Report: Abolish The Corn Ethanol Mandate In Gasoline

[rangerrebew]

- The Daily Caller - http://dailycaller.com -



Report: Abolish The Corn Ethanol Mandate In Gasoline

Posted By PG Veer On 3:27 PM 03/12/2015 In Blog - PG Veer | No Comments

Before hiking the federal tax on gas, officials should consider abolishing the corn ethanol mandate first, according to a new report from the Manhattan Institute.

Democratic Oregon Rep. Earl Blumenauer suggested the gas tax this year and in 2013.

According to Manhattan Institute senior fellow Robert Bryce, who authored the research, corn ethanol is proportionally 2.4 times less efficient than regular gasoline.

“In other words, drivers have to fill up their tanks more often because they get fewer miles per gallon,” Bryce said in an interview with The Daily Caller. “This amounts to a hidden tax.”

Even the government admits the lower efficiency of ethanol. The report quotes fueleconomy.gov, which reports that E10 (gas mixed with 10 percent ethanol) makes “3 to 4 percent fewer miles per gallon” than if they ran “on 100 percent gasoline.”

 
“There is no reason to keep this unfair tax that only profits special interests,” Bryce said. “It’s been maintained by the corn lobby and Big Agriculture for too long already.”

Follow PG Veer on Twitter and Facebook



Article printed from The Daily Caller: http://dailycaller.com

URL to article: http://dailycaller.com/2015/03/12/report-abolish-the-corn-ethanol-mandate-in-gasoline/

[240B]

Not only is it less efficient, but it leaves gunk in your engine as well.

I mean come on, it is just common sense. Burning food, or a form of sugar, in a motor cannot be a good thing. You know it is going to cause damage to the engine. And it does.

This 'corn fuel' scam is all about money and has nothing to do with 'the environment'. Like every 'green' issue in America, it is all about making a very few, very well connected people and companies, very, very, rich. That is what all this 'green' crap is about. Every bit of it.

[olde north church]

When you've got populist nit-wit at large, lookin' out for the folks O'Reilly yappin' about it, Mr. and Mrs. Front Porch, latch on to it.  What bleep doesn't say is Brazil has 1% the motor vehicles of the Good Ol'.

[mountaineer]

Sorry, Iowa, You Should Have To Earn The Top Primary Spot From Now On
 
Handouts are bad energy policy and bad presidential primary policy.
March 18, 2015 By Sean Davis

A new presidential cycle is upon us, and you know what that means: shameless pandering to corn interests in Iowa. It happens every four years. Not because costly corn mandates are good for America (they’re not). Not because American voters put corn subsidies at the top of their list of priorities (they don’t). It happens every four years because Iowa, for some reason that defies reason and logic, is still granted the privilege of having first dibs on the party primary calendar.

Iowa is in the news this week not because a candidate did or said something crazy, but because Iowa Republicans are upset about a candidate’s personnel decision. They’re not upset that a candidate picked a bad staffer. They’re not upset that a candidate picked a bad policy whisperer. They’re upset that Scott Walker picked a firm to help with social media outreach whose principal, Liz Mair, has been critical of Iowa in the past. The head of the Iowa GOP demanded that Walker fire her immediately, and it appears that Mair resigned early Wednesday morning.

It wasn’t enough that Walker flip-flopped on ethanol in order to gain the favor of the ethanol lobby. Now he and all the other candidates are apparently required to run all their staffing and contractor decisions by the head of a party that’s only delivered the state to Republicans once in the last 30 years.

This is absurd. This isn’t even a fight about policy. Tech vendors and social media staffers have no say whatsoever when it comes to advising a presidential candidate on policy. That’s not how campaigns work. This farmland fatwa is especially absurd given the record of Iowa Republicans when it comes to picking presidents. They’re straight-up awful at it.

Going back to 1976, the Iowa GOP has hosted seven competitive presidential caucuses: 1976, 1980, 1988, 1996, 2000, 2008, and 2012. They picked the next president once, in 2000, making them a whopping 1-for-7.

Iowa Republicans are not even particularly adept at selecting the eventual Republican nominee when the race is competitive. They got it wrong in 1980 (Iowa Republicans wanted George H. W. Bush, not Reagan). They got it wrong in 1988 (they wanted Bob Dole, not George H. W. Bush). They got it wrong in 2008 (they wanted Huckabee). And they got it wrong again in 2012 (Santorum won by a hair over Romney).

So to recap: Iowa has voted for a Republican presidential nominee in November exactly once in the last 30 years (in 2004), and Iowa Republicans have nominated the next president exactly once in the last 30 years (in 2000). This is not exactly the kind of batting average you expect from your leadoff hitter.

If coffee is for closers, then first-in-the-nation caucuses should be preserved for winners. Thankfully, I have a solution to this problem: instead of operating under a primary handout system, the GOP should require state parties to compete for the top primary calendar spots. That solves the massive incentive problem that currently plagues the party primary system. What should the Iowa GOP care what happens in November, so long as it can guarantee that all current nominees bow down to Big Corn all potential future nominees pre-emptively bite their tongues whenever they might be tempted to slander ethanol mandates and subsidies?  ....

read the rest at The Federalist