As of last week, nearly 200 corporate and individual patrons of President Bush had given between $25,000 and $250,000 to enjoy VIP access at inaugural parties with White House officials. The group comprises the usual roll call of corporations and wealthy executives with significant government interests -- energy firms, sub-prime bank lenders, federal contractors, and pharmaceutical companies. "It's the modern version of selling access to the White House," says Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, a group that advocates stricter campaign finance laws. The 2002 campaign finance reforms outlawed direct contributions to candidates in excess of $2,000, but it left open loopholes for donating unlimited sums to the party conventions and the inauguration. The White House has voluntarily limited the size of individual inaugural checks to $250,000. "There are only a couple of avenues left where you can put up a large sum of money that is of direct value to the president," Wertheimer said.
Nearly all of the inaugural donors have benefited—or hope to benefit—from the President's policies. For many of these companies, a six-figure donation is but a small part of their multi-million dollar lobbying strategies. Among the $250,000 donors are name brands like Exxon Mobil, Ameriquest Capital, FedEx, Bristol Myers Squibb and Lockheed Martin. The Nuclear Energy Institute, which has received White House backing for new nuclear power plants, chipped in $100,000.
Carl Lindner, the former owner of the Chiquita Banana brand and one of the most reliable of Republican moneymen, gave $250,000 under his own name. But so did two companies he controls, American Financial and New Energy Corp.The lesser-known New Energy, which is based in South Bend, Ind., is one of the nation's largest manufacturers of ethanol, a corn-based alternative and additive to gasoline, and a longstanding recipient of federal research funding. It will likely be among the biggest winners of the Energy Bill, which Congress plans to reconsider later this year. A previous version of the bill, which failed to pass in 2003, would have tripled the amount of ethanol produced in the U.S., costing taxpayers nearly $5 billion, according to the environmental group Friends of the Earth.
TEXT
People and corporations don't contribute $250,000 to what basically amounts to a party and not expect nothing in return. Quite the opposite, in fact.
For donating $250,000 to the president will get one all sorts of "access." Access that us common folk will never have, unless you happen to have a quarter of a million dollars lying about.
This kind of access gets paid back and then some. Paid back with laws uniquely crafted to benefit your pet cause or in this case, to help shovel even more tax payer money, in the form of subsidies, to ethanol factories.
And We the People are left standing out in the cold, not even allowed to look in thru the window to watch the ongoing shenanigans.
Unless you have $250,000 to spare.
Showing posts with label Corporate Welfare. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Corporate Welfare. Show all posts
Friday, July 27, 2007
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
HIGHWAY ROBBERY
"Ethanol is a magic elixir. It allows politicians and political operatives to promise voters that America can achieve "energy independence." In this new energy Valhalla, American farmers will be rich, fat and happy, thanks to all the money they will be making from "energy crops." Better yet, U.S. soldiers will never again need to visit the Persian Gulf - except, perhaps, on vacation. With enough ethanol-blended motor fuel, America can finally dictate terms to those rascally Arab sheikhs with their rag-covered heads, multiple wives and supertankers loaded with sulfurous crude.
First, the subsidies. Making ethanol from corn borders on fiscal insanity. It uses taxpayer money to make subsidized motor fuel from the single most subsidized crop in America. Between 1995 and 2005, federal corn subsidies totaled $51.2 billion. In 2005 alone, according to data compiled by the Environmental Working Group, corn subsidies totaled $9.4 billion. That $9.4 billion is approximately equal to the budget for the U.S. Department of Commerce, a federal agency that has 39,000 employees.
But the ethanol lobby isn't satisfied with the subsidies paid out to grow the grain. They are also getting huge subsidies to turn that grain into fuel. According to the Global Subsidies Initiative, meeting Bush's goal of producing 35 billion gallons of renewable and alternative fuels per year by 2017 will require total subsidies of $118 billion. The group claims that this price tag "would be the minimum subsidy" over the eleven-year period. In a report released on February 9, the group said that adding in tax breaks that the corn distillers are getting from state and local governments and federal tariffs imposed on foreign ethanol (mostly from Brazil) "would likely add tens of billions of dollars of subsidies" to the $118 billion estimate.
In April, Mark Z. Jacobson, an engineering professor at Stanford University, published a study concluding that the widespread use of E85 (fuel that contains 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline) "may increase ozone-related mortality, hospitalization, and asthma by about 9 percent in Los Angeles and 4 percent in the United States as a whole" when compared to the use of regular gasoline. Jacobson also found that because of its ozone-related effects, E85 "may be a greater overall public health risk than gasoline."
TEXT
$118 BILLION DOLLARS in future subsidies to the ravenous, pork laden ethanol industry. The ethanol industry is turning out be one of the biggest scams in recent memory.
Not only will taxpayers be forced to feed this "FRANKENFUEL" monster with their hard earned money, they will also be the ones to reap the "benefits", like polluted water and air, a depleted Ozarks Aquifer and cancer clusters around the ethanol plants.
With that much pork to be spread around, it's no wonder the present and future ethanol producers are crowding around the feed trough, waiting for the next delivery of YOUR tax dollars that go into their ever expanding stomachs..... and wallets.
First, the subsidies. Making ethanol from corn borders on fiscal insanity. It uses taxpayer money to make subsidized motor fuel from the single most subsidized crop in America. Between 1995 and 2005, federal corn subsidies totaled $51.2 billion. In 2005 alone, according to data compiled by the Environmental Working Group, corn subsidies totaled $9.4 billion. That $9.4 billion is approximately equal to the budget for the U.S. Department of Commerce, a federal agency that has 39,000 employees.
