November 05, 2007
I thought it was a bad idea to put sugar in your gas tank
And yet the FedGov is set to spend lots of money to do just that. Furthermore, the sugar industry is, er, sweetening the deal for members of Congress who represent areas that contain no sugar fields, nor any sugar refineries, in order to gain influence in its favor. From the Washington Post:
So far this year, nine sugar farm or refinery groups have made more than 900 separate contributions totaling nearly $1.5 million to candidates, parties and political funds, according to federal election records and CQ MoneyLine.
Four days after she voted against a measure that would have derailed the new subsidy plan, [Rep. Carolyn B.] Maloney [edit: who represents Queens and Manhattan's East Side, a district not known for its sugar cane] hosted a fundraising event at Bullfeathers restaurant on Capitol Hill that netted $9,500 in contributions from sugar growers and refiners, according to Federal Election Commission records and Maloney's election attorney, Andrew Tulloch. Tulloch called the timing of the July 31 fundraiser -- dubbed a "sugar breakfast" on the campaign finance report of one group -- a "pure coincidence."
Here's the part about your gas tank:
To keep [NAFTA-induced Mexican] imports from depressing domestic prices, the Agriculture Department would be required to buy equivalent amounts of U.S. sugar and resell it to ethanol refiners at a deep discount. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated the cost at $1 billion through 2017.
The Agitator, to whom the hat is tipped, spake thusly:
Here's a clue, gang: If an "alternative energy" source is so efficient that it needs massive government subsidy to event [sic] exist, much less survive, it's not a viable long-term source of energy.
Read the rest of his comment.
Policy | By joe lance | 06:46 PM