Should Congress vote to raise the US debt limit?

[Bill Peckham]

MM I think the tactics are to talk about taxes but the goals are not fiscal. If the goal was a balanced budget of course you would look at the revenue side. The goal is to end or fundamentally change by reducing the scope: Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security and regulatory agencies like the EPA and FDA and entire areas of concern like Education and FEMA. Everything else are tactics.


The current Republican debt strategy is a continuation of the starve the beast approach to governance. Ten years ago the thinking was that debt would be a "fiscal straight jacket for Congress" but that didn't work because it is very easy for Congress to spend borrowed money. Even the Republican majority Congresses from '02 to '06 never blinked at budget deficits. So, the thinking goes, if that straight jacket isn't enough to change the nature of the federal (and by extension state and local) governance then what is needed is a Houdini proof straight jacket and voila, you have the republican debt limit strategy.


Republicans are wrong to think that the federal government has the ability to pay only their US treasury obligations on time, but even if they could the full faith and credit of the United States would not survive. It's a very dangerous game being played. The full faith and credit of the United States is an asset of immeasurable value; I don't think any previous cadre of Republicans would allow or wish our honor to be put in doubt.

[Willis]

Like the article says, every "earmark" (oh, now they call them "lettermarks"--what the hell is that?) have a constituency that can make a good sounding case for their pet project. But when it's the Federal government giving out the money, then it's nothing more than a redistribution of wealth. That is, the money has to come from somewhere and the somewhere is the pockets of everyone else in the country who aren't involved in the project. Sure some of these projects may have a certain degree of merit.

But when it's the government deciding whether a project is go or no-go rather than the private sector then it is NOT an investment. If it's a good investment then PRIVATE funds would have invested. But they couldn't raise the funds for a risky venture and the taxpayers pony up the money and if it fails the money is somehow gone and we the taxpayers wind up with nothing (google . And if it succeeds we also really get nothing either as the revenue pours into some private or governmental development agency that keeps all the money in the local area. That is called wealth re-distribution.

Now I know all about such things as the TVA, the Interstate Highways, etc. Those are capital intensive projects on a massive scale that no private enterprise could possibly undertake. But that type of Federal spending does come a lot closer to helping the entire country or at least major regions where everyone can benefit generally. Not sure if it's Constitutional even then, but perhaps since they at least multiple states and/or regions a case could be made. (Does anyone care about the Constitution any more?)

 

[Hemodoc]

Like the article says, every "earmark" (oh, now they call them "lettermarks"--what the hell is that?) have a constituency that can make a good sounding case for their pet project. But when it's the Federal government giving out the money, then it's nothing more than a redistribution of wealth. That is, the money has to come from somewhere and the somewhere is the pockets of everyone else in the country who aren't involved in the project. Sure some of these projects may have a certain degree of merit.

But when it's the government deciding whether a project is go or no-go rather than the private sector then it is NOT an investment. If it's a good investment then PRIVATE funds would have invested. But they couldn't raise the funds for a risky venture and the taxpayers pony up the money and if it fails the money is somehow gone and we the taxpayers wind up with nothing (google . And if it succeeds we also really get nothing either as the revenue pours into some private or governmental development agency that keeps all the money in the local area. That is called wealth re-distribution.

Now I know all about such things as the TVA, the Interstate Highways, etc. Those are capital intensive projects on a massive scale that no private enterprise could possibly undertake. But that type of Federal spending does come a lot closer to helping the entire country or at least major regions where everyone can benefit generally. Not sure if it's Constitutional even then, but perhaps since they at least multiple states and/or regions a case could be made. (Does anyone care about the Constitution any more?)

 

Not sure many folks care about the constitution at all anymore. Instead, it is viewed as an impediment to a "modern" society. Sadly, the incredible freedoms we have enjoyed in this nation were from the wisdom and knowledge of the founding fathers and what they recorded in this document.

