Grassley: Tax deal includes biofuel subsidies

[t0dd]

Source: Des Moines Register

The tax legislation that congressional Republicans and the White House have agreed to will include extensions of the biodiesel and ethanol subsidies through 2011, says Iowa. Charles Grassley, the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee. The $1-a-gallon biodiesel subsidy, which lapsed at the end of 2009, would be retroactive to this year, he said.

Some leading Senate Democrats, including the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Max Baucus of Montana, indicated that the energy tax provisions were still to be worked out. “We’re going to have to wait the detail,” said North Dakota Sen. Kent Conrad, a member of the finance committee.

Read more: http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/index.php/2010/12/07/tax-deal-includes-biofuel-subsidies/

[tomm2thumbs]

1. pouring all kinds of money into pockets for support - but not seniors for food

good 'ol boys network continues to shine it's ugly green light on American values

[AngryAmish]

2. so stupid. so, so stupid.

[LiberalFighter]

3. Is biofuel an economical solution?

[ProudDad]

7. No nor is it moral

It would take all of the arable land on the Earth's surface to grow enough biofuel crops to replace just the USAmerican transportation requirement...

[John Q. Citizen]

8. Not using corn and soy it isn't. It contributes to more green house gasses than

doing nothing, and drives up the cost of food for people.

[jtuck004]

12. Not really, which is why they want taxpayer money that could

otherwise be used to fix infrastructure, create jobs, pay for teachers, etc.,

Instead of just buying a barrel of oil, refining it and burning it, they have to buy oil, turn it into fertilizer, transport that to the fields and grow a lot of corn, (which has its own separate set of payments of taxpayer money to large business concerns) which requires more oil, then transport it to the refinery where more energy is used to create the ethanol...

Well, you get the idea. When we were cut off by OPEC it became one of many solutions to gain our independence (again), but when that ended they lowered the price of oil and everyone forgot about all the alternative energy research. (Well, except for China who just announced a $1.5 trillion investment into strategic industries, one of them being alternative energies, but I digress). The people who had invested in ethanol got a congressperson or two to argue their case and, slither, they got their tentacles into the public's money.

There are far better uses for that land, including sustainable farming which doesn't require the petroleum-based fertilizers and weed killers that are nearly ubiquitous in our food supply.

It also has some effect on prices, but most people miss the fact that because the rules protecting us from commodity hoarders (developed back in the early 1900's, like the ones that were removed to allow Wall Street to create the depression we are in now)were changed about 10, maybe 20 years ago, so speculators do far more to drive up prices than demand and supply now does. Quite sad, actually, because those price swings in petroleum and food are nothing more than a hugely regressive tax on those that can least afford it. Yet politicians routinely use the supply\demand arguments because they want the donations of the wealthy, which would likely cease if they were honest about the cause of their prices rocketing up.

Hope that helps.

[LiberalFighter]

15. That is what I thought... I didn't want to go wild on it.

[defendandprotect]

4. Dangers of president's making "back room" deals with GOP ... !!!

[ProudDad]

5. You do realize that biofuel and ethanol

are starving human being type people, don't you?

In order to fill the gas tanks of USAmerican SUVs...

And the corporate coffers of ADM, Cargill, etc...

And the campaign funds of assholes like Grassley...

[John Q. Citizen]

6. Corn and soy are very bad policy choices for bio-fuels. This is a bummer.

[HowHasItComeToThis]

9. pervertevery peice of legislation you can

[jwirr]

10. This is not good policy. As usual. Grassley does not care about

solving problems as long as he can buy his way back into the congress.

[nyy1998]

11. +1 nt

[avaistheone1]

13. That is true.

[bergie321]

14. Making Cargill Richer

And everyone else poorer as food prices rise worldwide.

[Javaman]

16. Instead of pouring food down the drain, how about cutting the subsidies to the oil corps.

that would more than off set the tax for the rich.

Well, maybe not, but it would be a step in the right direction.