Senate Votes to End $6 Billion in Ethanol Subsidies. White House threatens veto.

[flpoljunkie]

I totally disagree with the White House's veto threat on this.

June 16, 2011
Senate Votes to End $6 Billion in Ethanol Subsidies

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Senate voted overwhelmingly on Thursday to eliminate billions of dollars in support for the U.S. ethanol industry, sending a strong message that the era of taxpayer support for biofuels is ending.

The Senate in a 73-27 vote approved an amendment to end the 45-cent-a-gallon subsidy the government gives refiners and the 54-cent-per-gallon tariff on imported ethanol, which would be a boon to a major ethanol-producing country such as Brazil that makes ethanol from sugarcane.

The Senate measure still faces a long road to becoming final. The White House issued a statement saying it was against a full repeal of ethanol subsidies, indicating it could use its veto power if the amendment continued to advance in Congress.

"We need reforms and a smarter biofuels program, but simply cutting off support for the industry isn't the right approach," said Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack.

The strong vote in favor of eliminating the $6 billion a year in ethanol subsidies reflects the push by both parties to rein in the government's huge deficit.

more...

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2011/06/16/us/politics/politics-us-usa-senate-ethanol.html?hp

[ChairmanAgnostic]

1. why the hell would the WH veto this?

The science is against it, the math is against it, and the economics is against it. Plus, it increases food prices, cuts supplies and perverts what we plant as food crops.

Can someone explain the WH position on this? Please?

[flpoljunkie]

2. Politics. Some of the ethanol producing states are blue, like Illinois.

Both Durbin (D-IL) and Kirk (R-IL) voted against ending the ethanol subsidy amendment today.

[Harmony Blue]

10. I think that the political angle is being overplayed

by the WH, and they should reconsider their stance, especially given the economic realities as of the year 2011.

[high density]

3. Simply cutting off corporate welfare is an excellent approach

I thought this administration was getting all tough on waste and such? I guess not.

[Inuca]

4. Quite a bipartisan vote

almost exclusively along geographical lines http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=1&vote=00090

[Proud Liberal Dem]

5. It's too bad we can't have a vote on oil subsidies too.

n/t

[flpoljunkie]

7. Indeed!

[ProSense]

8. It would have

been great if they had put them together.

[flpoljunkie]

12. Senate cloture vote to end oil subsidies failed 52-48 in May of this year.

[ProSense]

6. Check out the no votes

Roll call

NAYs ---27

Blunt (R-MO)
Brown (D-OH)
Casey (D-PA)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coats (R-IN)
Cochran (R-MS)
Conrad (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Franken (D-MN)
Grassley (R-IA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Johanns (R-NE)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kirk (R-IL)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Levin (D-MI)
Lugar (R-IN)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Moran (R-KS)
Nelson (D-NE)
Portman (R-OH)
Roberts (R-KS)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Thune (R-SD)
Wicker (R-MS)

[ChairmanAgnostic]

9. thanks for this.

I am sorely disappointed in Dick Durbin.

[handmade34]

11. end the subsidies!

the midwest senators voting against it would be better served voting for jobs programs that actually improved the quality of life and the environment... ethanol is destructive to the environment and ultimately the economy

[Jakes Progress]

13. If the WH is not part of the solution .....