A question I would want answered is how can you borrow your way to prosperity?  We are already at 42 cents on the dollar of spending. Due to the increasing Federal debt and interest on the debt, how is increasing the debt limit without cost cutting going to improve our situation? Sorry, I just can't wrap my head around that sort of magical thinking.  Sooner or later, the machine is just going to quit running and break down.

[MooseMom]

Not sure many folks care about the constitution at all anymore. Instead, it is viewed as an impediment to a "modern" society. Sadly, the incredible freedoms we have enjoyed in this nation were from the wisdom and knowledge of the founding fathers and what they recorded in this document.

Oh please.  The "incredible freedoms" of which you speak were originally enjoyed only by landed, rich white men.  Our Founding Fathers were slave owners and certainly didn't think women should vote.  These "incredible freedoms" were hard fought for by people who wouldn't have merited a second thought by the revered Founding Fathers.

Lots of people care about the Constitution, but not many people know the history of it.  The Constitution vastly strengthed the center of government and took power away from the states as proposed by the originals Articles of Federation.  Some states had their own military or their own currency.  So all of you who think that the Constitution is supposed to somehow restrain the federal government don't understand the history of this document.

The wisdom of the Founding Fathers is found in the checks and balances provided for in the Constitution, yet it is true that this creates a fair amount of untidyness.  I have no doubt that the Founding Fathers understood that life in 2000 was not going to be like life in 1776, so they created a unifying document that would grow as our new nation grew.  To think that the Constitution is written in stone would mean that you'd think it is indeed an impediment to our modern society.

[Willis]

To think that the Constitution is written in stone would mean that you'd think it is indeed an impediment to our modern society.

Of course it's not written in stone...that's why it's been amended 28 times...

 

[Bill Peckham]

To think that the Constitution is written in stone would mean that you'd think it is indeed an impediment to our modern society.

Of course it's not written in stone...that's why it's been amended 28 times...

Well 27 times anyways.


The issue is reading the Constitution as if the 14th Amendment didn't exist. That's how people end up thinking the Healthcare mandate is unconstitutional and that a debt default is Constitutional.

[Willis]

Well 27 times anyways.

My bad...good catch. I knew I should have checked with Wikipedia. The principle is still sound.   

 

[Hemodoc]

Not sure many folks care about the constitution at all anymore. Instead, it is viewed as an impediment to a "modern" society. Sadly, the incredible freedoms we have enjoyed in this nation were from the wisdom and knowledge of the founding fathers and what they recorded in this document.

Oh please.  The "incredible freedoms" of which you speak were originally enjoyed only by landed, rich white men.  Our Founding Fathers were slave owners and certainly didn't think women should vote.  These "incredible freedoms" were hard fought for by people who wouldn't have merited a second thought by the revered Founding Fathers.

Lots of people care about the Constitution, but not many people know the history of it.  The Constitution vastly strengthed the center of government and took power away from the states as proposed by the originals Articles of Federation.  Some states had their own military or their own currency.  So all of you who think that the Constitution is supposed to somehow restrain the federal government don't understand the history of this document.

The wisdom of the Founding Fathers is found in the checks and balances provided for in the Constitution, yet it is true that this creates a fair amount of untidyness.  I have no doubt that the Founding Fathers understood that life in 2000 was not going to be like life in 1776, so they created a unifying document that would grow as our new nation grew.  To think that the Constitution is written in stone would mean that you'd think it is indeed an impediment to our modern society.

Dear Moosemom, it is indeed a truth that many feel we should start over with a modern document and that the constitutional provisions restraining the power of the government are an impediment to our modern age.

As far as understanding the history of our "limited" government, I do understand that quite well.  The reason the articles of confederation didn't work was because of anarchy without a central power to establish basic services of currency and military as the main provisions, however, at the onset of the constitution, states had the greater rights in most of the day to day issues of that time such as religious freedom for sure. The last two hundred years is really a study in Federal power grabs that are still ongoing today.

