In the waning days of the lame-duck Congress, a bipartisan fight is brewing over federal handouts to encourage production of corn ethanol, with competing letters urging the continuation or end of these subsidies.

The 16 senators calling for the end of ethanol subsidies come from across the political spectrum: From senators Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif), Barbara Boxer (D-Calif), and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) on the left to Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Jim Webb (D-Va.) in the middle to Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) and Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) on the right.

Stay Engaged

Receive our weekly emails!

But a group of bipartisan Midwestern senators have responded with a letter of their own. The signees include Sen. Debbie Stabenow teaming up with likely presidential hopeful John Thune (R-S.D.).

The overwhelming evidence from scholars all across the spectrum shows that ethanol subsidies benefit a well-protected industry at the expense of everyone else. Even green guru Al Gore wants the subsidies to end. As a Capitol Confidential story quotes from one expert:

Contrary to popular belief, ethanol fuel does little or nothing to increase our energy security or stabilize fuel prices. Instead, it will increase greenhouse gas emissions, local air pollutant emissions, fresh water scarcity, water pollution (both riparian and oceanic), land and ecosystem consumption, and food prices.

Milton Friedman once said that nothing is as permanent as a temporary government program. But if our newly elected Congress is serious about cutting spending and removing unnecessary government programs and subsidies, one can hardly think of a better place to start than corn ethanol subsidies.

~~~~~

See also:

Does Anyone Still Believe in Ethanol?

Ethanol Could Go on GOP Chopping Block

Corny Energy Plans

Children of the Corn

Analysis: Low-Carbon Fuel Standard a Gift to Ethanol Lobby

Stay Engaged

Simply enter your email below to receive our weekly email:

Facebook
Twitter

There aren’t many policies that get near unanimous support from economists, but free trade is one of them. Despite this, a central theme of the 2016 presidential campaign, heard from both political parties, was that free trade was somehow harmful to the United States and corrective action was needed. Mark Perry, an economics professor at the University of Michigan-Flint and scholar with the American Enterprise Institute, makes the case for why President Trump’s assessment of free trade is misguided.

Related Sites