Doyle Clings to Failed Ethanol Policy

Doyle doesn’t want to give up the ethanol mandate.

Wisconsin’s agriculture secretary is lashing out at a GOP proposal to halt the mandatory expansion of corn-based ethanol.

Two dozen U.S. senators, including White House nominee John McCain, want the Environmental Pollution Agency to restructure its rules requiring more ethanol from corn by 2022.

[...]

Rod Nilsestuen, secretary of the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Affairs, calls the GOP plan the wrong medicine.

Without the recent increase in renewable fuels, he said gas prices would be even higher today.

This is flat out wrong.

But groups like the International Food Policy Research Institute and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations are pointing to ethanol production for biofuel as responsible for between 10 and 30 percent of the rise in food costs, The New York Times has reported.

Doyle has based a good chunk of his economic policy on biofuels - especially ethanol.  He’s not going to back down off of it no matter what the facts actually are. 

1. You can bet that he’s also looking at the farm vote--AND some well-moneyed CornAHole interests.

   Really, Owen.  What’s “policy” or “the common good” vs. election funds?

   Posted by dad29 on May 06, 2008 at 2059 hrs




2. The problem with this story is that the republicans have “requested” that the bureaucrats at EPA restructure their rules. What they should be calling for is a demand that the EPA restructure their rules.

   What we have here is a case of the Fox running the Henhouse.

   Posted by on May 06, 2008 at 2112 hrs




3. Doyle’s hanging on because he’s trying to keep the Wisconsin Farm Bureau Federation, the 800 lbs gorilla of farmers—which hasn’t endorsed a Democrat for Governor I believe ever—out of the race in 2010.  WFBF is a large supporter of bio-fuels and if you want to check something, compare Doyle’s Agriculture Secretary’s words with those of the Farm Bureau’s VP.

   They’re nearly identical.

   Posted by on May 06, 2008 at 2130 hrs




4. Owen:

   The original article states taht the cost of GASOLINE would be higher today without ethanol.  Your rebuttal article speaks only about the cost of FOOD being driven up. Not saying I disagree with you, but the rebuttal doesn’t address the original.....

   Posted by on May 07, 2008 at 0256 hrs




5. All around Green Bay, the stations that still sell real gas are the same price, or a penny cheaper than the stations that sell corn-a-hol. Seeing that my mpg in my 2005 car drops from 35hwy to 29hwy on corn gas, how is corn gas cheaper if I wind up using more?

   Posted by Billiam on May 07, 2008 at 0344 hrs




6. Go back to last session when Sen. Tom Reynolds led the opposition to the ethanol mandate and see all of his arguments.  Notice how the world is falling in line with those arguments and how many liberals are now coming around to that policy.
   When you lose a good leader like Reynolds and replace him with politcal whores like Dale Schultz and have staff people liike Kevin Gilkes in the leigslature you know why the GOP is in big trouble.
   Just got back from South Africa and the headlines there are the same.  Biofuel usage is pushing up the cost of food and causing people to starve wordlwide.

   Posted by on May 07, 2008 at 0754 hrs




7. And all of you guys have skipped over the obvious: massive campaign contributions from Archer Daniels Midland has once again bought government policy. When is the high cost of our corrupt political system going to resonate?

   See
   http://www.opensecrets.org/wdc/employerdetail.asp?name= Archer+Daniels+Midland

   (Oh, sorry, that was the cash flow to Tommy...)

   Posted by Jack Lohman on May 07, 2008 at 0904 hrs




8. The original article states taht the cost of GASOLINE would be higher today without ethanol.  Your rebuttal article speaks only about the cost of FOOD being driven up. Not saying I disagree with you, but the rebuttal doesn’t address the original.....

   For one thing, ethanol can’t be piped. It has to be shipped via truck, not efficient at all.

   Posted by on May 07, 2008 at 1621 hrs




9. More here:  http://dad29.blogspot.com/2008/05/malchine-ethanol-mone y.html

   And that’s just ONE Corn-A-Holing contributor/family.

   Posted by dad29 on May 07, 2008 at 2035 hrs




10. "The problem with this story is that the republicans have “requested” that the bureaucrats at EPA restructure their rules. What they should be calling for is a demand that the EPA restructure their rules.”

    The rules would have to be restructured if there isn’t corn to meet the demand which might happen if the RIPE Act actually gets passed into law.  Wouldn’t they?

    Posted by Brad V, on May 07, 2008 at 2052 hrs




11. Thank You Brad, that is exactly the point that I was trying to make in my earlier post.

    We have a situation where the republicans (the chikens) are allowing the bureaucrats 9the foxes) to run the henhouse.

    How did we ever allow our government to get to the point where un-elected and un-accountable bureaucrats are making decisions for us in what used to be a free country.

    Posted by on May 07, 2008 at 2059 hrs




12. Orv, Dad answered your question in his link. It’s called campaign cash. Corn farmers give a little cash to get a lot of cash back. It is not the unelected bureaucrats making the decisions, it is the intervention from the congressman that control their budgets that are pulling the strings.

    Posted by Jack Lohman on May 08, 2008 at 0210 hrs




13. Ethanol, from the start, has been a money making proposition.  The farmers and some legislators cooked it up to raise the corn prices a few years back.  It sounded good to everyone till they started to do research. After all race cars drive on ethanol.  They put through the subsidy with very little effort and billions have been made till conservatives started to point out the falsities of the plan.Then food prices went up, as the conservatives predicted, and the libs got on board around the world.  This is headlines around the world, food prices escalate.
    Some farmers are making out as are a bunch of investors but the rest of us are getting screwed.

    Posted by on May 08, 2008 at 0903 hrs




14. Bob, the benefit was (first) in increasing the market for corn grown by farmers, especially big farmers like Archer Daniels Midland that gave a lot of campaign cash to state politicians. I know that part goes over your head, but CEOs don’t give money unless they get something in return. And politicians generally don’t pass laws unless there’s something in it for them or their party. Not always, but way too often. So the ethanol mess is directly attributable to our corrupt political system. Yes there were side problems that were generated as a result, but let’s but the blame where it belongs.

    Posted by Jack Lohman on May 08, 2008 at 1620 hrs




15. Sure Jack, Reynolds, Blonien and myself were leading the charge against, while you were still smoking that socialist crap.
    One of the few persons that I know that believes that you can improve the problem with corrupt government by turning it over to the government.

    Posted by on May 08, 2008 at 2226 hrs




16. Would I prefer an independent, elected, civilian board of directors overseeing the election and ethics process? Absolutely. But even then the (optional) Clean Elections system is better than the corruption we have today.

    See http://www.wicleanelections.org/

    Posted by Jack Lohman on May 08, 2008 at 2357 hrs




17. What makes you think that the elected board won’t get corrupted?  Churchill and Jefferson said it best.  Jefferson realized that this was going to happen so that he pushed for free press.  Too bad they are as corrupt as the rest of society and only back their favorites. 
    Also they tend to be grossly incompetent like Joanne Weintraub who just wrote fawning article about Valerie Plame and her lying husband Joe Wilson.
    Churchill said: “ democracy is the worst form of government that anyone could possibly devise, but it’s better than all of the rest”.
    May be King George, the benevolent despot will come back for you, Jack.
    The ultimate arbitrator of all of this is a free press and an alert electorate that sorts this stuff ou,t as they do most of the time if infomred.

    Posted by on May 09, 2008 at 0802 hrs




18. I know, Bob, let’s turn government over to Halliburton!!!

    You are right that the “elected” board could become corrupted by campaign cash (what’s that getting to sound like?)

    Or, we could just start raising all our kids to be good citizens, with strong values and no greed. Then tell them “Please, don’t run for office or the board of directors if you have any conflicts of interest, own stock in industries you must regulate. Or your votes could benefit your kids or other family members. Or other golf buddies, or you know, bad people.”

    Or, of course, they could be funded by taxpayer dollars (Oh God, here we go again. Back to square One.)

    No, I like your original thought. Let’s just let good people run, and let the free market separate the wheat from the chafe. Let the strong live long and the weak die off. That’s what the government is doing in Myramar with the cyclone victims, we can do it here too.

    Posted by Jack Lohman on May 09, 2008 at 0836 hrs




19. Are you hallucinating this morning, Jack?  Your entry makes no sense.  Who would run for an ethics board but people funded by WMC,WEAC etc.  Where would they get the money?
    I raised my kids to be good citizens and now they work for the government in wonderufl vacation places like Iraq, Afghanistan, Baghdad etc.  They wear flak jackets to work.
    We have three stops on corruption in government: the ballot box, the jury box and the cartridge box.  We need the free press and places like this to keep informed.
    Remember to check widigest.com weekly and subscribe to our conservtive email newsletter..

    Posted by on May 09, 2008 at 0903 hrs




20. Bob, you just don’t understand the value of paying for the campaigns via public dollars versus private dollars. Learn about it and then let’s talk again.

    What is it about “money” that you don’t understand? I like the free market too, but not when it is my politicians that are for sale.

    Posted by Jack Lohman on May 09, 2008 at 1027 hrs




21. I understand money just fine, I also know that people do not want to put out tax money for nasty ads for people.  That will not change.  I do not want to put out tax money so that people can put out lies about good people like Tom Reynolds and others like Mark Green.
    What I do understand is that almost everyone is for sale, the only difference is the price.
    Our forefathers understood that and that is why they set up the counter balances in government and it is true that people get the govnerment that they deserve.

    Posted by on May 09, 2008 at 1941 hrs




22. So, you don’t want to spend $5 per taxpayer per year for public funding of campaigns, but you don’t mind spending $1300 per taxpayer per year for the subsidies, tax breaks and roads to nowhere that the politicians give to the special interests that fund their elections? I see.

    I don’t understand your math, Bob. You are a very generous person. The special interests must love you for your tolerance of the corrupt system.

    There are only two kinds of money:

    1) Public: $5 per taxpayer with no strings attached, where the politicians are beholden only to their taxpayer funders, or

    2) Private, where the special interests give money in return for taxpayer assets amounting to $1300 per taxpayer.

    Which is it that you want, Bob? Oh, I know, you want the special interests to fund the elections and expect nothing in return!  The good parts of #1 and the good parts of #2. Scrap the bad parts of the two.

    I ask you again: what part of “money” do you not understand?

    Posted by Jack Lohman on May 09, 2008 at 2057 hrs




23. And just to make it clear to you, Bob, that $1300 per taxpayer per year IS GOING TO THE NASTY ADS YOU HATE TO FUND!

    How are you liking it do far?

    Posted by Jack Lohman on May 09, 2008 at 2111 hrs




24. The question above should have been: “How are you liking it SO far?”

    Since 1994 (when the Republican “radical right” took over congress), it’s been downhill ever since. I’ve not heard one conservative say “Gee, guys, maybe we went to far.”

    And now you are seeing the results, and I need not go through the complete failure of the economy to prove the point. Including the whole ethanol issue this original post was about.

    The one major point I want to make, though, is that if politicians were not funded by special interests that want an ever-expanding piece of the pie, we’d not be in this current fix. We (all) taxpayers have paid a very high price for our government corruption.

    Posted by Jack Lohman on May 10, 2008 at 1010 hrs