I still enjoy many rights from this document and I am not at all a landed gentry, nor were the millions of immigrants who sought out American freedom in the last three centuries. Slavery was a regional issue that many wished to eliminate at the time of the constitution, but did not have the political backing to accomplish and establish a union at the same time. I remember we had a civil war where millions of people perished to establish that right as well decades later. Even the 3/5ths person counting was a step above the zero rights that they had and was a compromise.  Perhaps not a good compromise, but a small step above zero. Today, looking back without the perspective of where it was in 1789 looks absurd, just as history will look back at the most prosperous nation the world has ever known to date that is imploding through debt.

Freedom, absolutely as the world had truly never seen before, not just for those with wealth. Absolute freedom is actually anarchy.  Sorry, but the American story is just not portrayed accurately today.  Talk about historical revisionism.  The Federalist papers spell out how the constitution would limit Federal power and the founders would be shocked by how it has deteriorated today to the place where the Feds now have ultimate power in so many areas of our lives. Was that the original intent of the constitution by the founders, absolutely not, and once again, simply read the Federalist papers to see that was so. The states did relinquish a small part of their sovereignty to gain stability in the economy and for provision of the common defense.

In any case, back to my question, how can we possibly believe we can continue to borrow our way back to prosperity? The simple math is just not on our side for that to work. In such, we will face an austerity program sooner or later when everything collapses upon it's own weight. We are already sending our jobs over seas at such an alarming rate under current regulations and taxes. Is raising taxes really the solution and just keep spending, spending and spending? It is complete lunacy for both parties to continue taxing and spending and borrowing. A balanced budget is a danger to America? How?  Just complete madness in my mind to think that we can continue to add more and more debt and somehow become prosperous once again.

I truly see no resolution as this nation simply jumps off the cliff into complete destruction and I am not looking to Washington D.C. for any wisdom on this issue.  Truly the foxes are in the henhouse recklessly throwing our future away as the most profligate spendthrifts in the history of the world.  Just amazing to me. I have heard reports that we will have riots in our streets by next year and I readily believe we could very well see civil unrest in this nation as never before.  Enjoy your freedoms as long as you can, the future doesn't hold well for them to continue much longer as long as we can no longer recognize the common enemies of this nation.

[Bill Peckham]

The 3/5ths clause had nothing to do with conveying some partial rights to blacks and everything to do with proportional representation. And it worked almost immediately. Because of the 3/5th clause Virginia and the southern states had the electoral votes to elect Jefferson over Adams. Slavery was a national issue at our founding and during our first decades, until hundreds of thousands died fighting the civil war.

The basic premise of the Constitution is that people have the right to form a government and manage their own affairs. The Constitution we adopted is clearly intended to "promote the general Welfare". And it has. The United States continues to be the most successful political entity in human history. I don't understand this idea that we need to be "prosperous once again". We never stopped being prosperous.

Can we borrow our way back to [greater] prosperity? Well as compared to not borrowing, yes. If, by borrowing 13 million dollars in bond market at 3% interest allows Tennessee to build a port facility that creates "thousands of jobs" and increases the efficiency of the nation's economy then yes, we should definitely borrow the money. A private, for profit business ,couldn't generate the same benefits, "profits" from the project. There will be dozens of business that use the port to leverage their own investments - the fees they're charges will be used to pay back a lot of the investment directly. Building the port is a sensible project that no private business could be expected to undertake.




 

As far as understanding the history of our "limited" government, I do understand that quite well.  The reason the articles of confederation didn't work was because of anarchy without a central power to establish basic services of currency and military as the main provisions, however, at the onset of the constitution, states had the greater rights in most of the day to day issues of that time such as religious freedom for sure. The last two hundred years is really a study in Federal power grabs that are still ongoing today.