But the ethanol lobby isn't satisfied with the subsidies paid out to grow the grain. They are also getting huge subsidies to turn that grain into fuel. According to the Global Subsidies Initiative, meeting Bush's goal of producing 35 billion gallons of renewable and alternative fuels per year by 2017 will require total subsidies of $118 billion. The group claims that this price tag "would be the minimum subsidy" over the eleven-year period. In a report released on February 9, the group said that adding in tax breaks that the corn distillers are getting from state and local governments and federal tariffs imposed on foreign ethanol (mostly from Brazil) "would likely add tens of billions of dollars of subsidies" to the $118 billion estimate.
In April, Mark Z. Jacobson, an engineering professor at Stanford University, published a study concluding that the widespread use of E85 (fuel that contains 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline) "may increase ozone-related mortality, hospitalization, and asthma by about 9 percent in Los Angeles and 4 percent in the United States as a whole" when compared to the use of regular gasoline. Jacobson also found that because of its ozone-related effects, E85 "may be a greater overall public health risk than gasoline."
TEXT
$118 BILLION DOLLARS in future subsidies to the ravenous, pork laden ethanol industry. The ethanol industry is turning out be one of the biggest scams in recent memory.
Not only will taxpayers be forced to feed this "FRANKENFUEL" monster with their hard earned money, they will also be the ones to reap the "benefits", like polluted water and air, a depleted Ozarks Aquifer and cancer clusters around the ethanol plants.
With that much pork to be spread around, it's no wonder the present and future ethanol producers are crowding around the feed trough, waiting for the next delivery of YOUR tax dollars that go into their ever expanding stomachs..... and wallets.
Friday, July 6, 2007
ETHANOL A "CLEVER IDEA?"
Ethanol a 'clever idea' of industry, government July 5, 2007 by Doug Kelly
David Pitts makes several very good and well-thought-out points. I agree with his analysis of ethanol. I have read similar articles in a variety of magazines that support his scientific data. And I also question not only the veracity of the ethanol proponents, but also the moral-ethical discussion about which he writes. We'll likely run out of water before we run out of oil and gas. If you don't believe it, go to a Western state and see for yourself.
Too many people are ill-informed about ethanol. Some people are just gullible. And others are so desperate to save gas they are clutching onto anything possible to save fossil fuel and cut emission. But clearly ethanol is not the answer. In fact, if people would take a little time to study this, they would find that ethanol will do just opposite of what they want — that is, to save gas.
I'm afraid it's another one of those "clever ideas" cooked up by industry and government. And a more dangerous combination of forces doesn't exist.
Ethanol is a joke for fuel savings because it's nothing but "watered-down" gasoline that actually costs more to make and sell. And it does indeed have water in it. Not only is water not particularly good for an engine, but it will condense in your fuel tank and cause it to rust. This does wonders for your fuel pumps and filter.
Not to mention that it doesn't save fuel because it is really just a low grade gasoline; it burns unevenly in the cylinder head and so it actually gets worse mileage than one gets now on plain 87 octane and certainly less mpg than 92 octane. We used to be afraid of buying cheap gas because it may be "watered-down," now we're actually getting watered-down gas and it's said to be a great achievement.
At first it was 90 percent gas and 10 percent ethanol. Now I'm seeing 85 percent in some places, even 80 for biodiesel. Well, that would invalidate my car's engine and drive-train warranty. It says so very clearly in the owner's manual. I don't like that part. And to all the ethanol-lovers, I'm not confusing this with methanol. Ethanol is clearly stated in my car's manual. Ask a mechanic how ethanol will ruin your engine.
I have another question for those who are saving our environment. How does ethanol save the use of "fossil fuel" when it requires just as much or more actual fossil fuel than before? I believe strongly in protecting our environment. But as I remember, the original idea was to use less fossil fuel, not the same amount or likely more along with corn and water added. Was that not the original idea?
Well, ethanol doesn't lessen our use of fossil fuel. Like a fellow once said, "When you're up to your butt in alligators, it's hard to remember that the original idea was to drain the swamp."
But it is a nice sop from the government and taxpayers to the corn growers. Makes the cost of corn higher because it's in greater demand. Believe me, everything having any amount of corn in it, as well and livestock produced from feed corn, will all cost us more. Well, we can't expect industries reliant on corn and our beef and hog farmers to sell for a loss just because we "need" ethanol.
This is about the worst idea for using less fossil fuel that we've come up with. It's a really, really bad idea. But the bandwagon for ethanol is up and running. And it looks like the loss is going to be ours. What do you think should be done? Well, I guess we can buy carbon credits to allow us to feel good about continuing to emit high carbon content exhaust gasses. Those are popular with the jet set and rich crowd.
TEXT
David Pitts makes several very good and well-thought-out points. I agree with his analysis of ethanol. I have read similar articles in a variety of magazines that support his scientific data. And I also question not only the veracity of the ethanol proponents, but also the moral-ethical discussion about which he writes. We'll likely run out of water before we run out of oil and gas. If you don't believe it, go to a Western state and see for yourself.
Too many people are ill-informed about ethanol. Some people are just gullible. And others are so desperate to save gas they are clutching onto anything possible to save fossil fuel and cut emission. But clearly ethanol is not the answer. In fact, if people would take a little time to study this, they would find that ethanol will do just opposite of what they want — that is, to save gas.
I'm afraid it's another one of those "clever ideas" cooked up by industry and government. And a more dangerous combination of forces doesn't exist.
Ethanol is a joke for fuel savings because it's nothing but "watered-down" gasoline that actually costs more to make and sell. And it does indeed have water in it. Not only is water not particularly good for an engine, but it will condense in your fuel tank and cause it to rust. This does wonders for your fuel pumps and filter.
Not to mention that it doesn't save fuel because it is really just a low grade gasoline; it burns unevenly in the cylinder head and so it actually gets worse mileage than one gets now on plain 87 octane and certainly less mpg than 92 octane. We used to be afraid of buying cheap gas because it may be "watered-down," now we're actually getting watered-down gas and it's said to be a great achievement.
At first it was 90 percent gas and 10 percent ethanol. Now I'm seeing 85 percent in some places, even 80 for biodiesel. Well, that would invalidate my car's engine and drive-train warranty. It says so very clearly in the owner's manual. I don't like that part. And to all the ethanol-lovers, I'm not confusing this with methanol. Ethanol is clearly stated in my car's manual. Ask a mechanic how ethanol will ruin your engine.
I have another question for those who are saving our environment. How does ethanol save the use of "fossil fuel" when it requires just as much or more actual fossil fuel than before? I believe strongly in protecting our environment. But as I remember, the original idea was to use less fossil fuel, not the same amount or likely more along with corn and water added. Was that not the original idea?
Well, ethanol doesn't lessen our use of fossil fuel. Like a fellow once said, "When you're up to your butt in alligators, it's hard to remember that the original idea was to drain the swamp."
But it is a nice sop from the government and taxpayers to the corn growers. Makes the cost of corn higher because it's in greater demand. Believe me, everything having any amount of corn in it, as well and livestock produced from feed corn, will all cost us more. Well, we can't expect industries reliant on corn and our beef and hog farmers to sell for a loss just because we "need" ethanol.
This is about the worst idea for using less fossil fuel that we've come up with. It's a really, really bad idea. But the bandwagon for ethanol is up and running. And it looks like the loss is going to be ours. What do you think should be done? Well, I guess we can buy carbon credits to allow us to feel good about continuing to emit high carbon content exhaust gasses. Those are popular with the jet set and rich crowd.
TEXT
Sunday, July 1, 2007
"THAR'S PORK IN THEM THAR HILLS"
A quarter-mile procession of trucks piled high with corn trundles concussively over the ruts on Distillery Road in the farm town of Pekin, Illinois, 163 miles south of Chicago.
The 18-wheelers are about to drop their loads at Aventine Renewable Energy LLC, an ethanol maker that Morgan Stanley bought for $66 million three years ago. Today, that investment is worth about $750 million, according to a company filing, as runaway oil prices spur an ethanol boom.
Investors and politicians from Wall Street to Detroit, to Silicon Valley are lavishing money and praise on the fuel made from corn. Goldman Sachs Group Inc.'s announcement in May of a $26.9 million ethanol investment came after similar forays this year by billionaire Bill Gates and venture capitalist Vinod Khosla, helping boost the shares of ethanol makers fourfold.
Aventine, which was planning an initial public offering for as early as June, is adding a total of about 500 million gallons of ethanol production in the next few years, a threefold increase.
Morgan Stanley spun off its buyout unit in 2004 into a new company called Metalmark Capital LLC, at which Abramson now serves as managing director. New York-based Metalmark manages the Morgan Stanley Capital Partners funds, which own a controlling 40 percent stake in Aventine. Abramson declined to be interviewed.
Climate Ark
From an initial $66 million dollar investment to a whopping cash cow that climbed in value to nearly $750 Million Dollars, investing in ethanol is looking more and more like the next PONZI scheme for the public.
If the ethanol business is such a money-making enterprise, then why is the public being forced to subsidize these "Ethanol Factories" with billions and billions of dollars in tax breaks and subsidies. These tax breaks are generously handed out at the local, state and federal level by our so-called "Public Servants" who are serving anything but the public when they hold for ransom our schools, infrastructure and our health.
The 18-wheelers are about to drop their loads at Aventine Renewable Energy LLC, an ethanol maker that Morgan Stanley bought for $66 million three years ago. Today, that investment is worth about $750 million, according to a company filing, as runaway oil prices spur an ethanol boom.
Investors and politicians from Wall Street to Detroit, to Silicon Valley are lavishing money and praise on the fuel made from corn. Goldman Sachs Group Inc.'s announcement in May of a $26.9 million ethanol investment came after similar forays this year by billionaire Bill Gates and venture capitalist Vinod Khosla, helping boost the shares of ethanol makers fourfold.
Aventine, which was planning an initial public offering for as early as June, is adding a total of about 500 million gallons of ethanol production in the next few years, a threefold increase.
Morgan Stanley spun off its buyout unit in 2004 into a new company called Metalmark Capital LLC, at which Abramson now serves as managing director. New York-based Metalmark manages the Morgan Stanley Capital Partners funds, which own a controlling 40 percent stake in Aventine. Abramson declined to be interviewed.
Climate Ark
From an initial $66 million dollar investment to a whopping cash cow that climbed in value to nearly $750 Million Dollars, investing in ethanol is looking more and more like the next PONZI scheme for the public.
If the ethanol business is such a money-making enterprise, then why is the public being forced to subsidize these "Ethanol Factories" with billions and billions of dollars in tax breaks and subsidies. These tax breaks are generously handed out at the local, state and federal level by our so-called "Public Servants" who are serving anything but the public when they hold for ransom our schools, infrastructure and our health.
Saturday, June 30, 2007
"YOUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK"
DOE Selects Six Cellulosic Ethanol Plants for Up to $385 Million in Federal Funding
Funding to help bring cellulosic ethanol to market and help revolutionize the industry
WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary Samuel W. Bodman today announced that DOE will invest up to $385 million for six biorefinery projects over the next four years. When fully operational, the biorefineries are expected to produce more than 130 million gallons of cellulosic ethanol per year. This production will help further President Bush’s goal of making cellulosic ethanol cost-competitive with gasoline by 2012 and, along with increased automobile fuel efficiency, reduce America’s gasoline consumption by 20 percent in ten years.
