Reply With Quote
ah . That sucks.
Senate rejects Coburn bill to repeal ethanol subsidies
WASHINGTON – By a vote of 59-40, the Senate on Tuesday afternoon struck down a measure to roll back $6 billion in federal ethanol subsidies.
S.1057, dubbed the "Ethanol Subsidy and Tariff Repeal Act," would have repealed a 45-cents per gallon tax credit for ethanol blended into gasoline as well as a 54-cent tariff on imported ethanol. The controversial ethanol credit is hailed by proponents as a boost to domestic energy production and rejected by opponents as a gratuitous giveaway.
Twenty-five Democrats joined 34 Republicans to defeat the bill, which was forced to a vote by Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), as an amendment to the Economic Development Revitalization Act.
The vote caused some friction within the conservative movement. The billionaire Koch brothers backed the Coburn amendment, citing free-market principles and opposition to federal subsidies. But conservative activist Grover Norquist decried it as an effective tax increase, something he and his group American For Tax Reform virulently oppose.
The debate over ethanol subsidies on Capitol Hill is heavily colored by the fact that Iowa, a major beneficiary of the policy, holds the first primary test for presidential contenders. It's also complicated because farm-state senators such as Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Durbin (D-IL) are motivated by local politics to support them.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/06/1...e+Raw+Story%29
ah . That sucks.
corrupted politicians take care of wealthy Corporate-Americans, and screw (poor) Human-Americans.
Wondered when you'd work that in. Missing is "Repug".
Gfy
Wait... so boutons is WITH the Koch brothers on this one?
Bad decision. Very bad decision to not pass this repeal.
Ethanol form corn is nothing more than the result from heavy farm lobbying. It's grossly inefficient and and drives up the cost of food. Brazil produces ethanol 6 times more efficiently form sugar cane...AND THEY ARE ENERGY INDEPENDENT.
Not to mention the state (TX) focuses on the increase of NoX emissions from biodiesel and ignorse ethanol increase. It's corruption all over, thanks to farm lobying
The Kochbrothers did right here, but by accident and their own self interest. Bachman would have opposed this because her family is built on welfare/farm subsidies.
I figger the Kocks own or have interests in production of Brazilian sugar ethanol, so would benefit maybe more from the tariff disappearing than from all that nasty work of producing domestic corn ethanol.
Boutons, figgers.
I just wonder when the GOP of Dems are going to pass something that isn't tainted with wealth and kickbacks for the wealthy.
Health care to Defense to Agriculture, most people are getting shafted.
George Soros sure as does.
Oh my...a little reading reveals the Koch Bros are into US Ethanol, not Brazillian.
bouton's head just asploded.
I can't think of what's worse. 1) this corn subsidy f* over the economy or 2) running backwards through a cornfield naked
I say they're into both, asshole. GFY, after you get your teeth on my ankles.
Went to Thomas to look at the vote, and it's not updated yet. Guess i have to wait till tomorrow.
Dammit. I wanted to raise with my senators or praise them for their vote.
You say a lot of , bot. But it don't make it so.
Why are you guys busy ing with boutons when he actually brings up a valid point?
What point was that, Manny?
How stupid this action was. Dude made two posts not even blaming the GOP and highlighting how the Dems went along with him and you guys had to drag him back to bot mode.
I'm sick of these stupid nonlogical efforts to keep funneling money to corn ethanol when its neither clean nor efficient. I wish this country would go AWAY from corn and instead we artificially make it more profitable than we should FOR NO GOOD REASON!
Point taken, Manny. Props to boutons.. I guess I can be a bit Pavlovian in my responses.
And completely agree on the Ethanol point.
Proving again that politics is local. This was a farm state vs. non farm state vote and the farm states won. In the Senate, South Dakota is just as powerful as California or Texas.
This does not compute.
The OP lists S 1057 as the one voted down. However, it was not discussed in congress on 6/14. S Admd 436 was voted on and led listed as Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Coburn Amdt. No. 436; To repeal the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit. However, i was unable to find text for it outside of this:
Looking deeper I found this is what would be repealed in (a):SA 436. Mr. COBURN (for himself and Mr. Cardin) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 782, to amend the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 to reauthorize that Act, and for other purposes; as follows.
Beginning on page 17, strike line 14 and all that follows through page 18, line 10, and insert the following:
(a) Brightfields Demonstration Program.--Section 218 of the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3154d) is repealed.
(b) Termination of Global Climate Change Mitigation Incentive Fund.--Not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Commerce shall terminate the Global Climate Change Mitigation Incentive Fund of the Department of Commerce.
What I found for (b) is this:Sec. 3154d. Brightfields demonstration program
-STATUTE-
(a) Definition of brightfield site
In this section, the term "brightfield site" means a brownfield
site that is redeveloped through the incorporation of 1 or more
solar energy technologies.
(b) Demonstration program
On the application of an eligible recipient, the Secretary may
make a grant for a project for the development of a brightfield
site if the Secretary determines that the project will -
(1) use 1 or more solar energy technologies to develop
abandoned or contaminated sites for commercial use; and
(2) improve the commercial and economic opportunities in the
area in which the project is located.
(c) Savings clause
To the extent that any portion of a grant awarded under
subsection (b) of this section involves remediation, the
remediation shall be subject to section 3222 of this le.
(d) Authorization of appropriations
There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section
$5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2004 through 2008, to remain
available until expended.
FY 2009 Global Climate Change Mitigation Incentive Fund.
I don't see it as an ethanol subsidy. Maybe someone wants to research it.
I am baffled. I tend to believe the le had nothing to do with the text, but was an intentional misdirection.
The bill to be amended is S782. Here is the removed text by the amendment:
I was unable to find ethanol.Section 218 of the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3154d) is amended—
(1) by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following:
‘‘(a) DEFINITION OF RENEWABLE ENERGY SITE.—
In this section, the term ‘renewable energy site’ means a brownfield site that is redeveloped through the incorporation of 1 or more renewable energy technologies, including, but not limited to, solar, wind, and geothermal technologies.’’;
(2) in subsection (b)—
VerDate Mar 15 2010 22:51 May 02, 2011 Jkt 099200 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S782.RS S782 Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
(A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘brightfield’’ and inserting ‘‘renewable energy’’; and
(B) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘solar energy technologies’’ and inserting ‘‘renewable energy technologies, including, but not limited to, solar, wind, and geothermal technologies’’; and
(3) in subsection (d), by striking ‘‘2004 through 2008’’ and inserting ‘‘2011 through 2015’’.
help.....
Vote #89
Democrats voting No:
Akaka
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Blumenthal
Boxer
Brown
Cardin
Carper
Conrad
Coons
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Hagan
Harkin
Inouye
Johnson
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson
Nelson
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Udall
Udall
Warner
Whitehouse
Wyden
Wyden
Democrats voting Yes:
Cantwell
Manchin
Pryor
Tester
Webb
Republicans voting No:
Blunt
Coats
Cochran
Grassley
Hoeven
Johanns
Kirk
Lugar
Moran
Portman
Roberts
Thune
Wicker
Republicans voting Yes:
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Boozman
Brown
Burr
Chambliss
Coburn
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Enzi
Graham
Hatch
er
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kyl
Lee
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Paul
Risch
Rubio
Sessions
Shelby
Snowe
Toomey
Vitter
Other:
Casey (D) No Vote
Leiberman (I) Yes
Sanders (I) No
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
