What is there to say? This is disappointing but not really surprising:
How is it that the party loudly proclaiming how the government shouldn't "pick winners and losers" could only manage to get 34 senators to oppose one of the most egregious examples of federal industrial policy?
On Tuesday, the Senate rejected an amendment sponsored by Tom Coburn, R-Okla., to end the $6 billion in tax subsidies plus the import tariffs that have given rise to Big Ethanol. The measure got just 40 votes, six of them from Democrats.
[. . .]
Ending this madness should be a no-brainer. In fact, you'd be hard-pressed to find another public policy that has so utterly and completely failed to live up to any of its promises (with the possible exception of President Obama's stimulus).
Expanding ethanol use was supposed to lead to greater energy independence. But oil imports have climbed right along with the sevenfold increase in ethanol production.
It was supposed to help the environment. But various studies have found that it does little, if anything, to reduce smog or greenhouse gas emissions.
It was supposed to keep gasoline prices down. Anyone filling up these days can see how well that's worked out.
What it has done is raise food prices.
"Ending this madness should be a no-brainer." Indeed, especially for a GOP that has spent so much time apparently heeding the tea party call to tame the federal government.
Sad to say, both Sens. Lugar and Coats voted against the measure, helping defeat it. If the two of them ever dare to rail against "special interests" again, we should ask them about the corn lobby. We expect those in a business to stick up for their business. But we expect our legislators to look beyond narrow interests to the common good.
Coats said it would be wrong to end the subsidy now because in December "Congress made a commitment to extend" the credits through the end of the year and Hoosiers made investments based on that. That sounds a lot like "we have to keep doing it because we've been doing it." Good luck on getting anything killed based on that philosophy. It also sounds like Coats isn't against ending the subsidy, just the timing of it. But an alternative proposal supported by 15 farm state senators, including Lugar and Coats, would have cut off the subsidy on July 1 but replace it with "a variable subsidy that fluctuates with the price of oil."
"We must end Washington's insane spending" is a great talking game, but when push comes to shove, reasons can always be found to keep the goodies flowing to your own constituents.
