President Obama needs to give EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson an ultimatum: waive the requirement in the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) established in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 mandating ethanol blending in motor fuels now, or hit the road Jack—son.
RFS, signed into law by George W. Bush and supported by then-Senator Barack Obama, was a dud from the beginning because it was based on an assumption. (You know what they say about assumptions.) Congress was led to believe most of the ethanol would be derived from inedible substances rather than corn. Seven years in, and billions of research dollars later, nothing has changed — except the more we learn about ethanol, the less we like it. Corn-based ethanol drives up food prices locally and globally, reduces gas mileage performance, and produces more greenhouse gas than petroleum.
Even green energy gazillionaire and former Vice President Al Gore admitted corn-based ethanol was a foolish endeavor. For him, it was all about votes. Speaking about his previous support of corn-based ethanol to a crowd at a conference in Greece, Gore said: “One of the reasons I made that mistake is that I paid particular attention to the farmers in my home state of Tennessee, and I had a certain fondness for the farmers in the state of Iowa because I was about to run for president.”
At least Gore was honest about lying, which is more than can be said of the Obama administration, which has all the facts laid before them regarding ethanol yet obviously capitulated to lobbyists awhile back by upping the ethanol blend requirement from 10 to 15 percent. This change forces gas stations to purchase new pumps to process the E15 blend, and automakers are questioning the impact it will have on automobile engines. According to Consumer Reports, nine automakers voiced concerns to Congress, stating they cannot honor warranties for older cars running on E15.
The recent drought should give all Americans, and especially those in elected leadership, reason for pause to reexamine our priorities as a nation. Farmers and ranchers are forced to slaughter livestock prematurely because there is not enough corn feed to keep them alive. The ethanol mandate currently requires around 40 percent of corn crops be used for ethanol production, leaving roughly 34 percent for livestock feed, 13 percent for exports, and humans get what’s left. Might our priorities be a tad out of whack?
To be honest, Bush’s “compassionate conservatism” got us into this mess with the act he signed into law, but I have to believe that same compassion would have most likely convinced him to relax the production requirements based on the reality of today’s dire situation.
And then there is our sitting president, whose response to the drought crisis is another bailout. On the campaign trail in Iowa August 13, President Obama committed to doling out more of his Obama “stash” by buying up millions of dollars in prematurely slaughtered meat. And the taxpayers responded with a hearty “You’re welcome.”
So where’s the beef? Apparently, the government has meat lockers sitting idle because Obama told the crowd the government has “a lot of freezers”. Even if they do, I’d think twice before eating anything the government supposedly kept on ice, based on the Obama administration’s own guidelines for freezing meat. Foodsafety.gov, (another government creation from 2009), states frozen meat loses its quality (not safety) after four to 12 months. So who would we complain to if there were a problem with this meat? The government? It’ll never happen.
The price of ethanol has risen 33 percent since May, not to mention exorbitant grocery prices and an upcoming corn and meat shortage. Rather than addressing consumer price pain, the administration responds with yet another bailout, which sends the message: “When the going gets tough, we make things worse.”
Loading ...
Why Romney-Ryan Will Win By A Landslide
This week, I’m going out on a limb by publicly stating an opinion I have been expressing privately for some time: I believe Mitt Romney will defeat Barack Obama in a near landslide comparable to Ronald Reagan’s win over Jimmy Carter in 1980.
Many of my friends and family, while hoping I’m right, actually think I’m crazy. My wife fears that there is now a disproportionate number of people in America who have gotten used to the idea of having things handed to them by government, rather than cherishing the opportunity to work for those things themselves.
After the Supreme Court ruling on Obamacare this summer, my brother, who lives in the battleground state of Missouri, announced with resignation that “Obama has just been re-elected.” He reaffirmed that belief recently, during the Todd Akin flap in Missouri’s U.S. Senate race, by once again declaring his state all but lost for Republicans (including Mitt Romney).
A close friend, with whom I have worked on numerous campaigns and who now works for a conservative lobbying organization, has a tendency to fret about all things political. He has been a basket case over the possibility of Obama, part two.
I point out to him that no president from either party since FDR’s second campaign in 1936 has ever been re-elected with an unemployment rate even approaching the numbers we are seeing today. I tell him that any incumbent president who cannot get his poll numbers above 50 percent cannot and will not win.
Sometimes my friend’s anxiety is temporarily assuaged, but there is no doubt in my mind that he will sleep much better after he has seen my prediction come true on November 6th. (Won’t we all?)
Now comes a scientific study of presidential elections, from a pair of faculty members at the University of Colorado, which reinforces the political gut feeling that has been driving my prophecies to a large degree. The long-term model used for this study is the brainchild of Professors Kenneth Bickers and Michael Berry, working at CU’s Boulder and Denver campuses, respectively. Their prototype, Bickers and Berry stress, analyzes economic data from the 50 states and the District of Columbia, including both state and national unemployment figures as well as changes in real per capita income, among other factors.
Since 1980, their model has accurately predicted every presidential election. Their analysis was accurate even in those years when there was a strong third party candidate running (John Anderson in 1980 and Ross Perot in 1992 and 1996). Perhaps most impressive, their model worked in predicting that Al Gore would win the popular vote in 2000 while losing the electoral vote to George W. Bush.
So what does the model forecast for 2012? They predict that Mitt Romney will soundly defeat Barack Obama by winning 32 states, 53 percent of the popular vote and a whopping 320 electoral votes (270 are needed to win).
“The apparent advantage of being a Democratic candidate and holding the White House disappears,” Professor Berry notes, “when the national unemployment rate hits 5.6 percent. The incumbency advantage enjoyed by President Obama, though statistically significant, is not great enough to offset high rates of unemployment currently experienced in many of the states.”
Berry and Bickers are predicting that Romney will defeat Obama in almost every battleground state, as well as a few the GOP hasn’t won in decades. These include North Carolina, Virginia, New Hampshire, Colorado, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida and, yes, the “show me” state of Missouri.
Bickers notes that their election prediction model suggests that “presidential elections are about big things and the stewardship of the national economy. It’s not about gaffes, political commercials, or day-to-day campaign tactics. I find that heartening for our democracy.”
“Based on our forecasting model,” Professor Bickers adds, “it becomes clear that the president is in electoral trouble.”
As my little sister, who lives in the battleground state of Iowa, would say: “From his lips to God’s ears!”
Photo credit: Talk Radio News Service (Creative Commons)