Corn politics in Iowa comes home to Virginia
By JR Hoeft | Monday, June 27th, 2011 | Politics
Last week’s discussion in Virginia’s U.S. Senate campaign seemed to be centered on the politics of corn – well, at least ethanol subsidies.
Our friends at the Richmond Times-Dispatch’s PolitiFact labeled former Governor George Allen’s position on the subject a full-flop, mainly because of their view of positions Allen staked-out in 2005, when there still was a chance he might be running for the 2008 presidential nomination.
Politifact analyzes this recent statement from Allen:
“I have long maintained our biofuel mandates have become unrealistic and drive up the cost of our food and feed,” Allen wrote in a June 14 campaign blog. “I commend Senator Coburn’s amendment to end the tax breaks and subsidies for ethanol.”
They claim that his 2005 U.S. Senate vote that mandated greater use of ethanol in gasoline production runs contrary to that statement.
Jamie Radtke, an opponent of Allen’s for the Republican nomination, quickly seized on PolitiFact’s analysis.
Radtke, in a campaign statement, pointed to two instances where she claims Allen supported ethanol subsidies before he decided that the Senate legislation ending a tax credit to ethanol refiners and a tariff on imported ethanol (a measure which could save the U.S. about $6 billion per year) was a good idea.
In her statement, Radtke says:
“Energy independence is best attained by ending government meddling and letting free markets work.
“The Department of Energy has done nothing to make us more energy independent. We don’t lack energy in this country… we lack political will! Abundant energy exists right here within our own sovereign borders. Let’s stop dawdling, get rid of the Department of Energy, and access our oil, coal and natural gas.”
Certainly that statement makes for good soundbites, but how does one go about eliminating the Department of Energy?
Radtke, who once led the Virginia Tea Party Patriots, will be appearing on Fox News Monday morning at 11:30 to talk about the role of the Tea Party in politics.
Also on Monday, Michele Bachmann will be in Iowa to officially launch her bid for the presidency.
Bachmann is known by some to be a national leader in the Tea Party movement, especially since she has created and leads the Congressional Tea Party caucus.
When asked about the Tea Party, Bachmann says:
The tea party movement is “an idea and it’s made up of disaffected Democrats that have had it up to here with Barack Obama. It’s made up of independents that have had it up to here with Barack Obama. It’s made up of libertarians who have had it up to here with Barack Obama,” she said.
Not being part of the Tea Party myself, that does appear to be a fairly accurate statement.
But just as Republicans disagree, it seems there might be some disagreement about the nature of ethanol subsidies between these two leading female voices in the Tea Party. While Bachmann has opposed subsidies in the past, with her recent dive into national politics, has her position on ethanol softened?
According to the National Review, Bachmann is walking a fine line on ethanol:
To the ethanol industry, Michele Bachmann has been both a friend and a foe.
Over the course of her career, she’s carefully straddled the line between supporting the industry and arguing against government subsidies.
“When it comes to ethanol, I think that it’s a part of our solution, but there’s concerns about that because of the subsidies,” Bachmann told Fox Business host Eric Bolling early this year. “I think it’s just something that we have to look at going forward.”
Does this make Bachmann a flip-flopper too? Is Radtke going to call-out Bachmann’s position on ethanol?
Not according to Chuck Hansen, Radtke spokesman. When asked, Hansen kept it simple:
“Jamie opposes [ethanol subsidies] and would vote against them,” he said.
Both Allen and Bachmann understand the politics of ethanol. They also have had to face legislation and tough votes on the subject – understanding that each bill doesn’t always present itself as an open-and-shut case.
Unfortunately, what might make for sound decision-making and smart legislating doesn’t always translate into simple and unambiguous campaign rhetoric.
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
Conservative to the core; liberal with his opinion! J.R. has been involved in politics for over a decade and has worked on several campaigns in Hampton Roads. He has served on the Executive Committee of the Republican Party of Chesapeake and the Central Committee of the Republican Party of Virginia. He is also the director of “Blogs United” in Virginia. E-mail J.R.. Follow J.R. on Twitter.
Comments
5 Responses to "Corn politics in Iowa comes home to Virginia"
This is why Iowa picks corn and New Hampshire picks Presidents.
No state with any appreciable impact in the the November 2012 election has this issue in its top 10.
Iowa is the first caucus, so politicians eyeing it trip over ethanol every year.
Allen doesn’t need Iowa anymore.
As to the question, yes it makes Bachman a flip floppr too. The Iowa caucuses seem to have that effect on politicians, Democrats and Republicans alike.
Why is this even a topic of debate? Since we expend more fossil fuel energy to produce ethanol than the renewable energy we get out of the product, its production should be abandoned and we should just burn the oil instead.
Eric, Ethanol is a political laundromat for campaign coffers.. Allen had delusions of running for potus and that is why Allen took the diniero.
I wrote a position paper for a past employer on Ethanol.. It did not make sense then as it does not now because of the net loss energy conversion, and that was aside from the higher costs. I also argued that the production of significant amounts would throw a hand grenade into the grain markets.. Nothing changed cept dollars changing hands. And THAT is why Ethanol is here today creating havoc, especially for boat owners. There is NO rationale for forcing the public to use a compromised fuel that creates a greater fire hazard than the norm and ruins engines yet we still have this mandate Allen went along with. This flip flop is case in point for why we are in the situation our electeds put us in.. Big mandates with easy green have been and continue to be a rip off for free markets and consumers take the brunt it. Thanks Felix.
Eric said “Why is this even a topic of debate? Since we expend more fossil fuel energy to produce ethanol than the renewable energy we get out of the product, its production should be abandoned and we should just burn the oil instead”
Ethanol isn’t alone, it takes two years for a solar panel in full sun to create as much electricity as it took to make the solar panel in the first place according to one source. Source for that is “An Empirical Perspective on the Energy Payback Time for Photovoltaic Modules” by Knapp and Jester. That’s about the best case, other sources have other numbers, 51 months (4.2 years), 86 months (7.2 years), etc, whatever the number is there can be no doubt that it takes a lot of energy to create solar panels.
Leave your response
The comments section is for meaningful discussion. Readers are reminded to post comments that are germane to the article and write in a common language that steers clear of personal attacks and/or vulgarities.
Please take a moment to review our comment policy.