(Missouri Digital News) -- Despite the large number of livestock in Missouri that eat corn, the state is not one of the seven states that have petitioned for a waiver to the federal ethanol mandate.
As a severe drought continues to affect Midwest farmers, the nation's corn crop yield could be as much as 60 percent below normal value this year. Every year, 35-40 percent of the corn crop is diverted to ethanol production, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The cost of corn has risen dramatically due to low production rates.
Except for certain circumstances, all gasoline offered in Missouri must contain 10 percent ethanol, according to the Missouri Renewable Fuel Standard Act passed in 2006. The exceptions include: premium gasoline, aviation fuel, E75-E85 fuel ethanol and when ethanol-blended gasoline is the same price or cheaper than un-blended gasoline.
A federal mandate passed in 2005 established requirements on the amount of ethanol that has to be blended each year. This year, 13.2 billion gallons of ethanol have to be blended into gasoline nationwide.
On Aug. 30, the Environmental Protection Agency began a 30-day open-comment period about the mandate. During the comment period, the public can give feedback on the possibility of granting waivers to ease the requirements for states claiming they cannot meet the demands of the mandate because of the drought.
Many livestock groups have been struggling from the mandate because the price of corn has risen so dramatically, according to the National Cattleman's Beef Association's website.
Showing posts with label ethanol. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ethanol. Show all posts
Friday, September 14, 2012
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
Opinion: McCaskill, Blunt Take Stand on Ethanol
The Missouri Corn Growers Association (MCGA) today applauds the strong support of Sens. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) and Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) for votingin unison against an amendment submitted by Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) to immediatelyrepeal the federal ethanol tax credit. In addition to defeating the anti-ethanolamendment, Missouri's senators have signed on as co-sponsors of the Ethanol Reformand Deficit Reduction Act introduced yesterday by Sens. John Thune (R-S.D.) and Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.)."We want to thank Missouri's senators for their strong leadership in stopping Sen.Coburn's anti-ethanol antics and moving new domestic energy policies forward," says MCGA CEO Gary Marshall. "Not only is ethanol adding to the federal budget througheconomic development and tax revenue, we are fighting to keep American jobs and dollars here at home instead of sending them overseas. If Sen. Coburn was serious about lowering the federal budget, he would stop his political posturing and propose eliminating the billions of dollars in oil subsidies."The Ethanol Reform and Deficit Reduction Act, supported by Sens. McCaskill and Blunt, would end the current ethanol tax incentive given to petroleum marketers on July 1 and replace it with a variable tax credit tied to the price of oil. It would also extend the small producer ethanol credit through 2014. The legislation is projected to generate a savings of $2.5 billion with $1 billion dedicated to deficitreduction and $1.5 billion to ethanol infrastructure. "This is proactive domestic energy policy aimed at reducing our nation's deficit while revitalizing energy infrastructure," says MCGA President Kenny McNamar, a corn and cattle farmer from Gorin, Mo. "The Ethanol Reform and Deficit Reduction Act is a solid compromise for moving the ethanol industry forward in a crumbling budget environment and establishing a new pathway for the continued production of Missouri-made fuel. "This proposal comes after months of discussions within the corn and ethanol industries to reform the existing Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit (VEETC) included in the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004. The Thune-Klobuchar bill introduced yesterday establishes a variable tax credit that is triggered when oil prices drop below $90 dollars per barrel, providing no credit when oil prices are high and a limited credit when oil prices are low."Missouri corn growers can be proud that our senators understand, fully support and are committed to reducing our country's addiction to foreign oil through the continued use of renewable fuels such as corn-based ethanol," McNamar said.Missouri is home to six majority farmer-owned ethanol plants with production capacity exceeding 280 million gallons annually. To learn more about Missouri's growing corn and ethanol industries, visit www.mocorn.org.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Graves Blasts Deficits, Obama Health Plan, Cap & Trade
During a districtwide tour, Congressman Sam Graves came to Grant City last week and blasted the federal deficit, Obama's health plan, and Cap & Trade. Around 40-50 people attended the meeting at the Fairgrounds Building, in which he talked about his work in Washington and in which he took questions from constituents.
Regarding the deficit, he said that "if you did that, you would go broke." He said that the current deficit, which he said was higher than any in history, was "a legacy that we would have to pay back."
