I'm pretty sure National Review editor Rich Lowry browses RTP&GG because this article he just wrote at Real Clear Politics could have been lifted right out of our article, and Jeff's comments! He adds some follow-on information if you read the whole thing, that tends to confirm Jeff's fears that Republicans aren't going to be able to rein in the goverment bloat. However, remember this is still the lame duck Democratic Congress. I am still confident this thing will be brought under control, at least to a certain extend. Anyway, some quotes from Lowry's article that may seem oddly familiar:When Al Gore drops an environmental fad, it has truly reached its expiration date.The Porkmeisters pushing hard for this now are a bipartisan group: chiefly, the two Senators from Iowa, Democrat Tom Harkin and Republican Chuck Grassley. This budget proposal with the ethanol subsidies looked like it was going to pass with Republican support as well as President Obama's. But, after the full extent of the pork has been revealed, many Republicans are backing away from this initially-bipartisan effort that at first look didn't seem unreasonable.
In his wisdom, the Goracle recently acknowledged what almost all disinterested observers concluded long ago: Ethanol is a fraud. It has no environmental benefits, and harmful side effects. The subsidies that support its use are an object lesson in the incorrigibility of Washington's gross special-interest politics. It is the monster that ate America's corn crop.
"It is not good policy to have these massive subsidies for first-generation ethanol," the former vice president and Noble Peace Prize recipient said, referring to corn-based ethanol. He called the fuel "a mistake," and confessed one reason he fell so hard for it is that he "had a certain fondness for the farmers in the state of Iowa." These farmers vote in the First in the Nation caucuses and practically insist that their favored presidential candidates drink ethanol at breakfast and hail it as the nectar of the gods.
More:
The multiple layers of subsidization have their own perversity. Since there's already a mandate to blend ethanol into gasoline, the tax credit is giving away money for something that would happen anyway. Environmental groups say this pads the bottom line of Big Oil. Harry de Gorter of the free-market Cato Institute has a more complicated take -- the subsidy decreases the cost and therefore the price of gasoline, effectively subsidizing its consumption. Your Congress at work.But, read the whole thing if you're interested in this and if you want to see how close we came to Lowry's article!
The article summed up the ethanol issue fairly well. From what I have read and from the above article, it appears that the corn subsidies will continue as they are included in the new tax "cut" bill and it appears likely to pass.
ReplyDeleteOn the Cato Institute comment, it takes about 1.2 gallons of regular fuel to produce 1 gal. of ethanol fuel. I am not going to do the math as it is obvious that there is no way for ethanol to reduce green house emissions, this all hinges on the 1.2/1.0 ethanol to reg fuel being accurate. The whole ethanol issue illustrates how that saving the environment has become a disguise or means to get people to support something completely unrelated to the environment, in this case helping to pad the pockets of the farmers.
The government has controlled the agriculture sector dating back to the New Deal era. These farmers receive large subsidies and recently the gov gave billions to minority farmers as a form of reparations for being discriminated against in the past. Looking at the agriculture sector which is just one example that illustrates that the U.S. economy is not a free market economy but is instead basically controlled by the gov, or as I learned in my econ class it is a mixed econ. Also read the book "Liberal Fascism" to see this.
On Bud-D's point that "Jeff's fears that Republicans aren't going to be able to rein in the goverment bloat." Some of the things that I have heard from the Republicans so far has not given me any reason to change my opinion of them and I have not seen the necessary cultural shift. One of the reasons I hold the view that you attribute to me is that I have been read history and the nature of the conservative party, a socialist would be considered a conservative in a communist country. The long term trend for America is national/global statism/socialism, Glenn Beck has recently been taking this view which I have held for sometime http://robinsontalkingpoints.blogspot.com/2009/06/is-world-reaching-boiling-point-of-some.html. There is a back and forth swing between the control of our nation by the Left and Right: we had Teddy Roosevelt/ Taft; Wilson/Coolidge( like Reagan); then 2 more liberals Hoover and Roosevelt; and up to more recent times Carter/Reagan; Bush1st/Clinton; and big-gov Bush and communist Obama. So it does not matter who controls our gov as we continue to march toward socialism.
This trend is entrenched in our system and can not be reversed without major pain. 1 ex is that the states will go bankrupt and will be required to be bailed out regardless of what the Cons want. If the necessary step are taken to correct the economy a depression will ensue. The earth quake has created the wave and it will hit land as a tsunami. Read Hayek's essay on why he is not a conservative and read http://mises.org/journals/lar/pdfs/1_1/1_1_2.pdf
So this belief that the Republicans winning back the gov is just bright lights and a false hope that will dazzle us and make us feel better about the direction our Country is headed in. Show me a real change in our cultural and I will think otherwise. The Tea Party is all about cutting taxes and gov is bad mantra and they don't have any real bit to them.
I can't believe our republican political leaders can support this bill. They have to be informed of exactly what Bud-d said about ethanol yet they still write a 45¢ per gallon ethanol blenders' credit in the bill.
ReplyDeleteLegislation like this shows that our Republican leaders can't be trusted to stick to what they know is right. There can be no deals made. Vote for only what is right.
Hey Jeff, you should run for public office. Or set yourself up to do so. Start volunteering and build a resume. Keep your record clean. My history is too controversial.
ReplyDeleteYeah, used to be, and for many legislators, still is a badge of honor to bring more pork into your state than you ship out. Democrat or Republican. Republicans should be better than that. I'm confident they will be once they're in power in Congress.
ReplyDeleteBut, Grassley's behavior is disgusting, as is the behavior of the two Republican Senators from Mississippi, who are the two to getters of Earmark-pork. Most all the other top getters are Democrats. Republicans are much better overall than Democrats, but there are some huge exceptions, who should not be tolerated.
Are the politicians to blame for bringing home the pork or the public who repeatedly elects these politicians into office and who support their ability to bring home the pork?
ReplyDeleteWhen I heard soon-to-be speaker of the House John Boehner say that he is their to work with Obama, he lost a lot of my support. Also this no earmark pledge of his has been broken with this earmark-laden tax bill. I listened closely to an interview he gave to Fox News and he will NOT represent a change in a new direction. He can't.
The conservative party is reactionary and its principles changes as the Country moves farther to the left. " The position which can be rightly described as conservative at any time depends, therefore, on the direction of existing tendencies." Hayek. These tendencies are socialist. The cons are pulled further to the left as the country moves to the left. Look at the cons' stance on social security and medicare in the Health Care debate: they attacked the bill based on the fact that it was going to cut Medicare which is a gov insurance and is socialist and they won't and can't reform social insecurity. In terms of the direction the Left and Right are steering the ship that is America, there is no major change in the direction.
I could never run for any office due to the things I have said on this blog and my views would not be accepted. To solve the financial situation I would enact measures that would cause a depression. I could not do that in office as people would not be able to handle that and my actions would lead to the destruction of our social cohesion. The real change has to occur in our Culture in order that any real change can occur, Read "The Closing of the America Mind". That won't happen. To be a politician you have to compromise and do things that you don't support. That is the nature of politics.
Yeah. You're probably right. You shouldnt run for office. You are too short too.
ReplyDeleteThat is probably a legitimate criticism. The real people with power are the ones who influence the politicians with their ideals. Like Saul Alinsky who has greatly influenced Hilliary Clinton and President Obama, to name two, both of whom are very powerful and influential people. It is interesting that Alinsky dedicated his book to the 1t radical Lucifer and that he would be so influential to people in office.
ReplyDelete