Why does Smirky want to import ethanol???

[deminks]

Bush backs cutting tax on ethanol imports

http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/bal-te.nat06may06,0,2990453.story?track=rss

WASHINGTON // President Bush said yesterday that "it makes sense" to reduce at least temporarily the 54-cent-a-gallon import tax on ethanol and that he would work with Congress to suspend some or all of the tariff.

Any such move would prompt a fight with Republican and Democratic farm-state lawmakers, who say a change would undermine the domestic ethanol industry.

Bush, in an interview with CNBC, said he considers the tax a barrier to imports.

"I think it makes sense ... when there's a time of shortage of a product that's needed, so consumers have a reasonable price, it seems to me to make sense to address those shortages," Bush said. "And dropping a tariff will enable the foreign export of ethanol into our markets, which will particularly help on our coasts."

Smirky confuses me. (so, what else is new) Why must we import ethanol? It's not a matter of immediate availability, the ariticle quotes our ethanol industry saying there is plenty available. Any ideas? Or has Dear Leader lost his last marble?

[lonestarnot]

1. Does he have you fooled?

Last marble? Loooooooooooooong gone!

[NYC]

2. The more they outsource, the less we produce, the fewer jobs

we have. When we become a third world nation, we'll be a great source for cheap labor.

What's lower than a wage slave?

[MessiahRp]

3. Import Ethanol...

Idiot can't even do that right. God I hate him.

Rp

[deminks]

4. Here might be one answer: Cargill and Chevron

Found this from 2004:

Sen. Daschle: Cargill import scheme threatens ethanol industry

http://www.cropchoice.com/leadstrybe59.html?recid=2668

(Monday, July 26, 2004 -- CropChoice news) -- Julianne Johnston, AgWeb, 07/25/04:
The following letter was provided by South Dakota Senator Tom Daschle:
Cargill's plan to import 63 million gallons of Brazilian ethanol into the United States through El Salvador each year is a hot topic in the cafes and at the grain elevators throughout the state. South Dakota farmers are understandably suspicious of the agri-business giant's motives. They rightly fear that ethanol imports could undercut the growth of the domestic ethanol industry and undermine our effort to establish ethanol as a major domestic energy source.

On July 16, at a meeting in my Capitol office, I warned Cargill President Greg Page that Cargill's plan could establish a dangerous precedent for other importers and dramatically undercut the value of the pending Renewable FuelsStandard for American farmers and ethanol producers. Now, just one week later, we hear reports that at least one multi-national oil company, Chevron, is considering importing ethanol through Panama.

South Dakota farmers legitimately ask whether corporate giants like Cargill and Chevron care about growing the domestic ethanol industry or are simply interested in maximizing the profits of their foreign subsidiaries. I think we know the answer to that question.

I understand that Cargill executives feel an obligation to their shareholders. But my obligation is to South Dakota farmers, ethanol producers, and motorists who view increased ethanol demand as a means to establish greater control over their economic and energy future.

Corporatism is always the answer with Smirky.

[B Calm]

5. Actually corn based ethanol takes a lot of fuel to make. It would

be more feasable to use something better than corn. (like hemp?)

[B Calm]

9. But... I'm sure

this is not the reason for President Chuckle-nuts Bush

[DrRang]

12. Let Brazil wear out their soil instead of us. n/t

[doc03]

6. Since gas prices are so high and it is

now profitable to build new ethanol plants here he wants to drive the price of the product so low by bringing in imports that producers will be discouraged from doing so. I don't think the chimp thinks, he was told to do it.

[tecelote]

7. Yes, this makes sense.

We'll reduce our dependency on oil imports by importing ethanol!

What this really means is that the wrong people are making money on ethanol in the U.S. and the right people need a solution.

[jody]

8. Agribusiness costs are lower in other countries, environmental laws

are weaker, land prices are lower, and after tax profits are higher. Offshore production of ethanol looks like a logical decision if a U.S/ president doesn't care about the economy of the country he represents. :puke:

[acmejack]

10. This fucking idiot needs to be replaced now

with someone who cares the least little bit about the American People. Man we're hurting out here and it's going to get a lot worse. Right now there are a lot of folks sitting in their computer chairs figuring it can't touch them, but just wait a few years. I read a lot of ignorant remarks here during the immigrant flame fests a week or two ago, when the twin biases, educational & classist, poked their ugly little heads out and people were bashed for lack of a college degree, so that was a personal shortcoming and they deserved to be unemployed.

Soon the reaper shall touch many more of us. Be prepared. Gold is $682.40 an Ounce this morning Yen, Pound Sterling, Euro all at new highs versus the US Dollar. Have a good Day!

[deminks]

11. Another answer: GRASSLEY PUTS HOLD ON EXPORT-IMPORT BANK NOMINEE

http://grassley.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=5012&Month=3&Year=2006

WASHINGTON – Sen. Chuck Grassley, chairman of the Committee on Finance, today placed a formal hold in the Senate on the nomination for president of the Export-Import Bank of the United States. The hold means the full Senate cannot act on the nomination. Grassley placed the hold because the Export-Import Bank helped to finance the construction of an ethanol plant in Trinidad and Tobago to produce dehydrated ethanol -- using wet Brazilian ethanol -- for export to the United States. The deal appeared to violate the bank’s authorizing statute.

Mr. President, today I’m placing a hold on the nomination of James Lambright to serve as President of the Export-Import Bank of the United States. I’m placing this hold on Mr. Lambright’s nomination as I have major concerns regarding the issuance of taxpayer-guaranteed credit insurance by the Export-Import Bank for an ethanol project in Trinidad and Tobago. Specifically, the approval of this credit insurance by the Export-Import Bank appeared to violate the Bank’s authorizing statute. Let me explain.

In March 2004, the Export-Import Bank approved the issuance of $9.87 million in taxpayer guaranteed credit insurance to help Angostura Holdings Limited, of Trinidad and Tobago, finance the construction of an ethanol dehydration plant in Trinidad. The purpose of this credit insurance was to enable Angostura to purchase equipment to be used to dehydrate up to 100 million gallons of Brazilian ethanol annually. Angostura would then re-export the resulting dehydrated ethanol to the United States duty-free under the current Caribbean Basin Initiative trade preference program.

But section 635(e) of the Export-Import Bank’s authorizing statute – the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945 – states that the Bank is not to provide credit or financial guarantees to expand production of commodities for export to the United States if the resulting production capacity is expected to compete with U.S. production of the same commodity and that the extension of such credit will cause substantial injury to U.S. producers of the same commodity. The statute goes on to provide that “the extension of any credit or guarantee by the Bank will cause substantial injury if the amount of the capacity for production established, or the amount of the increase in such capacity expanded, by such credit or guarantee equals or exceeds 1 percent of United States production.”