The theme of Graves' tour was "Main Street Matters," and he pointed to specific legislation that he said would be bad for small businesses. Cap and Trade would require all businesses to place caps on emissions or face a carbon tax. Proponents say that this legislation is necessary because they argue that man-made pollution will create long-term global warming that will result in rising ocean levels, leading to the displacement of millions or even billions of people. They envision worst-case scenarios in which low-level cities such as Boston or New Orleans or Florida would be flooded under by rising sea levels. But Graves said that the proposed solution was bad for this area because Missouri was a coal-dependent state that would be hit hard by any such legislation. Senator Claire McCaskill has publicly voiced concerns about Cap and Trade because of Missouri's coal dependence as well. He said that the result would be an estimated 60% increase in electricity rates for the state and that it would become more expensive to move goods across the country. Consequently, he said that it would be bad for the economy since it takes fuel to move goods. And Graves said that there was nothing to protect farms from these new offset requirements because he said that the EPA could overrule any agency who tries to exempt farms from Cap and Trade requirements.
"China and India love bills like this," said Graves. He said that a better alternative was an "all of the above" approach that he and his Republican colleagues were developing. Graves said that contrary to media reports that the Republicans had no ideas, he said that they did have ideas for energy policy but that the Democrats who control the committees would not give them a fair hearing. "We do have alternatives to the President's proposals and we have been trying to push these alternatives," he said.
Turning to healthcare, Graves turned to one of his favorite props, a huge copy of HR 3200, the Health Care Bill thousands of pages long, which he dropped on the table to demonstrate what he said was the ridiculous size of government. He said that the Democrats tried and failed to get that bill passed without letting people read it or knowing what it was about before the August recess. But he said that the August recess was bad for the bill's chances because people could read it and see for themselves what a bad bill it was. "We've read it and we don't like what we see," he said. For instance, on page 16, he said it states that after five years, no new individual plans could be written. In another section, according to Graves, it allows the government to set health insurance prices. Graves said that problem with a government-run healthcare system was that it would drive hospitals away and make healthcare even more inaccessible. "More and more hospitals are not taking Medicare or Medicaid anymore," he said. "And I don't want some bureaucrat deciding for me what healthcare choices I can make."
Graves accused the current Democratic leadership in the House of not listening to Republican ideas. "I've had a bill on associated healthcare plans that would drive down the cost of health insurance for three years, and it has never even gotten a hearing," he said. "We do have alternatives to what the Democrats are proposing. We are going around the county holding hearings on healthcare solutions, and the Democrats are calling us 'unamerican' because we get the word out that the way they are going to pay for all this is to cut Medicare by $500 billion to pay for all this."
Turning to the current budget deficit, Graves aid it was "absolutely unsustainable" and that the government was trying to balance it "on the backs of small businesses" with such things as surtaxes. He said that increased taxes were the "wrong approach" during a recession and that the current healthcare plan would add one to two trillion dollars to the deficit. "It doesn't mean we don't need changes," said Graves. For instance, he said allowing businesses to pool together to purchase insurance would drive rates down because he said that an insurance pool of 8,000 employees was more manageable from a risk standpoint than 10 employees. Graves said that would allow small businesses to offer health insurance to their employees. Graves said that another solution was tort reform, saying that people in states that have it have to pay for those who don't.
Talking about possible changes down the road for local jurisdictions, local authorities have worried about changes coming down the road that they would not be able to meet financially. Graves said that what was being considered was a revision to the Clean Water Act that would give the EPA jurisdiction over all waterways; currently, they only have jurisdiction over navigable waterways. Graves feared that this change would mean that the EPA could regulate runoff from farms. "That would be a huge infringement on property rights," he said.
Addressing rumors that the BRO Program, which has funded 15 new bridges in the county, would be dropped, Graves said that it was part of the Transportation Bill; he explained that transportation bills are authorized every six years and that it would not be up for renewal for another 18 months. The administration can ask for an extension, which they have in this case. In other words, he said that nothing was written in stone regarding the BRO Program.
Asked for his thoughts on the Fairness Doctrine, which required radio stations to give equal time to differing points of view, Graves said that it was "basic business sense" for outlets to put what people wanted on the air.
Talking about Social Security, Graves said that it was in "a lot of trouble" and that the administration had already announced that there would be no cost of living increase for next year despite the fact that prices were still going up.
