« The truthiness chronicles: dime novelist's version of history rings for MN-01 congressional wannabe | Main | Transparency update: Congressman Walz submits FY2011 earmarks requests »

Mar 22, 2010


Ford Peterson

You ask good questions. Questions that should be asked of every legislator. I wonder how many of them that supported ethanol a few years ago would support an expansion of ethanol from corn today? We are witnessing the evil nature of subsidy at work. And the horrific destruction of capital that ensues from trying to eliminate the taxpayer's entanglement.

There are forces in motion trying to increase the 'mix' to 20% in MN. Most cars won't run very long at 20% as the warrantee book says a maximum of 10%. Only flex fuel vehicles can run on E85. Build a dependency with a subsidy and it becomes a mill stone around the necks of the taxpayers forever. Either a business survives and thrives on its own merits, or it fails. Free economies have functioned this way since men started trading with each other.

It sounds cruel, but an 'investor' relying on a farm welfare payment to survive has not made an investment, they have paid (or are about to pay) a substantial tax equal to their failed 'investment.' These are my opinions, not necessarily Newman's. You will have to ask him whether he is willing to advocate on behalf of ethanol from corn investors. My hope is that he would not advocate for any new dependencies. The question facing ethanol from corn investors is how to conserve capital in a failed business model. The question facing our elected representatives is "Now that we have helped to build the beast, do we intend to keep feeding it tax dollars?"

The comments to this entry are closed.

Never miss a post
Your email address:*
Please enter all required fields Click to hide
Correct invalid entries Click to hide

Become a Fan

Bluestem Tweets

    follow me on Twitter
    Blog powered by Typepad