I still enjoy many rights from this document and I am not at all a landed gentry, nor were the millions of immigrants who sought out American freedom in the last three centuries. Slavery was a regional issue that many wished to eliminate at the time of the constitution, but did not have the political backing to accomplish and establish a union at the same time. I remember we had a civil war where millions of people perished to establish that right as well decades later. Even the 3/5ths person counting was a step above the zero rights that they had and was a compromise.  Perhaps not a good compromise, but a small step above zero. Today, looking back without the perspective of where it was in 1789 looks absurd, just as history will look back at the most prosperous nation the world has ever known to date that is imploding through debt.

Freedom, absolutely as the world had truly never seen before, not just for those with wealth. Absolute freedom is actually anarchy.  Sorry, but the American story is just not portrayed accurately today.  Talk about historical revisionism.  The Federalist papers spell out how the constitution would limit Federal power and the founders would be shocked by how it has deteriorated today to the place where the Feds now have ultimate power in so many areas of our lives. Was that the original intent of the constitution by the founders, absolutely not, and once again, simply read the Federalist papers to see that was so. The states did relinquish a small part of their sovereignty to gain stability in the economy and for provision of the common defense.

In any case, back to my question, how can we possibly believe we can continue to borrow our way back to prosperity? The simple math is just not on our side for that to work. In such, we will face an austerity program sooner or later when everything collapses upon it's own weight. We are already sending our jobs over seas at such an alarming rate under current regulations and taxes. Is raising taxes really the solution and just keep spending, spending and spending? It is complete lunacy for both parties to continue taxing and spending and borrowing. A balanced budget is a danger to America? How?  Just complete madness in my mind to think that we can continue to add more and more debt and somehow become prosperous once again.

I truly see no resolution as this nation simply jumps off the cliff into complete destruction and I am not looking to Washington D.C. for any wisdom on this issue.  Truly the foxes are in the henhouse recklessly throwing our future away as the most profligate spendthrifts in the history of the world.  Just amazing to me. I have heard reports that we will have riots in our streets by next year and I readily believe we could very well see civil unrest in this nation as never before.  Enjoy your freedoms as long as you can, the future doesn't hold well for them to continue much longer as long as we can no longer recognize the common enemies of this nation.

[Hemodoc]

The 3/5ths clause had nothing to do with conveying some partial rights to blacks and everything to do with proportional representation. And it worked almost immediately. Because of the 3/5th clause Virginia and the southern states had the electoral votes to elect Jefferson over Adams. Slavery was a national issue at our founding and during our first decades, until hundreds of thousands died fighting the civil war.

The basic premise of the Constitution is that people have the right to form a government and manage their own affairs. The Constitution we adopted is clearly intended to "promote the general Welfare". And it has. The United States continues to be the most successful political entity in human history. I don't understand this idea that we need to be "prosperous once again". We never stopped being prosperous.

Can we borrow our way back to [greater] prosperity? Well as compared to not borrowing, yes. If, by borrowing 13 million dollars in bond market at 3% interest allows Tennessee to build a port facility that creates "thousands of jobs" and increases the efficiency of the nation's economy then yes, we should definitely borrow the money. A private, for profit business ,couldn't generate the same benefits, "profits" from the project. There will be dozens of business that use the port to leverage their own investments - the fees they're charges will be used to pay back a lot of the investment directly. Building the port is a sensible project that no private business could be expected to undertake.




 

As far as understanding the history of our "limited" government, I do understand that quite well.  The reason the articles of confederation didn't work was because of anarchy without a central power to establish basic services of currency and military as the main provisions, however, at the onset of the constitution, states had the greater rights in most of the day to day issues of that time such as religious freedom for sure. The last two hundred years is really a study in Federal power grabs that are still ongoing today.

I still enjoy many rights from this document and I am not at all a landed gentry, nor were the millions of immigrants who sought out American freedom in the last three centuries. Slavery was a regional issue that many wished to eliminate at the time of the constitution, but did not have the political backing to accomplish and establish a union at the same time. I remember we had a civil war where millions of people perished to establish that right as well decades later. Even the 3/5ths person counting was a step above the zero rights that they had and was a compromise.  Perhaps not a good compromise, but a small step above zero. Today, looking back without the perspective of where it was in 1789 looks absurd, just as history will look back at the most prosperous nation the world has ever known to date that is imploding through debt.

