It's time to end the federal government's corn/ethanol subsidy

Economic conservatives, many Republicans among them, often talk about letting the market determine which energy source is best, and the need for consumers and businesses to access low-cost energy sources.

Well, applying that standard then, it's time to end the $5 billion federal subsidy for U.S. corn farmers who produce ethanol.

Subsidized corn ethanol: a bad welfare program

Corn from ethanol has always had dubious justification: among other concerns, there's little research to confirm that ethanol from corn is cheaper and more efficient than ethanol from sugar cane imported from Brazil. And why don't American consumers see more ethanol from Brazil? You guessed it: it's because the United States also imposes a tariff on imported sugar cane from Brazil.

And who voted for both the corn subsidy, also known as welfare, for America's farmers, and the tariff on Brazil ethanol to prevent market forces from ruling the day? That's correct: some of the very same economic conservatives, many Republicans among them, who preach about "letting the market determine which energy source is best," and "the need for consumers and businesses to access low-cost energy sources."

Federal government subsidies to prop-up your industry. Tariffs to effectively eliminate competition. That's free market economics? In politics that's called a double-standard or hypocrisy. And it's got to end.

If the economic conservatives want market forces to determine Americans' energy sources, based on low cost, they should repeal both the ethanol subsidy and the sugar cane import tariff. Subsidizing a misguided, inefficient and environmentally harming corn/ethanol policy is welfare of the very worst sort, and it's time to end it.

Source:bloggingstocks