Steve King: End ethanol subsidies
posted at 3:05 pm on June 2, 2011 by Ed Morrissey
That would be Rep. Steve King, a Republican who represents Iowa — and a lot of corn farmers. Eliot Spitzer challenges King on CNN’s In The Arena to take a position on ethanol subsidies, and King falls reliably on the side of fiscal conservatism. King makes the point that the subsidies were originally intended to start and mature the ethanol industry, a task that succeeded years ago, and that it should present no problem for Iowa farmers to remove supports on the industry now that it “can stand on its own”:
That sets up an interesting challenge to Mitt Romney, who publicly supported continuing ethanol subsidies. If an Iowa Republican can call for the end of ethanol price supports, why can’t a Republican presidential candidate do the same?
The rest of the interview consists of a debate over the debt ceiling. Spitzer makes the point that every Republican budget plan requires more borrowing in the short term, at least — so why not agree to raise the debt ceiling now, since it will have to go up under every single plan proposed? King responds at the end by saying that approving a debt ceiling increase first really means approving a debt ceiling increase only.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Spitzer should have Tweeted.
He’d still be in office
Roy Rogers on June 2, 2011 at 3:08 PM
Steve King talking about ethanol sounds a little too much like Children of the Corn to me.
DrAllecon on June 2, 2011 at 3:11 PM
Because Mittens is a spineless wimp who’s pandering to Iowa voters.
Doughboy on June 2, 2011 at 3:13 PM
End all the subsidies. If they’re great ideas, they can stand on their own without being propped up by the government.
mizflame98 on June 2, 2011 at 3:15 PM
Ethanol may be failing in the marketplace, as consumers look for pure gas instead.
http://www.wyff4.com/news/28085674/detail.html
backwoods conservative on June 2, 2011 at 3:15 PM
“Eff you, give us our freebies.”
-Iowa corn farmers
Bishop on June 2, 2011 at 3:17 PM
I’d be more interested in how he feels about ethanol mandates. Between the two, the mandates are more insidious.
Vashta.Nerada on June 2, 2011 at 3:17 PM
Wow! This is just not Romneys day.
Amadeus on June 2, 2011 at 3:18 PM
I’d like to see a law enacted that any govt subsidy be it for ethanol, wind turbines, mortgage tax deduction, poets in Texas….whatever, has to be renewed by a vote in congress every 5 years. And if the vote is not there, the subsidy ends.
angryed on June 2, 2011 at 3:23 PM
Sounds like an excellent question for the debates…
Seven Percent Solution on June 2, 2011 at 3:24 PM
Time for another famous Romney Flip, eh?
JimK on June 2, 2011 at 3:24 PM
Good deal, Rep. King!
davidk on June 2, 2011 at 3:25 PM
Time for that pancake….to FLIP!
search4truth on June 2, 2011 at 3:28 PM
That’s quaint – what’s good for America and not me my constituency, no matter what. Why he’s just trying to sound like a founding father -or it’s Tina Fey trying to sound like Rep King?
So good to see – keep it up? Sarah needs a male VP.
Don L on June 2, 2011 at 3:29 PM
That’s some good support for T-Paw right there.
Red Cloud on June 2, 2011 at 3:33 PM
Who is the idiot who thought that pouring water in our gas tanks was a good idea????
Ethanol makes no sense whatsoever as a fuel for vehicles: never did, never will.
NEXT: Repeal the incandescent bulb ban!!!
landlines on June 2, 2011 at 3:33 PM
Why can’t King let Mitt have his day? What class.
/
faraway on June 2, 2011 at 3:35 PM
It’s not just welfare moms in the ghetto who are living off of the public teat. Salt of the earth white farmers in flyover country love them some free money, too. Everyone’s a taker.
keep the change on June 2, 2011 at 3:37 PM
This shouldn’t be all that surprising. I was born in King’s district, lived there until I was 12, and still have lots of family and friends in the area. Most Iowans I know couldn’t give a cornhusk about maintaining ethanol subsidies.
steebo77 on June 2, 2011 at 3:38 PM
Ethanol as a fuel source cannot be a viable fuel source unless it stands on its own.
Problem is, and gummint knows it, is that ethanol from crops sucn as corn can’t stand on its own considering the alternative value of corn as a food source. Since corn is more valuable as a food source than fuel source, it will never become a viable fuel source.
So unless we can find a non-food source crop to grow on a massively massive scale, ethanol from farming sources will never make it. But then, what food-source farming acreage will be given up to accommodate fuel-source farming? Well… again, the value of this farming acreage for food will increase as food production decreases, making the land more valuable for food than fuel.