Funding for these projects is an integral part of the President’s Biofuels Initiative that will lead to the wide-scale use of non-food based biomass, such as agricultural waste, trees, forest residues, and perennial grasses in the production of transportation fuels, electricity, and other products. The solicitation, announced a year ago, was initially for three biorefineries and $160 million. However, in an effort to expedite the goals of President Bush’s Advanced Energy Initiative and help achieve the goals of his Twenty in Ten Initiative, within authority of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005), Section 932, Secretary Bodman raised the funding ceiling.
DOE
From the initial pork barrel size of $160 MILLION Dollars last year to even bigger porker size of $385 MILLION Dollars, the Celluloisc Ethanol backers must be drooling at the lips at the thought of that much of YOUR money they can get their paws on for their Ethanol Factories.
Cellulosic Ethanol Factories use not corn, but plant wastes from industrial processes (sawdust, paper pulp) and agricultural plant wastes (corn stover, cereal straws) to produce ethanol.Cellulose Energy
This is probably the type of plant that a certain company is wanting to build in the Ozarks. It makes fiscal sense for them to use waste products from the lumber industry, of which there are numerous sources in the Ozarks.
Using corn, which is not grown in the Ozarks and would have to be shipped in, makes no sense. The added shipping costs alone would be prohibitive.
But using one of the Ozarks natural resources, like forest products, does make sense for the local ethanol factory.
To sell this boondoggle, pork laden project to the locals, one could envision the old "bait and switch." The "bait and switch" involves selling someone a suspicious product, but dressing it up to look like something else that can be sold.
By the time the customer realizes he's been swindled, it's too late, the flim-flam man has high-tailed it down the road, looking for another "investor."
Between clear-cutting the Ozarks forests and polluting and depleting the Ozarks Aquifer, there's nothing to be gained from having an "Ethanol Factory" here in the Ozarks.
Funding to help bring cellulosic ethanol to market and help revolutionize the industry
WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary Samuel W. Bodman today announced that DOE will invest up to $385 million for six biorefinery projects over the next four years. When fully operational, the biorefineries are expected to produce more than 130 million gallons of cellulosic ethanol per year. This production will help further President Bush’s goal of making cellulosic ethanol cost-competitive with gasoline by 2012 and, along with increased automobile fuel efficiency, reduce America’s gasoline consumption by 20 percent in ten years.
Funding for these projects is an integral part of the President’s Biofuels Initiative that will lead to the wide-scale use of non-food based biomass, such as agricultural waste, trees, forest residues, and perennial grasses in the production of transportation fuels, electricity, and other products. The solicitation, announced a year ago, was initially for three biorefineries and $160 million. However, in an effort to expedite the goals of President Bush’s Advanced Energy Initiative and help achieve the goals of his Twenty in Ten Initiative, within authority of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005), Section 932, Secretary Bodman raised the funding ceiling.
DOE
From the initial pork barrel size of $160 MILLION Dollars last year to even bigger porker size of $385 MILLION Dollars, the Celluloisc Ethanol backers must be drooling at the lips at the thought of that much of YOUR money they can get their paws on for their Ethanol Factories.
Cellulosic Ethanol Factories use not corn, but plant wastes from industrial processes (sawdust, paper pulp) and agricultural plant wastes (corn stover, cereal straws) to produce ethanol.Cellulose Energy
This is probably the type of plant that a certain company is wanting to build in the Ozarks. It makes fiscal sense for them to use waste products from the lumber industry, of which there are numerous sources in the Ozarks.
Using corn, which is not grown in the Ozarks and would have to be shipped in, makes no sense. The added shipping costs alone would be prohibitive.
But using one of the Ozarks natural resources, like forest products, does make sense for the local ethanol factory.
To sell this boondoggle, pork laden project to the locals, one could envision the old "bait and switch." The "bait and switch" involves selling someone a suspicious product, but dressing it up to look like something else that can be sold.
By the time the customer realizes he's been swindled, it's too late, the flim-flam man has high-tailed it down the road, looking for another "investor."
Between clear-cutting the Ozarks forests and polluting and depleting the Ozarks Aquifer, there's nothing to be gained from having an "Ethanol Factory" here in the Ozarks.
Friday, June 29, 2007
"PORKOLOGY" 101
STATE & FEDERAL INCENTIVES AND LAWS
Our database captures state and federal laws and incentives related to alternative fuels and vehicles, air quality, fuel efficiency, and other transportation-related topics. State-level information is updated annually after each state's legislative session ends. To access state information, select a state from the map below. Federal information is updated after enacted legislation is signed into law. Select the Federal Incentives and Laws link at right for the latest federal-level information.
This is the U.S. Department of Energy’s Alternative Fuels Data Center that features an interactive map on its Web site that allows you to click on any State and find a list of all “laws and incentives related to alternative fuels and vehicles, air quality, fuel efficiency, and oher transportation-related topics.” Information is updated annually after each state’s legislative session ends.
The Alternative Fuels Data Center (AFDC) is an online collection of data, including more than 3000 documents and several interactive tools covering the topics of alternative transportation fuels, alternative fuel vehicles, hybrid electric vehicles, idle reduction technologies, fuel blends, and fuel economy. The AFDC is sponsored by the U. S. Department of Energy's Clean Cities and Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct) fleet programs.
DOE Site
Easy to use and almost easy to understand database from the U.S. Department of Energy. Has state by state info on laws, subsidies and general info on ethanol, biofuels and the like.
Our database captures state and federal laws and incentives related to alternative fuels and vehicles, air quality, fuel efficiency, and other transportation-related topics. State-level information is updated annually after each state's legislative session ends. To access state information, select a state from the map below. Federal information is updated after enacted legislation is signed into law. Select the Federal Incentives and Laws link at right for the latest federal-level information.
This is the U.S. Department of Energy’s Alternative Fuels Data Center that features an interactive map on its Web site that allows you to click on any State and find a list of all “laws and incentives related to alternative fuels and vehicles, air quality, fuel efficiency, and oher transportation-related topics.” Information is updated annually after each state’s legislative session ends.