Freedom, absolutely as the world had truly never seen before, not just for those with wealth. Absolute freedom is actually anarchy.  Sorry, but the American story is just not portrayed accurately today.  Talk about historical revisionism.  The Federalist papers spell out how the constitution would limit Federal power and the founders would be shocked by how it has deteriorated today to the place where the Feds now have ultimate power in so many areas of our lives. Was that the original intent of the constitution by the founders, absolutely not, and once again, simply read the Federalist papers to see that was so. The states did relinquish a small part of their sovereignty to gain stability in the economy and for provision of the common defense.

In any case, back to my question, how can we possibly believe we can continue to borrow our way back to prosperity? The simple math is just not on our side for that to work. In such, we will face an austerity program sooner or later when everything collapses upon it's own weight. We are already sending our jobs over seas at such an alarming rate under current regulations and taxes. Is raising taxes really the solution and just keep spending, spending and spending? It is complete lunacy for both parties to continue taxing and spending and borrowing. A balanced budget is a danger to America? How?  Just complete madness in my mind to think that we can continue to add more and more debt and somehow become prosperous once again.

I truly see no resolution as this nation simply jumps off the cliff into complete destruction and I am not looking to Washington D.C. for any wisdom on this issue.  Truly the foxes are in the henhouse recklessly throwing our future away as the most profligate spendthrifts in the history of the world.  Just amazing to me. I have heard reports that we will have riots in our streets by next year and I readily believe we could very well see civil unrest in this nation as never before.  Enjoy your freedoms as long as you can, the future doesn't hold well for them to continue much longer as long as we can no longer recognize the common enemies of this nation.

Bill, I don't see going into unmanageable debt as our solution. Too many examples in history of why it won't work. Yet, this experiment in new economics continues to play out and it is likely we shall see soon where it will go. I don't see anything pretty in our future if we just continue to spend blindly. It has never worked before in history and I just don't understand why folks believe it will work this time.

God bless,

Peter

[Bill Peckham]

Bill, I don't see going into unmanageable debt as our solution. Too many examples in history of why it won't work. Yet, this experiment in new economics continues to play out and it is likely we shall see soon where it will go. I don't see anything pretty in our future if we just continue to spend blindly. It has never worked before in history and I just don't understand why folks believe it will work this time.

God bless,

Peter

I don't think our debt is unmanageable. I think our borrowing will have consequences. The issue is that defaulting would have vastly greater consequences. And, if we're talking about the stimulus spending, not borrowing the money would have had greater consequences. Governance is about choices. It's about making good choices.


Not raising the debt ceiling is not a good choice. The current House Republicans ran their 2010 campaign on JOBS. If they now want to instead pass legislation that changes the social compact then that should be their campaign in 2012.


I don't think a 20% level of taxation is a threat to liberty. Our debt is not an existential threat. The tax rates of the 1990s will not cause riots. The deal that is being proposed is not a threat to liberty by any rational measure.

[Hemodoc]

Bill, I don't see going into unmanageable debt as our solution. Too many examples in history of why it won't work. Yet, this experiment in new economics continues to play out and it is likely we shall see soon where it will go. I don't see anything pretty in our future if we just continue to spend blindly. It has never worked before in history and I just don't understand why folks believe it will work this time.

God bless,

Peter

I don't think our debt is unmanageable. I think our borrowing will have consequences. The issue is that defaulting would have vastly greater consequences. And, if we're talking about the stimulus spending, not borrowing the money would have had greater consequences. Governance is about choices. It's about making good choices.


Not raising the debt ceiling is not a good choice. The current House Republicans ran their 2010 campaign on JOBS. If they now want to instead pass legislation that changes the social compact then that should be their campaign in 2012.