So the only way for ethanol to be a viable fuel from any crop source is via government subsidies, which in the long run automatically makes it unvialbe.
Truth is, if turning food source farming into fuel source farming was a viable energy source, U.S. farming ingenuity would already be doing it. The fact we aren’t doing it already in the private sector is clear indication it isn’t viable.
Lawrence on June 2, 2011 at 3:38 PM
Actually, Mitt Romney is showing spine by remaining consistent in his support of ethanol subsidies.
In contrast, its Tim Pawlenty who is pandering to voters by flip flopping on the issue.
Conservative Samizdat on June 2, 2011 at 3:45 PM
Eff you back! Jersey corn tastes just as good.
CurtZHP on June 2, 2011 at 3:48 PM
Good for Rep. King….end the mandates too!
tomshup on June 2, 2011 at 3:50 PM
Actually I’d like to see Washington tackle that one first. It should be a relatively easy battle to win and would give them some momentum to follow up by killing Ethanol subsidies and mandates.
UltimateBob on June 2, 2011 at 3:51 PM
I still don’t understand why CNN thinks they should give the crooked perv a job.
shick on June 2, 2011 at 3:52 PM
With that statement, Rep King might just have made Palin’s
short list for VP or a cabinet post.
Amjean on June 2, 2011 at 3:55 PM
First Cuda steals some Mitt thunder in NH today, now Steve King from Iowa puts Mitt on the defensive over ethanol subsidies…. 1 question for Mitt, will you vote to repeal obummercare if elected prez?
**crickets**
maineconservative on June 2, 2011 at 4:00 PM
is there any truth to the movie “Food Inc” that corn and corn ethanol subsidies are massively responsible for illegal immigration? I tend to view such documentaries with a grain of salt and a pound of skepticism….
maineconservative on June 2, 2011 at 4:03 PM
Ethanol needs to go the way of the dinosaur.
sDs61678 on June 2, 2011 at 4:04 PM
Ag Secretary? Anyone would be better than Vilsack. Incidentally, it seems Vilsack’s wife, former Iowa First Lady Christie Vilsack, will be carpetbagging into King’s district so that she can challenge him for his congressional seat in 2012.
steebo77 on June 2, 2011 at 4:04 PM
Ethanol is a good automotive fuel. The problem is in producing it efficiently enough that it can compete with petroleum without government backing.
The high octane rating of ethanol would allow for higher compression ratios which yield more power per cubic inch. Likewise, the lower air:fuel ratio it burns at also produces more power.
While it does have disadvantages- water absorbtion, hard starting in cold weather, and less energy (miles) per gallon, it also has advantages over gas that shouldn’t be overlooked. I for one wouldn’t mind the 15-25% boost in horsepower over using gas.
Hollowpoint on June 2, 2011 at 4:07 PM
End ethanol subsides
my outboard motor on June 2, 2011 at 4:10PM
tomg51 on June 2, 2011 at 4:11 PM
Consistant pandering and support of expensive, big government policies is still pandering and support of expensive, big government principles.
There’s nothing courageous about choosing positions based on what you think a particular demographic wants to hear. Keep in mind Romney supported auto industry “investments” (read: taxpayer bailouts) while campaigning in MI, and higher Social Security benefits while on the stump in FL.
Doing it once can be written off as a fluke or simple political difference in viewpoint. Doing it repeatedly marks a pattern.
Hollowpoint on June 2, 2011 at 4:12 PM
I know I wouldn’t mind the cost of grain coming down. It’s more than doubled in the last 5 years. I used to get a 45# bucket of wheat berries for $24, now I pay $48. And, wheat is a “cheap” grain. Other grains are much more expensive.
txhsmom on June 2, 2011 at 4:26 PM
Good man!
AshleyTKing on June 2, 2011 at 4:28 PM
There is no way of knowing this would bring down the price of corn..after all, corn is a commodity and all the commodities are up. And ethanol is not new, there was ethanol when corn was $1.85 a bushel.
I don’t really care one way or the other about this, but I do think there are some misconceptions here.
For one thing, a subsidy is a direct payment, this is a tax credit..just like the socalled oil subsidies are actually tax credits.
And when ethanol is made, a primary by product is corn mash and that is used as cattle feed…so making ethanol does not take the corn out of the feed market, you can still use for feed.
Terrye on June 2, 2011 at 4:30 PM
Simply ending the subsidies means we take a hit at the gas station. The mandates have to go too, so that we can choose gasoline or E10 or E85, whichever our vehicles can tolerate and whichever is most economical.
While they are at it, end electric utility ‘renewable energy’ mandates as well.
slickwillie2001 on June 2, 2011 at 4:40 PM
I’ve often asked about supposed subsidies for corn, but I never get an answer.