The Alternative Fuels Data Center (AFDC) is an online collection of data, including more than 3000 documents and several interactive tools covering the topics of alternative transportation fuels, alternative fuel vehicles, hybrid electric vehicles, idle reduction technologies, fuel blends, and fuel economy. The AFDC is sponsored by the U. S. Department of Energy's Clean Cities and Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct) fleet programs.
DOE Site
Easy to use and almost easy to understand database from the U.S. Department of Energy. Has state by state info on laws, subsidies and general info on ethanol, biofuels and the like.
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
DRUNK ON ETHANOL
When the 2002 farm bill expires at the end of September, commodity subsidies will have cost taxpayers upwards of $100 billion. Just five crops - corn, cotton, rice, wheat, and soybean - get 95% of taxpayer subsidies. And according to some number-crunching of United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) data by Environmental Working Group, recipients of government farming handouts include a former pro basketball player, millionaires, and a talk show host. If it weren’t for all the taxpayer cash involved, we might think they were casting a bad reality TV show – Farming with the Stars
After realizing that they couldn’t compete in the open marketplace with petroleum, the ethanol folks got a bright idea: by handing out heaps of campaign cash, they could cozy up to Congress and get lawmakers to solve all their problems. Their master plan has paid off. The federal government injects more subsidies into ethanol than Jose Canseco pumps steroids into his left arm. Between the ethanol mandate, the 51-cent per gallon tax incentive, and the huge host of handouts and tax breaks for producers, the ethanol industry is riding high. Ethanol producers don’t need to compete with gasoline to take in huge profits; they can still haul home truckloads of cash so long as Congress remains their sugar daddy. But while corporate agriculture is getting drunk off of ethanol subsidies, taxpayers are getting stuck with a nasty hangover.
Taxpayers for Common Sense
What a sweet deal for the ethanol industry. Not only do they get massive subsidies--meaning OUR TAX dollars--to ply their trade, they also get a "nod and a wink" from the federal government when it comes to polluting both the water we drink and the air we breathe.
Billions upon billions of OUR tax dollars are laid at the feet of the ethanol industry, waiting to be scooped up by anyone wanting to start an Ethanol Factory... anywhere. No thought is given to the massive amount of air and wastewater pollutants that will be emitted by one of these "Toxic Terrors." The only thought is on how much money can be made off the strained back of the over burdened tax payers.
And when the pollution gets out of control, like it did at LOVE CANAL , the corporation that became fat and sassy pocketing massive amounts of taxpayer funded subsidies will just walk away from their generated Hazardous Waste Site and let the feds declare it a BROWNFIELD. Which will be cleaned up by monies supplied by, yup, you guessed right. The same poor souls that had their tax money extracted from them to pay for this Ethanol Factory will now be forced to pay for the cleanup of the waste that was dumped into their backyards. As comedian Jackie Gleason would say, "How Sweet It Is."
After realizing that they couldn’t compete in the open marketplace with petroleum, the ethanol folks got a bright idea: by handing out heaps of campaign cash, they could cozy up to Congress and get lawmakers to solve all their problems. Their master plan has paid off. The federal government injects more subsidies into ethanol than Jose Canseco pumps steroids into his left arm. Between the ethanol mandate, the 51-cent per gallon tax incentive, and the huge host of handouts and tax breaks for producers, the ethanol industry is riding high. Ethanol producers don’t need to compete with gasoline to take in huge profits; they can still haul home truckloads of cash so long as Congress remains their sugar daddy. But while corporate agriculture is getting drunk off of ethanol subsidies, taxpayers are getting stuck with a nasty hangover.
Taxpayers for Common Sense
What a sweet deal for the ethanol industry. Not only do they get massive subsidies--meaning OUR TAX dollars--to ply their trade, they also get a "nod and a wink" from the federal government when it comes to polluting both the water we drink and the air we breathe.
Billions upon billions of OUR tax dollars are laid at the feet of the ethanol industry, waiting to be scooped up by anyone wanting to start an Ethanol Factory... anywhere. No thought is given to the massive amount of air and wastewater pollutants that will be emitted by one of these "Toxic Terrors." The only thought is on how much money can be made off the strained back of the over burdened tax payers.
And when the pollution gets out of control, like it did at LOVE CANAL , the corporation that became fat and sassy pocketing massive amounts of taxpayer funded subsidies will just walk away from their generated Hazardous Waste Site and let the feds declare it a BROWNFIELD. Which will be cleaned up by monies supplied by, yup, you guessed right. The same poor souls that had their tax money extracted from them to pay for this Ethanol Factory will now be forced to pay for the cleanup of the waste that was dumped into their backyards. As comedian Jackie Gleason would say, "How Sweet It Is."
Saturday, June 23, 2007
A "FLEXIBLE" APPROACH TO FINANCING?
Green Fuel's Dirty Secret by Sasha Lilley, Special to CorpWatch June 1st, 2006
The town of Columbus, Nebraska, bills itself as a "City of Power and Progress." If Archer Daniels Midland gets its way, that power will be partially generated by coal, one of the dirtiest forms of energy. When burned, it emits carcinogenic pollutants and high levels of the greenhouse gases linked to global warming.
Ironically this coal will be used to generate ethanol, a plant-based petroleum substitute that has been hyped by both environmentalists and President George Bush as the green fuel of the future. The agribusiness giant Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) is the largest U.S. producer of ethanol, which it makes by distilling corn.
A single ADM corn processing plant in Clinton, Iowa generated nearly 20,000 tons of pollutants including sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and volatile organic compounds in 2004, according to federal records. The EPA considers an ethanol plant as a "major source" of pollution if it produces more than 100 tons of any one pollutant per year, although it has recently proposed increasing that cap to 250 tons.
