PDA

View Full Version : Sen. Tom Coburn seeks to eliminate tax credit for ethanol production



sappstuf
3/10/2011, 01:27 PM
Joining other Oklahoma lawmakers who have attacked federal ethanol policy, Sen. Tom Coburn introduced bipartisan legislation on Wednesday to eliminate billions of dollars in tax breaks for production of the corn-based fuel.

Coburn, R-Muskogee, said the 45 cents per gallon credit given to blenders of ethanol is “bad economic policy, bad energy policy and bad environmental policy.”

“The $6 billion we waste every year on corporate welfare should instead stay in taxpayers' pockets where it can be used to spur innovation, stimulate growth and create jobs,” Coburn said.

He cited a Government Accountability Office report released last week that deemed the credit — set to expire at the end of this year — unnecessary to ensure demand for domestic ethanol.

Bob Dinneen, president and CEO of the Renewable Fuels Association, said ethanol was part of the solution at a time of rapidly rising gas prices.

“If recharging our economy is a top fiscal and economic priority for these senators, then job one should be redirecting the $1 billion a day we spend on foreign oil back into the U.S. economy,” he said.

The bill authored by Coburn and Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Maryland, quickly earned the backing of several environmental and other interested groups, including the Grocery Manufacturers Association and Taxpayers for Common Sense.

History of disapproval

Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Tulsa, has criticized the nation's ethanol policy, including the biofuels mandate, for years, charging that it has caused food shortages in some parts of the world by diverting corn to fuel production.

Inhofe and Rep. John Sullivan, R-Tulsa, have been working to block a recent Environmental Protection Agency ruling that would allow fuel containing up to 15 percent ethanol for newer vehicles. The current limit is 10 percent.

Read more: http://newsok.com/sen.-tom-coburn-seeks-to-eliminate-tax-credit-for-ethanol-production/article/3547368#ixzz1GDrLKvMm

soonerscuba
3/10/2011, 01:33 PM
As long as every senator looks in the mirror and sees a president, and as long as Iowa has a completely unjustified influence on nomination process, this will continue.

StoopTroup
3/10/2011, 01:55 PM
Hopefully we'll eventually ween ourselves off on all Government stuff and become our own Country. Then we can invade tejas and take Chuck Norris Hostage.

NormanPride
3/10/2011, 01:58 PM
At least Dr. NO is taking creative steps to serious problems. I don't know the validity of his claims, but it's this kind of thinking that gets things fixed.

okie52
3/10/2011, 01:59 PM
Archer Daniels Midland will be squealing.

StoopTroup
3/10/2011, 02:00 PM
What things are being fixed? His cat? Dog?

StoopTroup
3/10/2011, 02:02 PM
I think the Pubs really missed out on getting rid of Lobbyists. Once they are out of the way they can just force all these fixes. Talk about saving America!

NormanPride
3/10/2011, 02:03 PM
Stress on corn prices
Energy policies being revisited
Billions in tax dollars going back to the people (Yeah, I know - not gonna happen)

We should all be aware of what rising corn prices due to increased ethanol production does to the price of just about everything else...

StoopTroup
3/10/2011, 02:07 PM
Hell NP....damn near everything that happens starts a panic right now.

If Lindsey Lohan goes to jail.....the Country will collapse into another Depression more than likely

yermom
3/10/2011, 02:11 PM
if this gets ethanol out of QT, i'm all for it

anyone see this?

http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/researchers-develop-more-powerful-biofuel-alt

SCOUT
3/10/2011, 02:16 PM
if this gets ethanol out of QT, i'm all for it

anyone see this?

http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/researchers-develop-more-powerful-biofuel-alt

I like the sound of that.

StoopTroup
3/10/2011, 02:24 PM
Hopefully Tom won't find out about those 5 research places and the 30 million they each are getting.

