This is change?
Posted on June 23rd, 2008 by bile Tags: America, Barack Obama, energy independence, energy policy, ethanol processing, Hillary Clinton, Illinois, Iowa, John McCain, National Corn Growers Association, New York Times, oil, oil dependence, Renewable Fuels Association, Uncategorized, United States, World Trade OrganizationObama Camp Closely Linked With Ethanol
When VeraSun Energy inaugurated a new ethanol processing plant last summer in Charles City, Iowa, some of that industry’s most prominent boosters showed up. Leaders of the National Corn Growers Association and the Renewable Fuels Association, for instance, came to help cut the ribbon — and so did Senator Barack Obama.
Then running far behind Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton in name recognition and in the polls, Mr. Obama was in the midst of a campaign swing through the state where he would eventually register his first caucus victory. And as befits a senator from Illinois, the country’s second largest corn-producing state, he delivered a ringing endorsement of ethanol as an alternative fuel.
Mr. Obama is running as a reformer who is seeking to reduce the influence of special interests. But like any other politician, he has powerful constituencies that help shape his views. And when it comes to domestic ethanol, almost all of which is made from corn, he also has advisers and prominent supporters with close ties to the industry at a time when energy policy is a point of sharp contrast between the parties and their presidential candidates.
In the heart of the Corn Belt that August day, Mr. Obama argued that embracing ethanol “ultimately helps our national security, because right now we’re sending billions of dollars to some of the most hostile nations on earth.” America’s oil dependence, he added, “makes it more difficult for us to shape a foreign policy that is intelligent and is creating security for the long term.”
Mr. McCain advocates eliminating the multibillion-dollar annual government subsidies that domestic ethanol has long enjoyed. As a free trade advocate, he also opposes the 54-cent-a-gallon tariff that the United States slaps on imports of ethanol made from sugar cane, which packs more of an energy punch than corn-based ethanol and is cheaper to produce.
Mr. Obama, in contrast, favors the subsidies, some of which end up in the hands of the same oil companies he says should be subjected to a windfall profits tax. In the name of helping the United States build “energy independence,” he also supports the tariff, which some economists say may well be illegal under the World Trade Organization’s rules but which his advisers say is not.
Is anyone surprised? Several people who I know who voted for Obama have told me as time goes on they fear his rather unknown past more and more. Seems they should have worried about that more before casting a ballot.
4 Responses to “This is change?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.





June 23rd, 2008 at 2:57 pm
What universe does the NYTimes live in again? What energy are they talking about?
June 23rd, 2008 at 3:04 pm
That’s speech is used all the time. Since when do you add in the “free” energy which went into a resource independent of man? The sunlight and fertilizers not put into place by man aren’t counted just like we don’t bother with talking about dying stars with regard to nuclear power plant fuel. The only energy worth mentioning is that which we have to spend.
June 23rd, 2008 at 4:05 pm
Since when do you… Ever since freshman physics with Dr. Savin. I’m not taking any chances by making assumptions.
June 23rd, 2008 at 5:21 pm
Dr. Savin, thankfully?, wasn’t in the business of government policy or communicating with average human beings.