Graves said that in order for the administration's agenda to pass, it would have to be done this year. "Bills like this have to get done this year, because they would never pass in an election year," he said. He said that the problem was that "we are always told that we have to support this or that bailout or it will be the end of the world." By contrast, Graves said that the economy comes and goes in cycles and that it would have recovered without all of the government bailouts that he said added to an already massive deficit. "I voted against President Bush's bailout last year, the GM bailout, the stimulus bill, and the spending bill," he said. "The economy will recover regardless of what the government does, but the goverment can prolong a recession by passing more taxes." By contrast, Graves said that the proper way to stimulate an economy was to cut taxes "or at least don't increase taxes." He said that as opposed to passing "Speaker Pelosi's baby" of stimulus bills, "Let's give the people more money thru tax cuts so that they can stimulate the economy themselves."
The problem according to Graves was that "bad legislation is easy to pass but hard to get rid of." For instance, he said that the Healthcare Bill was written by Chairman Henry Waxman's staff and HHS staff and consisted of what he called "regurgitated ideas" from the failed health care reform efforts of 1993. And he said that the Stimulus Bill was originally considered to be an infrastructure bill but that only 3% or so of the funds were actually devoted to that.
Asked a question about the Guantanamo detainees, he said that that "they can rot in Guantanamo as far as I'm concerned." He explained that he had read the intelligence reports on them for three hours after getting the necessary clearances and "it takes a whole week to get over what these folks were capable of." Graves said that terrorists only needed to be right one time and we needed to be right all the time in combatting terrorism. "We weren't thinking ahead before 9/11," he said. Graves said he wasn't buying the argument that America's interrogation policies had hurt our standing in the world. "People gripe about us, but we're the first country they turn to when they need help," he said. "And I do not want the UN coming in and telling us what we have to do with ourselves."
Graves said that he was more excited by the "tax revolts" than he had been by anything in a long time. He said that part of the reason that people were fed up was because the government was "overreaching on simple little stuff" and coming up with "goofy ideas." For instance, he said that the Cap and Trade bill included a tax per head on cattle, which he said that Chairman Henry Waxman was preparing to slip in at some point.
Regarding ethanol, Graves said that he was continuing to fight for more ethanol standards, which he said that Big Oil was trying to block. "A blend of 50% soy/diesel is 50% out of their market share," he said. He called arguments that ethanol was not clean "ridiculous" and that pushing to end our dependence on foreign oil through ethanol was a "win-win." He said that the CBO has debunked one of the main arguments against ethanol, that it would raise the price of food. Graves said that as an example of the kind of ridiculous arguments he heard against ethanol, the Kansas City Star did an article about how ethanol was going to raise the price of popcorn at movies.
Addressing No Child Left Behind, Graves said that it was currently in limbo because "nobody wants to act on it." It was supposed to be reauthorized last year; however, it never was. He said he would like to see three things changed. The first was that it should differentiate between schools that miss one or two criteria and schools that miss all 13. Currently, a school that misses one criteria narrowly is treated as failing, just like schools that miss all 13. The second idea that Graves said he wanted to see was for children on IEP's to be removed from No Child Left Behind standards; he said that the goals of the IEP program and No Child Left Behind were in conflict with each other. The third thing that Graves said needed to be changed was that No Child Left Behind should measure students as they progress through school, not measure last year's fourth grade against this year's fourth grade. He said that "there is a big difference between one fourth grade class and the next" and that the law of averages might work in bigger schools, but that it doesn't in smaller schools.
On the flip side, Graves said that vouchers were not a solution for failing schools because he said that would take away what made private schools unique. He said that once the government started funding private schools like they do public schools, they would start making regulations for them like they currently do public schools. "A lot of public schools are just as good as private schools," he said.
Regarding the deficit, he said that "if you did that, you would go broke." He said that the current deficit, which he said was higher than any in history, was "a legacy that we would have to pay back."
The theme of Graves' tour was "Main Street Matters," and he pointed to specific legislation that he said would be bad for small businesses. Cap and Trade would require all businesses to place caps on emissions or face a carbon tax. Proponents say that this legislation is necessary because they argue that man-made pollution will create long-term global warming that will result in rising ocean levels, leading to the displacement of millions or even billions of people. They envision worst-case scenarios in which low-level cities such as Boston or New Orleans or Florida would be flooded under by rising sea levels. But Graves said that the proposed solution was bad for this area because Missouri was a coal-dependent state that would be hit hard by any such legislation. Senator Claire McCaskill has publicly voiced concerns about Cap and Trade because of Missouri's coal dependence as well. He said that the result would be an estimated 60% increase in electricity rates for the state and that it would become more expensive to move goods across the country. Consequently, he said that it would be bad for the economy since it takes fuel to move goods. And Graves said that there was nothing to protect farms from these new offset requirements because he said that the EPA could overrule any agency who tries to exempt farms from Cap and Trade requirements.
