In article dhLZb.9601$Ru5.5073@okepread03,
D. Strang wrote:
"George Z. Bush" wrote

Ethanol is a welfare program. It has nothing to do with future energy.

You don't know what you're talking about. When you pour a gallon of it into
your gas tank, that's one less gallon of gasoline that you're going to need,
because it's supposed to burn just about as good as gasoline does.

For every Gallon of Ethanol, you pay for it twice. Once for the subsidy to
farmers (in the form of welfare), and once again from the retail chain.


For "farmers" substitute "ADM, Inc" ("Archer Daniels Midland"), far
and away the single biggest beneficiary of the subsidies, and a huge
campaign donor to both parties. See Cato Institute's

"Archer Daniels Midland: A Case Study In Corporate Welfare"
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa241es.html

Cato describes itself as a conserviative think tank, which they
indeed are.

ADM has been CONVICTED AND FINED in what was at the time the biggest
antitrust fine in history. Corn-related in that there is a byproduct
of corn-ethanol production a valuable industrial byproduct; Lecithin.
Because of the subsidies ADM was able to produce and lecithin for
free, and undercut all the competition. See

http://www.lecithin.com/info/p2.html


...why haven't they created greater
demand on vehicle manufacturers to produce engines capable of simultaneously
reducing fuel consumption and expanding the life of our petroleum reserves and
stocks while, at the same time, continuing to explore alternative sources?

It's called an unfunded mandate. Think about it this way. If we gave GM and
Ford the same amount of money we ****ed away on the Shuttle and Space Station,
we would be floating in biodiesel, and no one would know who the Bin Laden
family was.




--
Al Dykes
-----------