I don't think a 20% level of taxation is a threat to liberty. Our debt is not an existential threat. The tax rates of the 1990s will not cause riots. The deal that is being proposed is not a threat to liberty by any rational measure.

Actually, the 2010 election on the Republican side was overwhelmingly a call for fiscal responsibility, jobs being a result of sound fiscal policy.  Are you suggesting another stimulus? What about the inflation of food and other commodities at nearly 100% of what they were a year or two ago? This is hardly ever spoken about in the media.  Hyperinflation is a risk from our current fiscal policies. Just ask Germany how that worked for them before WWII?

[Bill Peckham]

Actually, the 2010 election on the Republican side was overwhelmingly a call for fiscal responsibility, jobs being a result of sound fiscal policy.  Are you suggesting another stimulus? What about the inflation of food and other commodities at nearly 100% of what they were a year or two ago? This is hardly ever spoken about in the media.  Hyperinflation is a risk from our current fiscal policies. Just ask Germany how that worked for them before WWII?

I think this inflation issue is a problem but it isn't the money supply that is driving the price of corn. And it is the record price of corn that is driving the 100% inflation in the corn based food and a other corn based commodities - for instance bacon that comes from corn fed hogs. Corn is at a record price because of our misguided ethanol policy.

Ethanol, it turns out, is pretty pointless. But now that we have an ethanol industrial complex, supported by rural state Senators, it is, and will be, hell to end. Just like our sugar subsidies. And cotton subsidies. And mohair. This continued political support is due to our Constitution. The Senate give disproportionate weight to rural interests - New Jersey has the same number of Senators as North Dakota.

But back to inflation. Aside from inflation due to government intervention in the market, there is no inflation and the bond market has priced in very little inflation risk, the bond market thinks deflation is a bigger threat than moderate inflation - let alone a riot inducing doomsday scenario - so how do you explain the bond market if there is now or soon will be money supply driven (hyper)inflation?

I would note that there were many predictions made often since 2008 predicting inflation within a year. If you rely on people who keep making predictions that the passage of time prove wrong, again and again, then when does it become time to take fresh look at people whose predictions were right? We're in a liquidity trap. But any time is a good time to phase out ethanol subsidies.

[Bill Peckham]

Actually, the 2010 election on the Republican side was overwhelmingly a call for fiscal responsibility, jobs being a result of sound fiscal policy.  Are you suggesting another stimulus? What about the inflation of food and other commodities at nearly 100% of what they were a year or two ago? This is hardly ever spoken about in the media.  Hyperinflation is a risk from our current fiscal policies. Just ask Germany how that worked for them before WWII?

Sorry for the double post but I hadn't yet found the http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/pledgetoamerica.pdf 2010 Republican Pledge to America (thanks FOX News). I read back through it and I don't see any of today's extreme Republican positions. I see talk complaining about using the 500 billion dollars in Medicare savings on other ACA programs but I don't see mentioned the current Republican plan to keep those savings from the ACA and repurpose them for corporate tax cuts. I see mention of the SS and Medicare costs but their call for action is a call for accounting, setting bench marks and annual reviews.

If one was to take this document at its word, one would expect that the Republican's would be spending their time on our nation's "most urgent domestic priority" by putting forward "A plan to create jobs, end economic uncertainty, and make America more competitive".

[cariad]

OK, OK, I know! I keep swearing I won't keep walking into these political debates and here I am.

I have not read everything here, nor do I intend to. I was just skimming Bill's post and saw him say Ethanol is "pretty pointless". Could you explain what you mean by that, Bill?

If there is one thing that type of statement will buy you around here it is a lecture from the automotive engineer on how wrong you are. I won't bore you with it - just part of the service I provide to IHD members, I'll listen and nod for you! (Ha! Just kidding, Gwyn - alternative fuels are brilliance itself!)

My husband does not much care for politics of any sort, but he felt so strongly about this that he actually fired off an email to Schwarzenegger about it.

[Bill Peckham]

OK, OK, I know! I keep swearing I won't keep walking into these political debates and here I am.