However, corn gets more than just a simple tax credit. Fuel blenders are required by the federal government to either use biofuel in their blends or to purchase biofuel credits. The only purpose for this is to help create a biofuel market. This could be seen as another type of “subsidy.”
blink on June 2, 2011 at 5:01 PM
Ok. So farmers aren’t growing corn instead of other grain because of the sweet kickbacks from the govt?
txhsmom on June 2, 2011 at 5:03 PM
there is a remarkable article at Salon about the optimistic outlook for the US in energy reserves. It takes issue with Peak Oil, Fracking problems and even Al Gore’s vision of AGW.
So it looks like there’s at least one sane liberal. But, the AGW has been mythic for 20 years…and the Left/Corporate/Meida nexus can’t simply abandon ship.
But in a sane world, an Advanced Country, imagine there is no AGW, imagine there are no Goracles to tell you what to do, imagine freedom for your children, its not hard to do.
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/05/31/linbd_fossil_fuels
r keller on June 2, 2011 at 5:05 PM
and, btw, I think ethanol is immoral. 40% of our corn crop is burned and not eaten.
r keller on June 2, 2011 at 5:07 PM
Ethanol in its purest form (under laboratory conditions) immediately absorbs water from the atmosphere upon contact with the air around us. It is horrible for engines, especially gaskets, seals, and the fuel system. I doubt it is doing the exhaust system any favors either, come to think of it.
We need to end the mandate and the subsidy. If the above isn’t reason enough, now is not the time to further inflate food and other prices by subtracting corn and corn by-products from the supply chain.
hillbillyjim on June 2, 2011 at 5:07 PM
And the tariffs that keep out foreign ethanol. This is a terrible thicket of market distorting policies.
AshleyTKing on June 2, 2011 at 5:28 PM
Nothing more repugnant than being forced to ruin a good engine.
AshleyTKing on June 2, 2011 at 5:32 PM
Most of you may not know this, but King’s likely Democrat in his new district is Christie Vilsack, wife of former Iowa governor and current USDA secretary Tom Vilsack. Christie moved to Ames recently in order to challenge King. Ames is the home of Iowa State University, a major center of agricultural studies. Expect massive amounts of USDA pork to flow to western and central Iowa.
nkviking75 on June 2, 2011 at 6:06 PM
if they do say good bye to the Farm Vote, the Agri-Business vote, Iowa and the other farm states will all be blue, etc, etc. Stupid and short sighted we Republicans are! McCain was anti ethanol and look where it got him! Knuckleheads. DD
Darvin Dowdy on June 2, 2011 at 6:31 PM
Bulltwaddle. You don’t have to “say good bye to the Farm Vote” to oppose the ethanol scam. I do believe you underestimate the good people of our heartland.
hillbillyjim on June 2, 2011 at 6:36 PM
Stupid and short sighted? That would be the programs in question, among other things.
AshleyTKing on June 2, 2011 at 6:50 PM
Um, didn’t McCain actually win the Republican primary?
blink on June 2, 2011 at 7:11 PM
Ethanol is not an efficient fuel. Period.
There is not enough acreage in the entire US to even begin to meet the current need for gasoline, and if we could find THREE Brazils we would only THEN start to meet our passenger car needs for fuel. That doesn’t start in on diesel and aircraft fuel.
Ethanol was added to gasoline to help oxygenate it. That problem has been solved by fuel injection and computer control of combustion: modern vehicles work better and get better mileage with straight gasoline than with ethanol blends and produce less pollution because they can get more efficient combustion per cycle. When you reduce the energy output per cycle you need more cycles: that increases fuel consumption and pollution. Ethanol blend gasoline is a dead loss as a fuel additive. Its not efficient as a straight fuel, and it puts areable land that could be growing FOOD CROPS into producing an inefficient fuel crop.
In other words Progressives love it as its a boondoggle that is ineffective, lines the pockets of cronies, and forces consumers to pay for more fuel, thus getting more fuel taxes… and it can have adverse effects on the amount of corn we hold in reserve which is now at its lowest point since 1937. So one bad season and America can start to see food prices skyrocket and people starve not only here but across the world.
Isn’t that lovely? Would a World War started because of food shortages be such a Progressive wonderland? And if you take a look at the cropland flooded this year, plus the cooler season and later start to planting you just might get that scenario. And the blood of such a catastrophe is on the hands of the politicians and those who support them for such ‘policies’.
ajacksonian on June 2, 2011 at 8:45 PM
Well done.
hillbillyjim on June 2, 2011 at 9:35 PM