"China and India love bills like this," said Graves. He said that a better alternative was an "all of the above" approach that he and his Republican colleagues were developing. Graves said that contrary to media reports that the Republicans had no ideas, he said that they did have ideas for energy policy but that the Democrats who control the committees would not give them a fair hearing. "We do have alternatives to the President's proposals and we have been trying to push these alternatives," he said.
Turning to healthcare, Graves turned to one of his favorite props, a huge copy of HR 3200, the Health Care Bill thousands of pages long, which he dropped on the table to demonstrate what he said was the ridiculous size of government. He said that the Democrats tried and failed to get that bill passed without letting people read it or knowing what it was about before the August recess. But he said that the August recess was bad for the bill's chances because people could read it and see for themselves what a bad bill it was. "We've read it and we don't like what we see," he said. For instance, on page 16, he said it states that after five years, no new individual plans could be written. In another section, according to Graves, it allows the government to set health insurance prices. Graves said that problem with a government-run healthcare system was that it would drive hospitals away and make healthcare even more inaccessible. "More and more hospitals are not taking Medicare or Medicaid anymore," he said. "And I don't want some bureaucrat deciding for me what healthcare choices I can make."
Graves accused the current Democratic leadership in the House of not listening to Republican ideas. "I've had a bill on associated healthcare plans that would drive down the cost of health insurance for three years, and it has never even gotten a hearing," he said. "We do have alternatives to what the Democrats are proposing. We are going around the county holding hearings on healthcare solutions, and the Democrats are calling us 'unamerican' because we get the word out that the way they are going to pay for all this is to cut Medicare by $500 billion to pay for all this."
Turning to the current budget deficit, Graves aid it was "absolutely unsustainable" and that the government was trying to balance it "on the backs of small businesses" with such things as surtaxes. He said that increased taxes were the "wrong approach" during a recession and that the current healthcare plan would add one to two trillion dollars to the deficit. "It doesn't mean we don't need changes," said Graves. For instance, he said allowing businesses to pool together to purchase insurance would drive rates down because he said that an insurance pool of 8,000 employees was more manageable from a risk standpoint than 10 employees. Graves said that would allow small businesses to offer health insurance to their employees. Graves said that another solution was tort reform, saying that people in states that have it have to pay for those who don't.
Talking about possible changes down the road for local jurisdictions, local authorities have worried about changes coming down the road that they would not be able to meet financially. Graves said that what was being considered was a revision to the Clean Water Act that would give the EPA jurisdiction over all waterways; currently, they only have jurisdiction over navigable waterways. Graves feared that this change would mean that the EPA could regulate runoff from farms. "That would be a huge infringement on property rights," he said.
Addressing rumors that the BRO Program, which has funded 15 new bridges in the county, would be dropped, Graves said that it was part of the Transportation Bill; he explained that transportation bills are authorized every six years and that it would not be up for renewal for another 18 months. The administration can ask for an extension, which they have in this case. In other words, he said that nothing was written in stone regarding the BRO Program.
Asked for his thoughts on the Fairness Doctrine, which required radio stations to give equal time to differing points of view, Graves said that it was "basic business sense" for outlets to put what people wanted on the air.
Talking about Social Security, Graves said that it was in "a lot of trouble" and that the administration had already announced that there would be no cost of living increase for next year despite the fact that prices were still going up.
Graves said that in order for the administration's agenda to pass, it would have to be done this year. "Bills like this have to get done this year, because they would never pass in an election year," he said. He said that the problem was that "we are always told that we have to support this or that bailout or it will be the end of the world." By contrast, Graves said that the economy comes and goes in cycles and that it would have recovered without all of the government bailouts that he said added to an already massive deficit. "I voted against President Bush's bailout last year, the GM bailout, the stimulus bill, and the spending bill," he said. "The economy will recover regardless of what the government does, but the goverment can prolong a recession by passing more taxes." By contrast, Graves said that the proper way to stimulate an economy was to cut taxes "or at least don't increase taxes." He said that as opposed to passing "Speaker Pelosi's baby" of stimulus bills, "Let's give the people more money thru tax cuts so that they can stimulate the economy themselves."