ADM has another resource at its disposal, the considerable clout it has built up over decades of courting and lobbying Washington's power brokers. Days after the company's February expansion announcement of the coal-fired Nebraska plant, U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel W. Bodman visited ADM's Decatur headquarters to tout its part in President Bush's Biofuels Initiative. The secretary posed for photos with then ADM Chair G. Allen Andreas and announced that the Department of Energy would offer up to $160 million for the construction of three biorefineries to expand U.S. ethanol production.
ADM and its signature project have never lacked friends in high places, despite a history of price fixing scandals and monopolistic misdeeds. The Andreas family, which has headed up the publicly-traded company for decades, has cultivated bipartisan support through generous donations to both Republicans and Democrats. Since the 2000 election cycle, ADM has given more than $3 million in political contributions, according to the Center for Responsive Politics: $1.2 million to Democrats and $1.85 million to Republicans. These donations may have helped sustain a multitude of government subsidies to ADM, including ethanol tax credits, tariffs against foreign ethanol competitors, and federally mandated ethanol additive standards.
CORP WATCH
Let's revisit what the US Secretary of Energy said about taxpayer financing of ethanol factories: "The secretary posed for photos with then ADM Chair G. Allen Andreas and announced that the Department of Energy would offer up to $160 million for the construction of three biorefineries to expand U.S. ethanol production."
160 Million of our tax dollars going into the pockets of one of the world's largest agribusiness giants, ADM, to help build ethanol plants, or biorefineries. It doesn't matter what one calls these "Toxic Terrors" they'll still be polluting the water we drink and the air we breath, paid for by OUR tax dollars.
A certain ethanol plant that is in the works for Webster County has been out of the news of late. Does this mean that the backers of that ethanol factory are seeking some type of alternative financing, like a joint venture with ADM? ADM has deep pockets. Pockets that are large enough to hold more than a few politicians. These so-called "Public Servants" are at corporate giants like ADM's beck and call, always more than willing to change the law or provide these behemoths with huge dollops of our hard earned money.
Perhaps that's why the financing for this ethanol factory is so secretive. The backers are just being "FLEXible" in their ways to construct this behemoth on top of the Ozarks Aquifer.
The town of Columbus, Nebraska, bills itself as a "City of Power and Progress." If Archer Daniels Midland gets its way, that power will be partially generated by coal, one of the dirtiest forms of energy. When burned, it emits carcinogenic pollutants and high levels of the greenhouse gases linked to global warming.
Ironically this coal will be used to generate ethanol, a plant-based petroleum substitute that has been hyped by both environmentalists and President George Bush as the green fuel of the future. The agribusiness giant Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) is the largest U.S. producer of ethanol, which it makes by distilling corn.
A single ADM corn processing plant in Clinton, Iowa generated nearly 20,000 tons of pollutants including sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and volatile organic compounds in 2004, according to federal records. The EPA considers an ethanol plant as a "major source" of pollution if it produces more than 100 tons of any one pollutant per year, although it has recently proposed increasing that cap to 250 tons.
ADM has another resource at its disposal, the considerable clout it has built up over decades of courting and lobbying Washington's power brokers. Days after the company's February expansion announcement of the coal-fired Nebraska plant, U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel W. Bodman visited ADM's Decatur headquarters to tout its part in President Bush's Biofuels Initiative. The secretary posed for photos with then ADM Chair G. Allen Andreas and announced that the Department of Energy would offer up to $160 million for the construction of three biorefineries to expand U.S. ethanol production.
ADM and its signature project have never lacked friends in high places, despite a history of price fixing scandals and monopolistic misdeeds. The Andreas family, which has headed up the publicly-traded company for decades, has cultivated bipartisan support through generous donations to both Republicans and Democrats. Since the 2000 election cycle, ADM has given more than $3 million in political contributions, according to the Center for Responsive Politics: $1.2 million to Democrats and $1.85 million to Republicans. These donations may have helped sustain a multitude of government subsidies to ADM, including ethanol tax credits, tariffs against foreign ethanol competitors, and federally mandated ethanol additive standards.
CORP WATCH
Let's revisit what the US Secretary of Energy said about taxpayer financing of ethanol factories: "The secretary posed for photos with then ADM Chair G. Allen Andreas and announced that the Department of Energy would offer up to $160 million for the construction of three biorefineries to expand U.S. ethanol production."
160 Million of our tax dollars going into the pockets of one of the world's largest agribusiness giants, ADM, to help build ethanol plants, or biorefineries. It doesn't matter what one calls these "Toxic Terrors" they'll still be polluting the water we drink and the air we breath, paid for by OUR tax dollars.
A certain ethanol plant that is in the works for Webster County has been out of the news of late. Does this mean that the backers of that ethanol factory are seeking some type of alternative financing, like a joint venture with ADM? ADM has deep pockets. Pockets that are large enough to hold more than a few politicians. These so-called "Public Servants" are at corporate giants like ADM's beck and call, always more than willing to change the law or provide these behemoths with huge dollops of our hard earned money.
Perhaps that's why the financing for this ethanol factory is so secretive. The backers are just being "FLEXible" in their ways to construct this behemoth on top of the Ozarks Aquifer.
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
PICKING OUR POCKETS
US Ethanol Plants Look to Tax-Free Financing
A company called Center Ethanol plans to use up to US$30 million in TIF bonds given initial approval last month to build a plant in Sauget, Illinois, across the Mississippi River from St. Louis, Missouri, according to officials.
The bonds will tap incremental increases in Sauget area property taxes and will be exempt from both state and federal taxes, said Michael Lundy, executive director of the Southwestern Illinois Finance Authority, which approved the financing.
