Not gonna happen: Bush budget leaves ethanol tariff alone
Guess Energy Secretary Sam Bodman's hint about dropping the 54-cent-per-gallon tariff for ethanol was for naught. The massive budget that President Bush presented to Congress today (it's a record $3.1 trillion) does not do away with the tariff, yet. It's set to expire at the end of 2009, and Reuters says that a DOE spokeswoman said the issue will be dealt with later this year. For now, the domestic ethanol industry remains resolutely protected by the feds.
The rest of the budget loves military spending while stripping $196 billion over five years Medicare and Medicaid. Meanwhile, the true cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were not included in the budget, as White House press secretary Dana Perino admitted to reporters. The budget keeps Bush's
Related:
[Source: Reuters]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Wise Golden 9:43PM (2/04/2008)
Sebastian -- did you simply reprint a memo from the DNC, or did you write this yourself? May I ask what you opinion of Bush has to do with the environment? The line about the cost of the war is straight from Harry (the war is lost) Reed's mouth.
Bribes? I don't remember being bribed.
You don't like rich folk, do you? You've got a real problem with people making money (like farmers and ethanol producers.) Maybe you should consider employment of some form so that you can get a tax bribe too.
Reply
MarkR 7:51AM (2/05/2008)
Yep, the bribe thing is over the top. While I don't think its the best way to stabilize the economy, unlike some I think it helps along with other stimulus. and if Sebastian doesn't like it I suggest he move to a third world country that has a extreemly high unemployment rate and doesn't have internet in every coffie shop or ever other home.
I sometimes wonder if Sebastian is like some in the green movement that are so far out, they cant see the forest for the trees and have a total lack of understanding for the economic impact of their "wish."
Its no stink bribe, and don't forget your stinkin demacrats voted for it as well and you can do what you want with your money. The Demicrats and Republicans both want you spend it to boost the economy, to stabilise the employment market but that doesn't mean you have to. You see Sebastian this is a free country and you can do what you want with the money, Personaly i'd probably save it for the all out economic hell that will break loose if Billery or Obama is elected. Just whait till either of those two idots discharge tens of thousands of troops on the street without a job as they slash military spending and thats just one of the many reason I will never vote for either of them.
Reply
Lad 8:03AM (2/05/2008)
Have you noticed the oil companies are again reaping record profits? And, at the same time President Bush continues to includes the oil subsides in his budget bills; nothing new. This White House has delayed the development of solar energy in favor of fossil fuels since taking office, nothing new. What is new is the interest in extracting fuels from coal and supporting corn ethanol. What do you see in common here? Right! all these fuels will be dispensed at gas stations. And who owns the gas stations? Right again...the oil companies. Economics 101: If you control the product flow, you control the end pricing. And, the oil companies have always been about energy control.
Hopefully this path to energy disasters will end with the termination of Bush's time in office and the next President will see the need to seriously invest money into bringing solar energy and battery technologies to market. I, like many others, live in fear that Bush will set up the conditions of war with Iran before he leaves office. If you notice Iran, like Iraq, also has a large oil reserve.
This has been a long and tiring eight years of mismanagement and of watching our country losing it's wealth to the oil industries and watching the trickle down economic theory once again fail at the expense of middle-class Americans.
I believe the survival of our country and our way of live is tied to Solar Energy and Electric vehicles. Our future is not in finite energy resources like uranium, oil, gas, and coal. When the reserves run out, we become a third world county.
Reply
Sebastian 8:25AM (2/05/2008)
@ MarkR,
just fyi, they're certainly not my "stinkin demacrats"
Reply
Owain Ozymandias Buck 8:36AM (2/05/2008)
"Just whait[sic] till either of those two idots[sic] discharge tens of thousands of troops on the street without a job as they slash military spending and thats just one of the many reason I will never vote for either of them."
Uh, yeah. Troops are one thing that won't be cut. I don't know how far back your memory goes, but the first big RIF started under a Republican administration. If a Democrat wins the presidency, they will be no more able to quickly withdraw from Iraq than a Republican would. We've slapped the tar baby--we aren't getting out fast.
Anyway, this budget--as it applies to ABG--has good points and bad points. There are some really good energy initiatives, and a lot of business as usual treats for the oil boys. They do take research on renewables seriously though. I just wish they put the same money into renewables as they do weapon R&D.
One thing that is a matter of fact and not opinion is that this budget is HUGE. Really huge. It's the largest in history. Where are the fiscally conservative principals at work here? As much as I dislike Clinton, he did actually reduce spending.
Reply
Dad 9:10AM (2/05/2008)
"the true cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were not included in the budget"
Sure, 3k dead on 9/11 after the previous 8 years of denying we were at war. The first failed bombing of the towers should have been warning enough, but we were consuming 1 dollar a gallon gas and buying hundreds of thousands of SUVs while enjoying the "tech" bubble that crashed in 2000. We are now paying for those 8 years of having our heads in the sand.
Enuff said.
Reply
Tim 10:04AM (2/05/2008)
If campaign contributions and political "support" are considered "bribes" then we need unpaid volunteer legislators instead of pandering "career" politicians.
Don't like the system? Vote RON PAUL so we can go back to following the Constitution.
Reply
psarhjinian 10:56AM (2/05/2008)
Ron Paul!? Are you mad?
Ron Paul would be about the worst possible option from an environmental perspective. He'd more or less cede pollution controls to "the market" and "let the market decide". Translated from libertarian-nutcase-ese to English, this means "let people and organizations pollute and abuse as much as possible until the situation becomes totally untenable and people start dying".
I like the man personally and I think there's some value in some of what he says, but full laissez-faire just does not work on a national scale. Yes, the market will correct, but the correction would be so brutal (and the lead-up so unpleasant) that you'd have been better off with competent government regulation.
A libertarian paradise gets you robber barons and (if you let it go on long enough) warlords. It's the same problem national-scale communism had: people, in groups, suck.
Reply
Mike 12:06PM (2/05/2008)
You don't like rich folk, do you? You've got a real problem with people making money (like farmers and ethanol producers.)
I don't have a problem with people making money, but I do have a problem with people being handed huge chunks of my tax dollars just because they happen to own a Congresscritter or three. If ethanol is so profitable and such a smart idea, why does it need to be "protected" with a 54-cent tarriff?
Reply
jake 12:46PM (2/05/2008)
@Mike
That's exactly what I am saying about ethanol. Why do we have to protect them like they were babies if they are competitive? And it's coming out of our own pockets. I thought conservatives were against all froms of socialism and all for free trade. The oil subsides I can understand a little, as our economy rides a lot on the oil price, (though as mentioned, the oil companies are making record profits so I don't really get much why we are still subsidizing them). Ethanol subsides not so much.
Reply