushing through increased ethanol subsidies as a means to redirect federal dollars to big Agribusiness. Ethanol subsidies were actually
during the Clinton Administration.
Those subsidies aren't going to small farmers, they are going to ADM and Monsanto. Oh, those poor giant Agibusinesses, whatever would they do without their Ethanol subsidies?
Ethanol is just a convienient way to package agricultural production into an easily transportable form and sellable overseas. An easy way to ship our food out of the country for profit while our poor are priced out of the food market.