In New Jersey, the state's Economic Development Authority has given preliminary approval to US$84 million in tax-exempt, solid-waste bonds for a waste-to-ethanol facility in Dover Township, according to agency spokesman Glenn Phillips. The state has enough private-activity volume cap to cover the issue.
In central Ohio's Coshocton, Los Angeles-based Altra Inc. broke ground on Tuesday on a US$100 million ethanol plant that will be partly financed with up to US$85 million of air quality bonds approved by the Ohio Air Quality Development Authority
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=37253
Will the people of Webster County be told to help pay for a certain ethanol plant that will both deplete the Ozark Aquifer at the same time polluting that aquifer by returning wastewater to the aquifer, thru the use of TIF Bonds? Tax Increment Financing (Local TIF) permits the use of a portion of local property and sales taxes to assist funding the redevelopment of certain designated areas within your community. Areas eligible for Local TIF must contain property classified as a "Blighted", "Conservation" or an "Economic Development" area, or any combination thereof, as defined by Missouri Statutes.
TIF may be used to pay certain costs incurred with a redevelopment project. Such costs may include, but are not limited to:
Professional services such as studies, surveys, plans, financial management, legal counsel
Land acquisition and demolition of structures
Rehabilitating, repairing existing buildings on site
Building necessary new infrastructure in the project area such as streets, sewers, parking, lighting
Relocation of resident and business occupants located in the project area
This info is from the State of Missouri's web page at:
http://www.missouridevelopment.org/topnavpages/Research%20Toolbox/BCS%20Programs/Local%20TIF.aspx
A company called Center Ethanol plans to use up to US$30 million in TIF bonds given initial approval last month to build a plant in Sauget, Illinois, across the Mississippi River from St. Louis, Missouri, according to officials.
The bonds will tap incremental increases in Sauget area property taxes and will be exempt from both state and federal taxes, said Michael Lundy, executive director of the Southwestern Illinois Finance Authority, which approved the financing.
In New Jersey, the state's Economic Development Authority has given preliminary approval to US$84 million in tax-exempt, solid-waste bonds for a waste-to-ethanol facility in Dover Township, according to agency spokesman Glenn Phillips. The state has enough private-activity volume cap to cover the issue.
In central Ohio's Coshocton, Los Angeles-based Altra Inc. broke ground on Tuesday on a US$100 million ethanol plant that will be partly financed with up to US$85 million of air quality bonds approved by the Ohio Air Quality Development Authority
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=37253
Will the people of Webster County be told to help pay for a certain ethanol plant that will both deplete the Ozark Aquifer at the same time polluting that aquifer by returning wastewater to the aquifer, thru the use of TIF Bonds? Tax Increment Financing (Local TIF) permits the use of a portion of local property and sales taxes to assist funding the redevelopment of certain designated areas within your community. Areas eligible for Local TIF must contain property classified as a "Blighted", "Conservation" or an "Economic Development" area, or any combination thereof, as defined by Missouri Statutes.
TIF may be used to pay certain costs incurred with a redevelopment project. Such costs may include, but are not limited to:
Professional services such as studies, surveys, plans, financial management, legal counsel
Land acquisition and demolition of structures
Rehabilitating, repairing existing buildings on site
Building necessary new infrastructure in the project area such as streets, sewers, parking, lighting
Relocation of resident and business occupants located in the project area
This info is from the State of Missouri's web page at:
http://www.missouridevelopment.org/topnavpages/Research%20Toolbox/BCS%20Programs/Local%20TIF.aspx
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
GETTING SOAKED
Missouri Revised Statutes August 28, 2006
Chapter 142 Motor Fuel Tax Section 142.028
3. A Missouri qualified fuel ethanol producer shall be eligible for a monthly grant from the fund, except that a Missouri qualified fuel ethanol producer shall only be eligible for the grant for a total of sixty months unless such producer during those sixty months failed, due to a lack of appropriations, to receive the full amount from the fund for which they were eligible, in which case such producers shall continue to be eligible for up to twenty-four additional months or until they have received the maximum amount of funding for which they were eligible during the original sixty-month time period. The amount of the grant is determined by calculating the estimated gallons of qualified fuel ethanol production to be produced from Missouri agricultural products for the succeeding calendar month, as certified by the department of agriculture, and applying such figure to the per-gallon incentive credit established in this subsection. Each Missouri qualified fuel ethanol producer shall be eligible for a total grant in any fiscal year equal to twenty cents per gallon for the first twelve and one-half million gallons of qualified fuel ethanol produced from Missouri agricultural products in the fiscal year plus five cents per gallon for the next twelve and one-half million gallons of qualified fuel ethanol produced from Missouri agricultural products in the fiscal year. All such qualified fuel ethanol produced by a Missouri qualified fuel ethanol producer in excess of twenty-five million gallons shall not be applied to the computation of a grant pursuant to this subsection. The department of agriculture shall pay all grants for a particular month by the fifteenth day after receipt and approval of the application described in subsection 4 of this section. If actual production of qualified fuel ethanol during a particular month either exceeds or is less than that estimated by a Missouri qualified fuel ethanol producer, the department of agriculture shall adjust the subsequent monthly grant by paying additional amount or subtracting the amount in deficiency by using the calculation described in this subsection.
SECTION 144.030 - Adds natural gas, propane and electricity used by an eligible new generation cooperative or processing entity as well as field drain tile, to the list of exemptions from sale and use taxes.
http://www.senate.mo.gov/05info/BTS_Web/Bill.aspx?SessionType=R&BillID=14288
How sweet it is!!! That Webster County plant is eligible--thanks to Governor Blunt and his cronies--to receive over THREE MILLION DOLLARS per year in grant money from the state of Missouri. Since this "grant" money doesn't grow on trees, the money will come from Missouri taxpayers pockets.
