Thus, it was very encouraging to see this article in Friday’s dead tree edition of the LA Times:
GOP presidential hopefuls take dim view of ethanol subsidiesThe reporter had chapter and verse about how the Republican presidential candidates were opposed to adamantly opposed to ongoing subsidies for corn-based ethanol. The reporter speculated that this might have to do with the importance of fiscal conservatism in the GOP primary this year, or even a decrease in the population of rural voters (who would presumably benefit from the subsidies).
Most of the candidates want to do away with the government subsidies, which cost $6 billion annually. The once-unimaginable message has support even in Iowa.
By Seema Mehta, Los Angeles Times
For decades, nearly every candidate who hoped to win the presidency has visited this state to pledge their allegiance to King Corn and to the government subsidies that have propped up its price and increased demand for it.
But for the first time, the GOP field is dominated by candidates who want to do away with such kickbacks. One even used his formal campaign kickoff in front of the gold-domed statehouse here to announce his opposition to such subsidies.
The timing of the report might be a bit embarrassing to the NY Times, which in an unsigned editorial Monday called on Republicans to cut a $100 billion, 10-year ethanol subsidy. The NYT said that ethanol subsidies are being protected by House Republicans, even though (as it noted) the Senate has been unable to institute a reform that supposedly has bipartisan support.
I suspect what is protecting the ethanol subsidy is that the farm states are swing states in 2012 both for the presidency and control of the Senate. I suspect neither side wants to risk losing any votes in these states — since those who lose a subsidy are more likely to get upset than the general voting populace will be happy.
So despite the support of the GOP field and at least one former president, the corn ethanol subsidy is still with us — at least a little longer.