I have not read everything here, nor do I intend to. I was just skimming Bill's post and saw him say Ethanol is "pretty pointless". Could you explain what you mean by that, Bill?

If there is one thing that type of statement will buy you around here it is a lecture from the automotive engineer on how wrong you are. I won't bore you with it - just part of the service I provide to IHD members, I'll listen and nod for you! (Ha! Just kidding, Gwyn - alternative fuels are brilliance itself!)

My husband does not much care for politics of any sort, but he felt so strongly about this that he actually fired off an email to Schwarzenegger about it.

Corn ethanol is pointless in that it isn't green and the collateral damage to food prices outweighs any economic benefit from its impact on oil prices.


EDITED TO ADD: I see I was not specific in saying corn ethanol in my post above, but anytime I was saying ethanol I meant corn ethanol.

[jbeany]

OK, OK, I know! I keep swearing I won't keep walking into these political debates and here I am.

I have not read everything here, nor do I intend to. I was just skimming Bill's post and saw him say Ethanol is "pretty pointless". Could you explain what you mean by that, Bill?

If there is one thing that type of statement will buy you around here it is a lecture from the automotive engineer on how wrong you are. I won't bore you with it - just part of the service I provide to IHD members, I'll listen and nod for you! (Ha! Just kidding, Gwyn - alternative fuels are brilliance itself!)

My husband does not much care for politics of any sort, but he felt so strongly about this that he actually fired off an email to Schwarzenegger about it.

Corn ethanol is pointless in that it isn't green and the collateral damage to food prices outweighs any economic benefit from its impact on oil prices.


EDITED TO ADD: I see I was not specific in saying corn ethanol in my post above, but anytime I was saying ethanol I meant corn ethanol.

It's been a while, but I remember a Nat'l Geo article about it - there are certain plants that can be used much more efficiently for ethanol.  I think the article mentioned sugar cane.  Corn ethanol so far is simply not effective on many levels.  A crop of corn ethanol gave just about enough energy back to harvest - the next batch of corn ethanol.

[willowtreewren]

It's been a while, but I remember a Nat'l Geo article about it - there are certain plants that can be used much more efficiently for ethanol.  I think the article mentioned sugar cane.  Corn ethanol so far is simply not effective on many levels.  A crop of corn ethanol gave just about enough energy back to harvest - the next batch of corn ethanol.

Here in Tennessee the ethanol crop is switch grass. I grows very fast with minimal work.

Aleta

[cariad]

Ah, I see, that makes sense. Gwyn would only be viewing it from the fuel perspective, not the energy that goes into harvesting and processing as that is somewhat outside his purview. He does agree that there are much better sources of ethanol than corn, although he did say that if there is a choice between letting silos of corn rot or converting it to ethanol, it should be converted.

What he thinks is so important about ethanol (E85) is that it burns very cleanly and is the only alternative fuel available today that can be used with existent cars with a simple retrofit. I had heard that corn ethanol used only the tiniest percentage of the corn crop and that the effect on the price was minimal, but cannot remember where I heard this. It would have been around 2008 when the fuel prices were way up and they were rationing certain food products at Costco. Anyhow, thanks for the clarification Bill and jbeany.

Ooooh, switch grass sounds promising, Aleta!

[Hemodoc]

OK, OK, I know! I keep swearing I won't keep walking into these political debates and here I am.

I have not read everything here, nor do I intend to. I was just skimming Bill's post and saw him say Ethanol is "pretty pointless". Could you explain what you mean by that, Bill?

If there is one thing that type of statement will buy you around here it is a lecture from the automotive engineer on how wrong you are. I won't bore you with it - just part of the service I provide to IHD members, I'll listen and nod for you! (Ha! Just kidding, Gwyn - alternative fuels are brilliance itself!)

My husband does not much care for politics of any sort, but he felt so strongly about this that he actually fired off an email to Schwarzenegger about it.