The problem according to Graves was that "bad legislation is easy to pass but hard to get rid of." For instance, he said that the Healthcare Bill was written by Chairman Henry Waxman's staff and HHS staff and consisted of what he called "regurgitated ideas" from the failed health care reform efforts of 1993. And he said that the Stimulus Bill was originally considered to be an infrastructure bill but that only 3% or so of the funds were actually devoted to that.
Asked a question about the Guantanamo detainees, he said that that "they can rot in Guantanamo as far as I'm concerned." He explained that he had read the intelligence reports on them for three hours after getting the necessary clearances and "it takes a whole week to get over what these folks were capable of." Graves said that terrorists only needed to be right one time and we needed to be right all the time in combatting terrorism. "We weren't thinking ahead before 9/11," he said. Graves said he wasn't buying the argument that America's interrogation policies had hurt our standing in the world. "People gripe about us, but we're the first country they turn to when they need help," he said. "And I do not want the UN coming in and telling us what we have to do with ourselves."
Graves said that he was more excited by the "tax revolts" than he had been by anything in a long time. He said that part of the reason that people were fed up was because the government was "overreaching on simple little stuff" and coming up with "goofy ideas." For instance, he said that the Cap and Trade bill included a tax per head on cattle, which he said that Chairman Henry Waxman was preparing to slip in at some point.
Regarding ethanol, Graves said that he was continuing to fight for more ethanol standards, which he said that Big Oil was trying to block. "A blend of 50% soy/diesel is 50% out of their market share," he said. He called arguments that ethanol was not clean "ridiculous" and that pushing to end our dependence on foreign oil through ethanol was a "win-win." He said that the CBO has debunked one of the main arguments against ethanol, that it would raise the price of food. Graves said that as an example of the kind of ridiculous arguments he heard against ethanol, the Kansas City Star did an article about how ethanol was going to raise the price of popcorn at movies.
Addressing No Child Left Behind, Graves said that it was currently in limbo because "nobody wants to act on it." It was supposed to be reauthorized last year; however, it never was. He said he would like to see three things changed. The first was that it should differentiate between schools that miss one or two criteria and schools that miss all 13. Currently, a school that misses one criteria narrowly is treated as failing, just like schools that miss all 13. The second idea that Graves said he wanted to see was for children on IEP's to be removed from No Child Left Behind standards; he said that the goals of the IEP program and No Child Left Behind were in conflict with each other. The third thing that Graves said needed to be changed was that No Child Left Behind should measure students as they progress through school, not measure last year's fourth grade against this year's fourth grade. He said that "there is a big difference between one fourth grade class and the next" and that the law of averages might work in bigger schools, but that it doesn't in smaller schools.
On the flip side, Graves said that vouchers were not a solution for failing schools because he said that would take away what made private schools unique. He said that once the government started funding private schools like they do public schools, they would start making regulations for them like they currently do public schools. "A lot of public schools are just as good as private schools," he said.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Opinion: Corn Farmers Fight to Set the Record Straight
Opinions do not necessarily reflect those of the Sheridan Express
by the Missouri Corn Growers Association
Earlier this year, food processors, retailers and other critics blamed corn-based ethanol for rising grain prices and increased costs in the grocery aisle. Today those same critics have egg on their face as food prices remain high despite plunging commodity markets.
"Corn is selling under the cost of production, yet the price at the grocery store remains the same," said Keith Witt, Missouri Corn Merchandising Council chairman and farmer from Warrenton, Mo. "Judging by the record profits and smaller packaging, the motive of big food companies is crystal clear. Their focus is on their bottom line - at the expense of farmers and consumers."
These big food companies are blaming ethanol all the way to the bank. This quarter alone, Kraft boasted a net income of $1.4 billion - more than double last year's results. Sales at Kellogg's climbed 9.5 percent and third-quarter net income increased from $305 million last year to $342 million this year.
Targeting farmers and the ethanol industry, organizations such as the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) and the National Restaurant Association have repeatedly blamed higher food prices on biofuels. But according to the United States Department of Agriculture, the farm value of products producers supply to manufacturers accounts for only 19 cents of every dollar of processed food.
"The price of corn and other commodities equals less than two dimes of every food dollar," said Witt. "Since these slanderous allegations were made, commodity prices have dropped nearly in half, ethanol production continues to expand, but the price of corn flakes remains the same."
Studies from Purdue University, Texas A&M, the White House Council of Economic Advisers, Iowa State University, etc. have all concluded the price of oil, not ethanol, was the major driver behind food price increases. Commodity speculation, a declining dollar and an increasing middle class in China, India and other markets also played a role.
"Consumers deserve the truth and America's farmers deserve an apology," Witt concluded.
The Missouri Corn Merchandising Council has launched a series of radio ads to help educate consumers on the "sticky pricing" in today's food industry. Available in 60 and 30-second versions, the ads question how grain prices have dropped, yet food prices remain the same, therefore eliminating the blame ethanol has unfairly been given.
For more information regarding food and fuel visit, www.mocorn.org and click on the Food and Fuel icon.
by the Missouri Corn Growers Association
Earlier this year, food processors, retailers and other critics blamed corn-based ethanol for rising grain prices and increased costs in the grocery aisle. Today those same critics have egg on their face as food prices remain high despite plunging commodity markets.
"Corn is selling under the cost of production, yet the price at the grocery store remains the same," said Keith Witt, Missouri Corn Merchandising Council chairman and farmer from Warrenton, Mo. "Judging by the record profits and smaller packaging, the motive of big food companies is crystal clear. Their focus is on their bottom line - at the expense of farmers and consumers."
These big food companies are blaming ethanol all the way to the bank. This quarter alone, Kraft boasted a net income of $1.4 billion - more than double last year's results. Sales at Kellogg's climbed 9.5 percent and third-quarter net income increased from $305 million last year to $342 million this year.
Targeting farmers and the ethanol industry, organizations such as the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) and the National Restaurant Association have repeatedly blamed higher food prices on biofuels. But according to the United States Department of Agriculture, the farm value of products producers supply to manufacturers accounts for only 19 cents of every dollar of processed food.
"The price of corn and other commodities equals less than two dimes of every food dollar," said Witt. "Since these slanderous allegations were made, commodity prices have dropped nearly in half, ethanol production continues to expand, but the price of corn flakes remains the same."
Studies from Purdue University, Texas A&M, the White House Council of Economic Advisers, Iowa State University, etc. have all concluded the price of oil, not ethanol, was the major driver behind food price increases. Commodity speculation, a declining dollar and an increasing middle class in China, India and other markets also played a role.
"Consumers deserve the truth and America's farmers deserve an apology," Witt concluded.
The Missouri Corn Merchandising Council has launched a series of radio ads to help educate consumers on the "sticky pricing" in today's food industry. Available in 60 and 30-second versions, the ads question how grain prices have dropped, yet food prices remain the same, therefore eliminating the blame ethanol has unfairly been given.
For more information regarding food and fuel visit, www.mocorn.org and click on the Food and Fuel icon.
Monday, July 28, 2008
Letter to the Editor -- Repudiate Graves
Missouri's Sixth Congressional District has a chance this fall to repudiate the failed policies and incompetence of the Bush-Cheney-Graves agenda. We must elect Kay Barnes to the US Congress. She offers a fresh agenda, independence from the special interests and a fighting voice for working families.
Sam Graves has sided repeatedly with corporate interests against the needs of the working people of the district. He helps big oil companies earn huge profits while we pay $3.50 for a gallon of gas. He claims to be pro-farmer and yet helps big corporations stop farmers from keeping back seed corn and has sided with corporations against ethanol production with farmers. Our choice is clear, Kay Barnes for Congress.
Robert Wheeler
Keytesville, MO
Sam Graves has sided repeatedly with corporate interests against the needs of the working people of the district. He helps big oil companies earn huge profits while we pay $3.50 for a gallon of gas. He claims to be pro-farmer and yet helps big corporations stop farmers from keeping back seed corn and has sided with corporations against ethanol production with farmers. Our choice is clear, Kay Barnes for Congress.
Robert Wheeler
Keytesville, MO
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Opinion: Repealing Renewable Fuel Standard Costly
Opinions are the views of the writers and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Sheridan Express.
Repealing the Missouri Renewable Fuel Standard (MoRFS) would have costly consequences for Missouri drivers, Missouri Corn Growers Association (MCGA) CEO cautions.
"While recent misleading political proposals claim that repealing the statewide ethanol standard would lower fuel and food prices, the effect would be quite the opposite," says MCGA Chief Executive Officer Gary Marshall. "Simple economics dictate that increasing supply helps reduce price. Utilizing a fuel produced and refined in Missouri is part of the reason our state has some of the lowest gas prices in the nation."
The Missouri Renewable Fuel Standard requires gasoline to be blended with 10 percent ethanol when ethanol is cheaper than conventional gasoline. This price provision means ethanol cannot increase the cost to consumers, Marshall said.
A wide range of independent economists confirm the savings ethanol is providing to Missouri drivers. A study by Iowa State University's Center for Agriculture & Rural Development concluded Midwest states are saving 39 cents a gallon on gasoline due to the additional supply ethanol adds to the fuel market. Merrill Lynch commodity strategist Francisco Blanch estimated higher savings, with ethanol reducing prices by approximately 15 percent, or 60 to 70 cents per gallon.
"By adding an American-made product to the strained fuel chain, ethanol is holding prices down by at least 40 cents a gallon," emphasized Marshall. "Those who blame ethanol for skyrocketing food and fuel costs are not basing their arguments on all the facts."
Despite what some political ads claim, recent reports point to escalating energy costs as the predominant driver in increased food prices. According to figures from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, while households are facing a 23 percent increase in their total food costs, they are facing a 335 percent increase in their gasoline costs since 2002.
"If fuel prices had increased at the same rate as food, we would only be paying $1.39 per gallon for gasoline," Marshall says. "And while grocery bills are going up due mainly to increasing transportation, labor and marketing expenses, Missouri's food costs remain inline with other neighboring states. The hype is just that - hype."
To learn more about corn and ethanol production in Missouri, or to find additional facts on food and fuel, visit Missouri Corn Online at www.mocorn.org.
Repealing the Missouri Renewable Fuel Standard (MoRFS) would have costly consequences for Missouri drivers, Missouri Corn Growers Association (MCGA) CEO cautions.
"While recent misleading political proposals claim that repealing the statewide ethanol standard would lower fuel and food prices, the effect would be quite the opposite," says MCGA Chief Executive Officer Gary Marshall. "Simple economics dictate that increasing supply helps reduce price. Utilizing a fuel produced and refined in Missouri is part of the reason our state has some of the lowest gas prices in the nation."
The Missouri Renewable Fuel Standard requires gasoline to be blended with 10 percent ethanol when ethanol is cheaper than conventional gasoline. This price provision means ethanol cannot increase the cost to consumers, Marshall said.
A wide range of independent economists confirm the savings ethanol is providing to Missouri drivers. A study by Iowa State University's Center for Agriculture & Rural Development concluded Midwest states are saving 39 cents a gallon on gasoline due to the additional supply ethanol adds to the fuel market. Merrill Lynch commodity strategist Francisco Blanch estimated higher savings, with ethanol reducing prices by approximately 15 percent, or 60 to 70 cents per gallon.
"By adding an American-made product to the strained fuel chain, ethanol is holding prices down by at least 40 cents a gallon," emphasized Marshall. "Those who blame ethanol for skyrocketing food and fuel costs are not basing their arguments on all the facts."
Despite what some political ads claim, recent reports point to escalating energy costs as the predominant driver in increased food prices. According to figures from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, while households are facing a 23 percent increase in their total food costs, they are facing a 335 percent increase in their gasoline costs since 2002.
"If fuel prices had increased at the same rate as food, we would only be paying $1.39 per gallon for gasoline," Marshall says. "And while grocery bills are going up due mainly to increasing transportation, labor and marketing expenses, Missouri's food costs remain inline with other neighboring states. The hype is just that - hype."
To learn more about corn and ethanol production in Missouri, or to find additional facts on food and fuel, visit Missouri Corn Online at www.mocorn.org.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Corn Growers Protest Steelman's Actions against Cooperative Ethanol Plants
"In her zeal for political gain, state treasurer and gubernatorial candidate Sarah Steelman crossed the line when she resorted to insults, calling Missouri senators "cowards" after they voted to overturn an unreasonable conflict of interest policy. Her policy to punish thousands of farm families who invested hard-earned dollars to build Missouri's ethanol industry is an inexcusable act of political grandstanding.
"The state's BIG Missouri Program was designed to allow low-interest loans to Missouri-based companies to help them compete in today's tough business climate. Missouri senators recognized the state treasurer went beyond legislative intent by implementing an unreasonable conflict of interest policy that defies explanation. Under Steelman's guise of keeping "elected officials" and their families out of the BIG Missouri Program, hundreds of Missouri citizens were denied access. The treasurer, however, fails to consider three glaring issues.
"First, our state senators and representatives work part-time. Most have paying jobs outside of their legislative duties, and yes, a shrinking number are farmers. To not allow farmer legislators to participate in these types of programs parallels not allowing doctor legislators to see Medicaid patients, not allowing lawyer legislators to practice in the legal system, or not allowing banker legislators to engage in financial matters. With citizen legislators, it is unrealistic to expect a zero percent conflict of interest on any measure passed by the General Assembly. To single out agriculture is unjust. Why disallow every other investor in a cooperatively owned project when the investment by elected officials is minimal (less than 2 percent)?
"Second, agriculture is a capital intensive business and investing in a biofuels plant can be risky business. When neighbors join together to compete against the wealthiest industry in the history of the world (the oil industry), the knowledge that local leaders are willing to take the risk by investing in a biofuels facility provides reassurance to other investors. Without the leadership shown by elected officials on both sides of the political aisle, these ethanol plants (which can cost from $100-200 million) would not have been built. Instead of vilifying state leaders, we should thank them for joining in the effort to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and investing in Missouri rather than sending our jobs, tax revenues and economic development overseas.
"Finally, why would the state treasurer not allow biofuels cooperatives that include elected officials to participate in the BIG Missouri program, yet encourage legislators to utilize the Missouri Saving for Tuition or MOST 529 College Savings Plan? Isn't that having different rules for programs established with state dollars she is elected to protect?
"In the name of responsible government, Missouri legislators are establishing guidelines through the formal state lawmaking process rather than utilizing an inner office memorandum as a backdoor approach to limiting program eligibility. It is a travesty to see our state's farmer entrepreneurs penalized due to politics. I applaud Missouri's senators for standing up for the citizens willing to take personal risk to drive economic growth and domestic energy development."
"The state's BIG Missouri Program was designed to allow low-interest loans to Missouri-based companies to help them compete in today's tough business climate. Missouri senators recognized the state treasurer went beyond legislative intent by implementing an unreasonable conflict of interest policy that defies explanation. Under Steelman's guise of keeping "elected officials" and their families out of the BIG Missouri Program, hundreds of Missouri citizens were denied access. The treasurer, however, fails to consider three glaring issues.
"First, our state senators and representatives work part-time. Most have paying jobs outside of their legislative duties, and yes, a shrinking number are farmers. To not allow farmer legislators to participate in these types of programs parallels not allowing doctor legislators to see Medicaid patients, not allowing lawyer legislators to practice in the legal system, or not allowing banker legislators to engage in financial matters. With citizen legislators, it is unrealistic to expect a zero percent conflict of interest on any measure passed by the General Assembly. To single out agriculture is unjust. Why disallow every other investor in a cooperatively owned project when the investment by elected officials is minimal (less than 2 percent)?
"Second, agriculture is a capital intensive business and investing in a biofuels plant can be risky business. When neighbors join together to compete against the wealthiest industry in the history of the world (the oil industry), the knowledge that local leaders are willing to take the risk by investing in a biofuels facility provides reassurance to other investors. Without the leadership shown by elected officials on both sides of the political aisle, these ethanol plants (which can cost from $100-200 million) would not have been built. Instead of vilifying state leaders, we should thank them for joining in the effort to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and investing in Missouri rather than sending our jobs, tax revenues and economic development overseas.
"Finally, why would the state treasurer not allow biofuels cooperatives that include elected officials to participate in the BIG Missouri program, yet encourage legislators to utilize the Missouri Saving for Tuition or MOST 529 College Savings Plan? Isn't that having different rules for programs established with state dollars she is elected to protect?
"In the name of responsible government, Missouri legislators are establishing guidelines through the formal state lawmaking process rather than utilizing an inner office memorandum as a backdoor approach to limiting program eligibility. It is a travesty to see our state's farmer entrepreneurs penalized due to politics. I applaud Missouri's senators for standing up for the citizens willing to take personal risk to drive economic growth and domestic energy development."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)