If, for some reason--like no corn being grown in this area--that ethanol plant switches over to being a biodiesel facility, then the amount of taxpaer money they can grab shoots up to over SIX MILLION DOLLARS per year.
And if that ethanol plant fails within its first five years of operation, guess what? Governor Blunt and our reps will still pay the owners of the plant OUR tax money for a failed product.
Not only do the people of Webster County get stuck with an ethanol plant that will spew toxic substances into the air they breathe and deplete and pollute their drinking water, they also get to PAY for this privilege.
Like we used to say when it was time to feed the hogs, "SOOEE, SOOEE, SOOEE.
Chapter 142 Motor Fuel Tax Section 142.028
3. A Missouri qualified fuel ethanol producer shall be eligible for a monthly grant from the fund, except that a Missouri qualified fuel ethanol producer shall only be eligible for the grant for a total of sixty months unless such producer during those sixty months failed, due to a lack of appropriations, to receive the full amount from the fund for which they were eligible, in which case such producers shall continue to be eligible for up to twenty-four additional months or until they have received the maximum amount of funding for which they were eligible during the original sixty-month time period. The amount of the grant is determined by calculating the estimated gallons of qualified fuel ethanol production to be produced from Missouri agricultural products for the succeeding calendar month, as certified by the department of agriculture, and applying such figure to the per-gallon incentive credit established in this subsection. Each Missouri qualified fuel ethanol producer shall be eligible for a total grant in any fiscal year equal to twenty cents per gallon for the first twelve and one-half million gallons of qualified fuel ethanol produced from Missouri agricultural products in the fiscal year plus five cents per gallon for the next twelve and one-half million gallons of qualified fuel ethanol produced from Missouri agricultural products in the fiscal year. All such qualified fuel ethanol produced by a Missouri qualified fuel ethanol producer in excess of twenty-five million gallons shall not be applied to the computation of a grant pursuant to this subsection. The department of agriculture shall pay all grants for a particular month by the fifteenth day after receipt and approval of the application described in subsection 4 of this section. If actual production of qualified fuel ethanol during a particular month either exceeds or is less than that estimated by a Missouri qualified fuel ethanol producer, the department of agriculture shall adjust the subsequent monthly grant by paying additional amount or subtracting the amount in deficiency by using the calculation described in this subsection.
SECTION 144.030 - Adds natural gas, propane and electricity used by an eligible new generation cooperative or processing entity as well as field drain tile, to the list of exemptions from sale and use taxes.
http://www.senate.mo.gov/05info/BTS_Web/Bill.aspx?SessionType=R&BillID=14288
How sweet it is!!! That Webster County plant is eligible--thanks to Governor Blunt and his cronies--to receive over THREE MILLION DOLLARS per year in grant money from the state of Missouri. Since this "grant" money doesn't grow on trees, the money will come from Missouri taxpayers pockets.
If, for some reason--like no corn being grown in this area--that ethanol plant switches over to being a biodiesel facility, then the amount of taxpaer money they can grab shoots up to over SIX MILLION DOLLARS per year.
And if that ethanol plant fails within its first five years of operation, guess what? Governor Blunt and our reps will still pay the owners of the plant OUR tax money for a failed product.
Not only do the people of Webster County get stuck with an ethanol plant that will spew toxic substances into the air they breathe and deplete and pollute their drinking water, they also get to PAY for this privilege.
Like we used to say when it was time to feed the hogs, "SOOEE, SOOEE, SOOEE.
Friday, June 1, 2007
CORPORATE WELFARE
One of life's two certainties, death and taxes, has been taken away for up to 30 years to attract an industry to Saline County.
The Saline County Commission Tuesday approved, on a 2-1 vote, a tax abatement agreement lasting up to 30 years for Mid-Missouri Ethanol, which plans to build a 40-million-gallon ethanol plant near Malta Bend.
The agreement will excuse the corporation from paying taxes until Dec. 15, 2033, or until it buys all $62 million of the Chapter 100 bonds back from the county.
http://www.marshallnews.com/story/1040067.html
Is this wholesale looting of Saline County taxes for the Malta Bend plant in store for residents of Webster County?
That's 30 years of huge tax breaks to a faceless corporation. Taxes that would have went to public entities such as the school district and the county roads will not be paid. Instead, that purloined money will help fatten the bottom line of the Rogersville ethanol plant and used to pay huge bonuses to the owners. In other words, the citizens of Webster County will have to pay for the "right" of having their water and air polluted. And when the Ozarks Aquifer can no longer support the ethanol plant or ethanol plants are no longer viable, the owners of this obscenity will declare bankruptcy and walk away with millions of dollars.
And probably leave the heavily contaminated site as is for TAXPAYERS to clean up with their money.
The Saline County Commission Tuesday approved, on a 2-1 vote, a tax abatement agreement lasting up to 30 years for Mid-Missouri Ethanol, which plans to build a 40-million-gallon ethanol plant near Malta Bend.
The agreement will excuse the corporation from paying taxes until Dec. 15, 2033, or until it buys all $62 million of the Chapter 100 bonds back from the county.
http://www.marshallnews.com/story/1040067.html
Is this wholesale looting of Saline County taxes for the Malta Bend plant in store for residents of Webster County?
That's 30 years of huge tax breaks to a faceless corporation. Taxes that would have went to public entities such as the school district and the county roads will not be paid. Instead, that purloined money will help fatten the bottom line of the Rogersville ethanol plant and used to pay huge bonuses to the owners. In other words, the citizens of Webster County will have to pay for the "right" of having their water and air polluted. And when the Ozarks Aquifer can no longer support the ethanol plant or ethanol plants are no longer viable, the owners of this obscenity will declare bankruptcy and walk away with millions of dollars.
And probably leave the heavily contaminated site as is for TAXPAYERS to clean up with their money.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)