Corn ethanol is pointless in that it isn't green and the collateral damage to food prices outweighs any economic benefit from its impact on oil prices.


EDITED TO ADD: I see I was not specific in saying corn ethanol in my post above, but anytime I was saying ethanol I meant corn ethanol.

I agree and it damages engines as well. Correct me if I am wrong, didn't they just vote on this in the last couple of weeks and rescind the ethanol subsidies?

I guess it didn't pass, but many Republicans do not support the ethanol subsidy and hopefully it's days are numbered.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303714704576385902303763720.html

[cariad]

If the engine is tuned correctly, it won't damage your engine. Gwyn says he would, without hesitation, run any of our cars on E85.

[Bill Peckham]

Here in Tennessee the ethanol crop is switch grass. I grows very fast with minimal work.

Aleta

I think switch grass grows on land that isn't fit for much else vs the black top soil of corn country. And I don't think there are big switch grass subsidies ... but I bet there is a switch grass association - probably the SGA - that is lobbying for switch grass subsidies.

[HouseOfDialysis]

"Farmers in East Tennessee started planting fields of switchgrass this month, marking the first stage of a 70-million dollar state investment to make ethanol from native plant materials. The state will eventually process the grass in a refinery it’s going to build as part of the project. Even though the refinery won’t be up and running for a few more years, about 16 farmers are jumping at the chance to grow the low-maintenance perennial. WPLN’s Christine Buttorff reports."

http://wpln.org/?p=580

[MooseMom]

I don't know much about ethanol from corn or any other plant, but I remember my first thought upon hearing about getting ethanol from corn, and that was to wonder about how much water this would require.  I certainly understand that to be able to get fuel from a crop would be wonderful, but with both flooding and extreme drought wreaking such havoc this year, relying on corn for fuel frightens me.  Getting it from scrubby switchgrass sounds a bit more sustainable.  Can someone explain this more to me?  Thanks.

[Bill Peckham]

Actually, the 2010 election on the Republican side was overwhelmingly a call for fiscal responsibility, jobs being a result of sound fiscal policy.  Are you suggesting another stimulus? What about the inflation of food and other commodities at nearly 100% of what they were a year or two ago? This is hardly ever spoken about in the media.  Hyperinflation is a risk from our current fiscal policies. Just ask Germany how that worked for them before WWII?

Sorry for the double post but I hadn't yet found the http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/pledgetoamerica.pdf 2010 Republican Pledge to America (thanks FOX News). I read back through it and I don't see any of today's extreme Republican positions. I see talk complaining about using the 500 billion dollars in Medicare savings on other ACA programs but I don't see mentioned the current Republican plan to keep those savings from the ACA and repurpose them for corporate tax cuts. I see mention of the SS and Medicare costs but their call for action is a call for accounting, setting bench marks and annual reviews.

If one was to take this document at its word, one would expect that the Republican's would be spending their time on our nation's "most urgent domestic priority" by putting forward "A plan to create jobs, end economic uncertainty, and make America more competitive".

I want to bump this and move the ethanol discussion to its own thread. I'd like to hear from those in the don't raise the debt limit school of thought: is it a problem that this action, not raising the debt limit, would be against what was proposed in the pledge? Not raising the debt limit will destroy jobs, create economic uncertainty for generations and greatly diminish America's economic competitiveness. This is completely at odds with the Republican Pledge, even though today's debt and deficit is well within what was foreseen in 2008.

Compare this to the Republican's number one complaint - the Affordable Care Act. It was campaigned on for over a year. The details of the plan were specific points of contention during the primary. Obama campaigned on healthcare as his number one priority. He carried over 53% of the vote and then did what he said he would do. The Republicans are trying the exact opposite.

And the situation today, Thursday July 7th looks grim. The Market is 100% convinced there is going to be a deal but at this point I don't think the Republicans believe it is in their interest to make a deal. One Republican Representative wants to introduce legislation to lower the debt the ceiling. So a couple weeks to go and it looks like the die is being cast.