An interesting passage to put in an announcement speech in Iowa:
I’m here today to tell Iowans the truth, too.
America is facing a crushing debt crisis the likes of which we’ve never seen before. We need to cut spending, and we need to cut it…big time. The hard truth is that there are no longer any sacred programs.
The truth about federal energy subsidies, including federal subsidies for ethanol, is that they have to be phased out. We need to do it gradually. We need to do it fairly. But we need to do it.
Now, I’m not some out-of-touch politician. I served two terms as Governor of an ag state. I fully understand and respect the critical role farming plays in our economy and our society. I’ve strongly supported ethanol in various ways over the years, and I still believe in the promise of renewable fuels – both for our economy and our national security.
But even in Minnesota, when faced with fiscal challenges, we reduced ethanol subsidies. That’s where we are now in Washington, but on a much, much larger scale.
It’s not only ethanol. We need to change our approach to subsidies in all industries.
It can’t be done overnight. The industry has made large investments, and it wouldn’t be fair to pull the rug out from under it immediately. But we must face the truth that if we want to invite more competition, more investment, and more innovation into an industry – we need to get government out. We also need the government out of the business of handing out favors and special deals. The free market, not freebies from politicians, should decide a company’s success. So, as part of a larger reform, we need to phase out subsidies across all sources of energy and all industries, including ethanol. We simply can’t afford them anymore.
that's about as gutsy as you can get in Iowa and still have a snowball's chance. The reality is that any cut in subsidies would have to be done gradually, so no shame in saying so up front.
Good for him.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseVERY disappointing. VERY!
The foremost reason to eliminate ethanol subsidies has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the larger budget issues.
We need to get rid of ethanol subsidies because production of ethanol is BOTH bad for the environment and bad for the economy, which is totally opposite why governments started subsidizing it in the first place.
That Pawlenty either cannot articulate the case against ethanol, or does not want to, is troubling to me. This issue presents one of the easiest opportunities to articulate conservative principles, and for an especially skilled communicator, provides a snap-shot of progressive policy in general - promulgating the problems it attempts to solve.
I was just warming up to Pawlenty, too. That trend is in quick reverse! Pawlenty's statement on ethanol is a pathetic attempt at persuasion.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis will not be enough for the corn nuts. They will only be happy with the guy promising to imprison the corn farmers until the public admit their sins.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMadisonian - what exactly is this case you speak of that Pawlenty did not articulate. I hate to break it to you, but most conservatives see ethanol subsidies in the prism of the budget - they are market-distorting handouts that we cannot afford. And that's what Pawlenty said - we can't afford them and markets, not government, should determine the success of an industry. Few, if any, conservatives are making a case against ethanol on environmental grounds (though I know the argument is there to be made).
Second, if you think that a candidate will use his announcement speech to provide the only defense of a policy, or even a particularly detailed one, that seems like a foolish expectation. This wasn't a "major policy speech" - it was a political event designed to get headlines and generate soundbites. If we expect every speech to be a home run, we will all be sorely and routinely disappointed by all of the candidates.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@madisonian
Your comment makes no sense. How is Pawlenty's statement to "phase out subsidies" for all industries in favor of free market principles an indication that he can't articulate a Conservative position? Besides, this is a candidacy announcement, not a policy detail speech. In fact, I give him points for introducing this unpopular, but necessary topic when he could have gained politically by not bringing it up at all.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"So, as part of a larger reform, we need to phase out subsidies across all sources of energy and all industries, including ethanol. We simply can’t afford them anymore."
If he wanted to by honest, he would have said "We simply have NEVER been able to afford them".
"The industry has made large investments, and it wouldn’t be fair to pull the rug out from under it immediately."
And this is precisely why no person in their right economic mind would have ever have supported ethanol due exactly to the fact that resources were allocated due to political incentives in lieu of free market incentives. Maybe Pawlenty could have articulated all the negative consequences of his past support for ethanol, however, he probable didn't have enough time allotted in his speech.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusereldim:
Here's what he could have mentioned, and it doesn't take a "major policy speech", but a mere three sentences.
Ethanol drastically alters the food market, causing prices of all food items to increase, while simultaneously raising the cost of fuel because it is more expensive to blend than regular gasoline.
This sharp economic cost to ethanol - in higher fuel and food prices - comes with no attenuating benefit, because it creates a net negative drag on the environment -- it creates a net increase in the very emissions it was designed to lower, and it is damaging to many of the engines in which it operates.
When a program not only makes worse the very problem it was intended to solve, but also creates economic havoc along with it, such a program needs to end - yesterday.
This "announcement speech" was disappointing more for what it shows Pawlenty is lacking in the argument and rhetoric department, more than for what he did not say about ethanol that needs to be said.
When a politician leads off with weak arguments, and waits till later to make the stronger ones, two things are true: the first go-round is less than persuasive, and the second opportunity evaporates before materializing.
My guess is that he VERY tepidly went after ethanol because:
1) He has supported it for the past decade;
2) He doesn't really oppose its continuation.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseArguing that we shouldn't support ethanol because ethanol doesn't work isn't a bad argument, but it's also not a very good one. It leaves open the case for big government types to say, "Well, THIS works, so let's subsidize this!"
Better to say, no subsidies. Wean 'em all off, and get out of the business. That way, nobody can weasel in their "favorite" subsidy.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFirst, I'm agnostic on ethanol subsidies. I'd rather not have them, but they're aren't a proverbial drop in the budget bucket, so I don't get too worked up about them either way. And, I'm not at all soured on Pawlenty, and I think he probably gives us the clearest path to victory in a general election, BUT the cynic in me says that this comment was about something entirely other than Ethanol - it was about losing the IA caucus.
If either Santorum or Bachmann are around by the time IA gets here, they are going to battle it out for IA, leaving Pawlenty to come in third, maybe even a distant third. This statement gives Pawlenty a built-in excuse for failure. He can say, "Well, I did come out strongly against Ethanol, so I was expecting to win there". If he overachieves, even better. But, if he does as expected, he's minimizing the damage - smart, actually - as a purely practical political maneuver.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThat should have said "...I WASN'T expecting to win there....".
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe real tim pawlenty: what he believed and did before he decided to run for president
External Link
The pawlenty they're putting out now is a phony construction designed to distract from his real record. And as usual, the usual suspects are buying into it - and get upset if others don't.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseShould a state subsidize ethanol if they are in the black financially? Why not? No deficit, then subsidize it?
Take Indiana, for instance. Should Indiana subsidize ethanol? They have a budget surplus. So, is it suddenly a good idea?
If you think ethanol's negative effects on the price of fuel, which impacts the prices of everything else - including every morsel of food we eat - is a weak argument, especially in the midst of a tepid economic recovery from a financial meltdown and amid rising fuel prices in summertime, then I guess we share completely different views on argumentation.
I think the American people would fall over themselves to accept this relatively simple concept:
"You - the taxpayer - are paying farmers to increase the price of gas and the price of food - the two substances EVERYONE USES ON A DAILY BASIS!"
What a dud of an argument! Now, the argument that we could save one one thousandth of one percent of all federal spending? Boy, what a doozie!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf he keeps talking like this, I might just have to support him.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCorn subsidy is a travesty.It runs against every conceivable concept of capitalism.It distorts free economies and it's immoral.Pawlenty may lose Iowa but will gain tremendously nationwide and on this issue alone will win the nomination and will force Obama to end his support for ethanol.Bear in mind the only reason Obama never mention the "E" word is his fear of losing Iowa.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse