The ethanol tax credit, known commonly by its congressionally-bestowed acronym, "VEETC" (the "Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit" for those who delight in impressing cocktail-party acquaintances with their knowledge of trivia), is the tax credit many conservatives and liberals alike love to hate. Both sides, however, would be well-advised to push aside ideologically-based peeves for the time being, and support extension of the credit beyond its scheduled December 31st expiration.
Outside those states boasting heavy corn production, which is the most common product source for the biofuel ethanol, few Americans -- including the millions of motorists who daily benefit from inclusion of ethanol in the gasoline that fuels their vehicles -- VEETC is essentially unknown. This understandable lack of public awareness accounts for much of the trouble proponents of the tax credit are encountering in their efforts to convince Congress to include an extension in some piece of legislation that will make its way to President Obama's desk in the final weeks of this 111
Another reason the ethanol tax credit has had a rough ride this year, lies in its complexity; which extends far deeper than just the awkwardness of its moniker. As is clear from a reading of the July 2010 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) study, "Using Biofuel Tax Credits to Achieve Energy and Environmental Policy Goals," calculating the "costs" of tax credits such as VEETC, and weighing them against the energy and environmental "benefits," is a daunting and not necessarily objective exercise, even for energy experts.
While it is relatively easy to pick apart the information in the CBO study, as some conservative groups already have done, such an exercise is somewhat unfair. There is, of course, a philosophical argument to be made that any tax credit will to some degree skew market forces. However, to single out the tax credit available to blenders of gasoline (and indirectly to producers of ethanol and other biofuels), while ignoring other, far larger tax incentives, is disingenuous. As Bob Dinneen, head of the Renewable Fuels Association (RFA) noted in a guest article in the July 29th Washington Post, "calling for an end to tax credits for ethanol while ignoring the billions of dollars in subsidies for Big Oil is as inequitable as it is shortsighted."
It is relevant also that the tax subsidies the fossil fuels industry enjoys are written permanently into the federal tax code, and therefore do not have to be defended and justified periodically like VEETC.
As Dinneen also pointed out in his opinion piece, production of ethanol made possible at least in part by VEETC, has in fact generated billions more in additional tax revenues than dollars extended through the tax credit program (a net surplus of tax dollars totaling $3.0 billion last year alone). Fiscal hawks should be cheering passage of legislation extending VEETC, not pouting over its possible resuscitation.
These arguments don't even touch the very practical benefits accruing to the economy generally by employment opportunities in the biofuels sector (with 112,000 jobs directly linked to the fate of the tax credit, according to the RFA).
Were incumbent members of the Congress facing a political climate less volatile -- and an economy less sluggish -- than that in which they currently find themselves, the debate over extending VEETC likely would have been resolved favorably many months ago. Even Washington's most well-known tax watchdog group, American for Tax Reform, cautions members of Congress against voting to repeal VEETC (to do so would amount to a "corporate tax increase" in the organization's view).
There is always plenty of time to argue the philosophical pros and cons of the myriad elements of federal tax policy; and that's a healthy and necessary debate. But it needs to be a fair, objective and comprehensive debate; not one singling out for criticism or elimination one tax credit program like VEETC, that demonstrably is both a benefit to private industry as well as a net contributor of jobs and tax revenues.
Share your Comment:
However, science and facts don't count when you have beliefs, politics and ignorance. The only real question is whether he believes his own non-sense or is a pure propagandaist who believes truth is irrelevant.
http://www.financials
what is now on the table is 15% ethanol which will reduce your mileage an power by approx. 7%. Farmers with 200 acres or more that are subsidized are all millionaires now..it cost approx. .51 a gal to lace our fuel at the refinery just so we can make a few people rich and pollute the air much worse and raise our fuel cost per mile.
Can you name any of the tax subsidies and or so called loopholes actually written into the US tax code - US Title 26.
It is a scam.
It costs $1.78 per gallon above what you pay at the pump according to the CBO.
Consumer Reports found E85 blends lower gas mileage 27 percent.
It increases food costs. Corn just crashed through $5 a bushel again. It sold for $2 a bushel for a decade before the ethanol mandates were codified.
It also increases air pollution and according to the EPA, it also increases green house gases.
"However, to single out the tax credit available to blenders of gasoline?"
"Blenders of gasoline" are "oil companies." Oil companies are the recipients of this credit and use it to lower the price of gasoline at the pump so consumers will consume more "gasoline," and they have, so much in fact, they have nullified the amount of ethanol produced. We are importing just as much oil as we were before ethanol.
"...has in fact generated billions more in additional tax revenues?"
The oil it displaced generated even more in tax revenues, so ethanol did not generate any extra money at all. It behooves the government to keep using a product that can be taxed instead cars that use less of what can be taxed.
"...with 112,000 jobs directly linked to the fate of the tax credit?"
According to the NRDC, those job numbers are a farce. Google the term " Big ethanol is using bad jobs numbers to push bad tax credit "
Also, "ethanol also results in nearly twice the greenhouse gas emissions as the oil it would replace because of land use changes, according to Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. The Princeton study showed that after taking account land use changes, corn-based ethanol increases greenhouse gasses by 93 percent compared to using gasoline over a 30-year period." **
What moron is for ethanol? For all the reasons you cite, I can't believe people still back this garbage.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0726/p12s01-usgn.html
http://www.autotrader.com/research/content/article-printable-popup.jsp?content_id=26040
** http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/members/pressreleasels85.asp?district=64B&pressid;=3538&party;=1
Is it a good idea for that purpose? NO.
So why in the world would we subsidize the destruction of what could be our food supply?
With so many starving people around the world we could best use our subsidies for development in fusion nuclear technology.
Fusion technology allows for toxic waste, from fusion nuclear power, be dispose of properly.
No more does humanity have to choose between feeding people or driving our cars because of the excuses anti-nuclear advocates say: "...what about toxic waste?"
Some ideas are so stupid that they do not merit a mention, let alone a debate, among human beings.
What should be debated is how we can develop fusion nuclear power that can dispose of nuclear toxic waste so we can desalinate dirty oily Gulf of Mexico water into fresh drinking water.
It costs $1.78 per gallon more at the pump according to the CBO:
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/ngreene/the_real_c
Consumer Reports found it lowers gas mileage 27 percent:
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/new-cars/news/2006/ethanol-10-06/overview/1006_ethanol_ov1_1.htm
Corn just crashed through $5 a bushel again. It sold for $2 a bushel for a decade before the ethanol mandates were codified.
It also increases air pollution:
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/02/02/0812835106.full.pdf
and according to the EPA, it also increases green house gases:
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/slyutse/as_i_discu
"However, to single out the tax credit available to blenders of gasoline?"
These "blenders of gasoline" are "oil companies." and use the credit to lower the price of gasoline at the pump so consumers will consume more "gasoline." We are importing just as much oil as we were before ethanol.
"...has in fact generated billions more in additional tax revenues?"
It has generated no additional tax revenue above the oil revenue it displaced.
"...with 112,000 jobs directly linked to the fate of the tax credit?"
According to this study those job numbers are a farce:
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/ngreene/big_ethano