Letter – Ethanol subsidies not neededA private audit shows impressive ethanol success and no need for continued subsidies. A compilation of state data reveals the 12 plants we subsidize are truly the privileged plants in the industry.
To the editor:
A private audit shows impressive ethanol success and no need for continued subsidies. A compilation of state data reveals the 12 plants we subsidize are truly the privileged plants in the industry.
It also questions many of the sweeping impact statements/reports by Department of Agriculture and elected officials on industry benefit, such as the hyped job creation numbers and actual financial impact for greater Minnesota – even though the subsidy program clearly developed a very important ethanol industry needed in the state.
Showing the vast $300 million taxpayers invested should have delivered production larger than Nebraska but is only about half their size. So the spoken political windfalls, as always, goes mostly to the investors and are great for the communities with plant locations.
As an informed individual trying to lobby for meaningful government change in a time of meltdown, I ask why do we still subsidize this group of plants and why is this not “front page news?”
Over the last four years they have enjoyed an average profit per year of $145 million, plus annual dividends to investors of $113 million, a return on total equity of 38 percent! Yet our St. Paul clan sent them $17 million more each year.
You can review the complete reports at www.congressionalchange.com.
With your help, I will continue the lobbying I started in 2005 to end the subsidies, by working to pass HF507.
Remember the subsidized plants are mainly “corn farmer” owned. So don’t cry for the investors or condemn ethanol for high food and fuel prices. Rather, focus on the big picture: Our disastrous energy policy and a national market place driven not by earnings but by speculation and borrowed money, which has led to the mess we find ourselves in today.