Monday, July 07, 2008

Invoking Hugo Chavez

Campaign Believes Ethanol Debate "Will Go On For Awhile"
Kenny Hulshof's campaign for Governor released a group of independent studies Monday which they claim "debunk" Sarah Steelman's recent assertions that the state ethanol mandate is leading to higher food prices and hurting Missouri farmers.
The Hulshof case boosting ethanol includes:
  • Merrill Lynch analysis that concluded oil prices would be 15% higher without biofuels
  • U.S. Ag Dept. analysis that found that without ethanol, gas would be 35 cents higher
  • Iowa State Study that found ethanol has lowered gas by 30 to 40 cents per gallon
  • A.G. Edwards analyst asserting that ethanol blending could ultimately reflect lower prices at the pump
  • American Farm Bureau president Bob Stallman: “The production of 6.5 billion gallons of ethanol in 2007 displaced the need for 228 million barrels of oil. That is equivalent to nearly half of the oil imported from Venezuela in 2007.”

The Hulshof campaign also pointed to a statement by Venezuela dictator Hugo Chavez condemning the U.S. for its "crazy" initiatives to produce ethanol.

"The promotion of biofuels, including Missouri’s ethanol mandate, is clearly working," said Scott Baker, communications director for Hulshof. "If not for ethanol, Missourians would be facing significantly higher prices at the pump, and we would have to import millions of additional barrels of oil from dictators like Hugo Chavez. Steelman’s plan is dangerous for America and extremely harmful to Missouri."

1 comment:

whistleblower said...

The US is producing ethanol now at a rate of 8.3 billion gallons per year. A bushel of corn (along with the necessary natural gas, etc.) makes 2.8 gallons. 8.3 billion divided by 2.8 is close to 3 billion. 3 billion bushels of corn. Out of 10.5 billion bushels of corn harvested. So, about 30% of corn goes to ethanol. How can anyone think that doesn’t have an impact on prices? Subsidies for blending are 51 cents per gallon. So our 8.3 billion gallons are generating over $4 billion for SOMEODY. Maybe to Grassley and Iowa corporate farmers, which is why they keep trying to misdirect attention to random things like minor “droughts” half-a-planet away.

Would Hulshof have any reason to perpetuate this fleecing?

Here’s your answer:

“But as a the owner of a farm, Hulshof also has a personal stake in the amount of subsidies approved in the annual Farm Bill. The Environmental Working Group’s (EWG) Farm Subsidy Database reported the subsidies that Hulshof personally received amounted to $48,233 between the 2003 and 2005 fiscal years. A total of 64 percent of Hulshof’s subsidies during the period were corn-related.”

“US Congressman Kenny Hulshof received nearly $50,000 in federal farm subsidies in recent years, more than the average farmer in his congressional district and in the state of Missouri.”

As the mandated demand for corn causes a shortage, Kenny makes more money from his corn crop.

Iowa’a main crop is corn. (Of course they like to make more money) The USDA and the USDE need to sell the bag of goods to the uninformed citizens. Merryl Lynch and AG Edwards are selling to investors (not consumers).

Our own Show-Me Institute performed an independent analysis.

“Missouri is one of only three states that require a 10-percent minimum ethanol blend (E-10) for retail gasoline sold within the state. The Missouri Corn Merchandising Council (MCMC) recently released a study purporting to demonstrate the positive economic benefits of the state’s ethanol mandate for Missouri consumers. The study claimed that Missourians will save more than $285 million through ethanol-induced fuel cost reductions in 2008 and nearly $2 billion in present value during the following decade. The MCMC study ignores important effects of the E-10 mandate, however, most notably the documented decrease in fuel efficiency of E-10 blended fuel and the taxpayer cost of ethanol subsidies. We find that accounting for these costs significantly impacts the MCMC savings projections and would result in a net loss to Missouri consumers of almost $1 billion during the next decade. If one were to consider the additional impact of the E-10 mandate on higher food prices and CO2 gas emissions, these costs would be even higher.”