Politics or science?

Poor Obama has a problem: enforce Congress’s mandatory increase in the ethanol boondoggle or get rid of the mandate. He can do either, under the law as enacted, and according to the NYT, it’s proving a real poser. Mr. Obama’s campaign vow to put “science before politics” sounded fine when he was addressing pro-abortion advocates, but mid-western Democrats from the corn belt are another matter. By the way, the fact that the issue is even being considered answers the question of whether the One will honor his pledge: the decision is supposed to be made by the EPA, not the White House, so if the White House is claiming authority to decide how the EPA will rule, then it seems to me we’re already back to days of that ol Debbil’ Bush, eh? I expect the protesters to assemble on Pennsylvania Avenue tomorrow.


Filed under Uncategorized

2 responses to “Politics or science?

  1. Here’s an idea that the NYT seems oblivious to. Let’s drop the $0.54 per gallon tariff on imported ethanol. Brazil exports cheap ethanol refined from sugar cane, but it can’t compete here because of the tariff. That would give us cheaper gasoline and lower food prices as the price of corn and other grains dropped.

    Gee, everyone wins. Except the farm lobby.

  2. Walt

    First off, and I told you all this before, the term “Feeder Fund” is a derogatory, racist, term. So quit it out.
    The politically correct way to refer to The FGG is “alternative investment vehicle”. Yeah, I know, I don’t know what that is either, but that is what you should call us.
    Anyways, did you see this:

    You see what you are doing to all of us victims? So back OFF!!! This is just not fair.
    Your Pal,