NormanPride
3/10/2011, 02:28 PM
I'm torn on government sponsored research. On one hand, I think the gov is an excellent vessel for delivering funds to where they need to be. On the other, I think they've demonstrated that they're almost exactly the opposite with things like research on wood or the like.

OU Engineer
3/10/2011, 02:33 PM
ST you know Chuck Norris is an Oklahoman by birth right? He would definitely be on our side despite that whole Walker, Texas Ranger bit.

StoopTroup
3/10/2011, 02:34 PM
ST you know Chuck Norris is an Oklahoman by birth right? He would definitely be on our side despite that whole Walker, Texas Ranger bit.

We'll check that out after his waterboarding.

TUSooner
3/10/2011, 02:43 PM
This is where budget cuts need to come from, not just recklessly across the board. I like Tom.

Ike
3/10/2011, 03:24 PM
I'm torn on government sponsored research. On one hand, I think the gov is an excellent vessel for delivering funds to where they need to be. On the other, I think they've demonstrated that they're almost exactly the opposite with things like research on wood or the like.

The thing is, without basic, undirected research, directed research ultimately reaches a point of diminishing returns. Directed research is always geared to finding answers to problems that are answerable with currently available tools. Undirected research is the quest to give us more and better tools, through a better understanding of the world in which we live. A popular example of this is the MRI (there are many more examples out there). In 1938 when Rabi discovered Nuclear Magnetic Resonance, he did not do so because he wanted to be able to produce high quality, non-invasive medical images. He did so because he wanted to gain better understanding of the nucleus of atoms, as specifically the forces that bind them together. It was later somebody else said "hey, we can use this property of nuclei to do molecular spectroscopy" and then even later, someone else had the crazy idea of using the exact same principle to non-invasively image the human body. None of that could have happened though if someone didn't first say "these forces binding the atom...we don't understand them very well. How can I conduct an experiment to gain some new understanding?"

So when we see things like, a study of wood, yeah, our first instinct is to say "well, thats not useful at all". But how do you know? How do you know that that same study won't give us new insights to cellular biology or someother something that eventually contributes to a better way to grow replacement organs, or maybe to create plants and trees that don't use photosynthesis to grow, but rather to produce electricity.

We don't know. It might. It might not. But if you can make the argument that it is socially useful to fund directed research, then the argument for funding undirected research follows just as easily, as undirected research opens up wide new swaths for directed research.

Breadburner
3/10/2011, 03:38 PM
Corn ethanol is a joke....Well...Not fer booze....

okie52
3/10/2011, 03:43 PM
The thing is, without basic, undirected research, directed research ultimately reaches a point of diminishing returns. Directed research is always geared to finding answers to problems that are answerable with currently available tools. Undirected research is the quest to give us more and better tools, through a better understanding of the world in which we live. A popular example of this is the MRI (there are many more examples out there). In 1938 when Rabi discovered Nuclear Magnetic Resonance, he did not do so because he wanted to be able to produce high quality, non-invasive medical images. He did so because he wanted to gain better understanding of the nucleus of atoms, as specifically the forces that bind them together. It was later somebody else said "hey, we can use this property of nuclei to do molecular spectroscopy" and then even later, someone else had the crazy idea of using the exact same principle to non-invasively image the human body. None of that could have happened though if someone didn't first say "these forces binding the atom...we don't understand them very well. How can I conduct an experiment to gain some new understanding?"

So when we see things like, a study of wood, yeah, our first instinct is to say "well, thats not useful at all". But how do you know? How do you know that that same study won't give us new insights to cellular biology or someother something that eventually contributes to a better way to grow replacement organs, or maybe to create plants and trees that don't use photosynthesis to grow, but rather to produce electricity.

We don't know. It might. It might not. But if you can make the argument that it is socially useful to fund directed research, then the argument for funding undirected research follows just as easily, as undirected research opens up wide new swaths for directed research.

R & D is fine for ethanol in its various forms. It is the subsidized, mandatory inclusion of it in our energy mix that is insane.