Members TampaYankee Posted November 25, 2010 Members Posted November 25, 2010 I NEVER thought I'd see the day when Tom Coburn, Jim Demint and I would line up on the same side of an issue. Hell finally has frozen over. Is ethanol mandate the first test of GOP seriousness? By GREG SARGENT WASHINGTON – IS THERE a new intra-GOP war brewing — a sequel to the Tea Party’s big win in the battle over earmarks? Conservative GOP senators are opening a new front in the fight over government spending that could be similar to the earmarks standoff: They are calling on Congress to let billions in ethanol subsidies expire at the end of this year. Jim DeMint and Tom Coburn, two leading conservative senators who have pushed the GOP to be serious about its anti-spending rhetoric, told me they are calling on fellow Republicans to urge Congress to allow ethanol subsidies to expire. This could put other Republican senators in an awkward spot and subject them to the wrath of the anti-government-spending Tea Party if they don’t go along. This is the perfect test of whether the GOP is serious about its anti-spending rhetoric, since some Republican senators — such as Orrin Hatch and Chuck Grassley — have supported the ethanol subsidies. It appears that DeMint and Coburn are dead serious about pressing to end the subsidies, which include a 45-cent-a-gallon tax credit for ethanol blenders that heaped nearly $5 billion on to the deficit last year. “We need to let the ethanol subsidies expire and we need energy developed based on market forces,” Coburn said in an interview. He said senators who are not willing to let them expire are “just protecting a parochial interest ahead of the national interest.” Coburn added that renewing the subsidies would show that Republicans were not heeding the message their electoral victory sent about reining in spending — precisely what Tea Partiers argued about earmarks. While this issue could also create tensions among Democrats along regional lines, its significance as a true test of whether Republicans are serious about reining in spending offers Democrats an opening to exacerbate GOP divisions. It also creates the prospect of an unusual alliance between conservative Republicans and environmentalists who are urging Democrats to support nixing the subsidies. It’s hard to know whether this issue has any chance of gaining traction. It will depend on how hard DeMint pushes and on whether the issue catches fire among Tea Partiers and right-wing bloggers, as the earmarks fight did. But this is definitely one that bears watching. Greg Sargent writes the “Plum Line” blog at www.washingtonpost.com, from which this is adapted. See original article at:http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?articleId=307f2865-8130-478c-973d-d3003ba7fbae&headline=Greg+Sargent%3a+Is+ethanol+mandate+the+first+test+of+GOP+seriousness%3f Quote
Members MsGuy Posted November 25, 2010 Members Posted November 25, 2010 TY, you might be interested in this short article in National Review by Sen. Coburn. The good Dr. even quotes Tom Jefferson on the subject of earmarks: "Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to James Madison, spoke directly against federally-funded local projects. “t will be the source of eternal scramble among the members, who can get the most money wasted in their State; and they will always get the most who are the meanest.” Jefferson understood that earmarks and coercion would go hand in hand." Full article Quote
Members RA1 Posted November 25, 2010 Members Posted November 25, 2010 Interesting articles and interesting commentary at the bottom. Obviously, you know I agree. However, I wish to comment on an aspect about alcohol fuel. A direct subsidy seems to be overkill. What I think we need would be a time limited tax concession, which admittedly is a subsidy by a different name but most of the "tax law" has tax advantages enacted to promote some activity or another. They have simply run amok or, I should say, Congress and other pols, have simply run amok. Allowing a tax deduction on the interest of a home mortgage is to promote home ownership. Tax deductions on new equipment for businesses, ditto. However, back to alcohol, I would like to see the promotion of alcohol fuel limited to non-food sources. If you haven't noticed at the grocery store, food is on a major way up in price. Partly because of the price of oil but also because of the never ending pressure of the world population increase. We will need fuel for the foreseeable future but we will always need food. There are plenty sources to make alcohol without using food; corn and the like were seemingly just too available and, for a while, cheap + the direct subsidy. Happy Turkey day to you all. Best regards, RA1 Quote
Members TampaYankee Posted November 25, 2010 Author Members Posted November 25, 2010 However, back to alcohol, I would like to see the promotion of alcohol fuel limited to non-food sources. If you haven't noticed at the grocery store, food is on a major way up in price. Partly because of the price of oil but also because of the never ending pressure of the world population increase. We will need fuel for the foreseeable future but we will always need food. There are plenty sources to make alcohol without using food; corn and the like were seemingly just too available and, for a while, cheap + the direct subsidy. Precisely my objection!!. I too have no a problem in principle using tax incentives to achieve certain practical and policy goals. It depends on the policy of coures. I do have a problem using tax policy to drive the cost of food up in my grocery store and the world market -- even for fuel. We are not that close to engery oblivion that we have to choose between travel and feeding ourselves. Unnecessarily driving up the price of food is morally objectionable not to mention practically terrible policy. It has become an article of political faith in the mid-west in Presidential and Congressional politics much like farm subsidies to pay big agribusiness not to grow certain crops. I agree with leaving any gasahol subsidies to non-food sources. Quote
Members RA1 Posted November 25, 2010 Members Posted November 25, 2010 Always good that we agree (but not always necessary, as I am sure you will attest). Happy turkey day. Best regards, RA1 Quote
Members TampaYankee Posted November 25, 2010 Author Members Posted November 25, 2010 Always good that we agree (but not always necessary, as I am sure you will attest). Happy turkey day. Best regards, RA1 I'm pleasantly suprised that we have ended up on the same side, especially more than once. At one point I thought we were destined to meet on the field of honor. Just goes to show that the improbable is not impossible as my buddies Demint and Coburn demonstrate. Quote
