No, democrats want the trust fund.

Wait, obama opposes ethanol.. so what is it, is he good for opposing it, or bad because he doesn't support alternative fuels?

You can't even keep your arguing points straight.

Hahahahaha I point out the Democrat's actions and you get confused.
You are perfectly correct. Democrats want you to be confused, they want to slip in this annual $10 Billion trust fund and it has nothing to do with alternative fuels, it's all about Corporate welfare.
Lobbyist own Democrats.

__________________
Drill offshore now

No, you said democrats want the trust fund, then you said that environmentalists want it. I'm not at all confused..

Corporate welfare?

Republicans are in just as deep, just different industries..

It seems like you agree that this $10 Billion trust fund is a scam.
Why would you support such an idea?
$10 Billion can be used to reduce this type of fraud in Govt. that will benefit ALL Americans.
Politicians are "the" enemy of the American people.

__________________
Drill offshore now

I think there are better ways that 10 billion can be invested, probably in joint ventures between the DOE and private companies to develop alternative energies that are out of the labs, and also as grants to scientists to research new and unknown sources.

TBH, there's a lot more money being wasted in Iraq than in something like this..

Btw, I agree 100% that politicians are the enemy of the world's population.. probably the most useless social class in existence. Besides maybe lawyers.

Absolutely

__________________
Drill offshore now

>>>Say, wasn't it Jeb Bush and his conservative Republican cronies who stepped in the way of oil drilling off the Florida coast? I'll help you out here. Yes, it was.

FOTM is, you don't want to get between ANYBODY and their pristine ocean views. You're better off standing between hippos and the river. Or between Denny Hastert and a custard pie.

who cares that was the right decision

__________________
You can never dent spiderwebs

REVIEW & OUTLOOK
A Texas Timeout on Biofuels
May 24, 2008; Page A10

The state of Texas is now in official opposition to the federal ethanol mandate. Governor Rick Perry has petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency for a one-year reprieve, and the reason is simple and increasingly familiar: Washington's ethanol obsession is hurting the state.

We all know that corn farmers everywhere love ethanol. Don't tell that to Texas cattle ranchers. Because of the mandate to add this biofuel to gasoline, ranchers are being forced into bidding wars with ethanol plants for the grains they feed their cattle. They don't appreciate being hammered on price because of a subsidy to corn growers. Thus, Governor Perry's petition.

The Governor's goal is to win a ruling from the EPA that suspends half the federal requirement that nine billion gallons of this product be added this year to the nation's fuel supply. Last week the EPA opened a 30-day public comment period on the Texas waiver request, the first step in what could lead to granting his request.

The most interesting thing revealed by this effort is that EPA holds the power to stand down from the ethanol fiasco. Congress gave EPA the authority to grant such waivers in the event the ethanol mandate had unforeseen consequences. Governor Perry argues that the mess in Texas qualifies.

By his calculation, if the mandate helps to push the price of corn to $8 a bushel (it's at nearly $6 now, up from $2 in 2004), it will cost the Texas economy nearly $3.6 billion this year. He says the dramatic spike in food prices may be due to a complex set of reasons, but the ethanol mandate is something that public officials can alter. The EPA has until late July to make a decision on the Texas petition.

Meanwhile, Congress merely throws more corn onto the ethanol bonfire. Under its 2005 mandates, Americans would be required to use 7.5 billion gallons of ethanol in 2012. But in December that was increased by 1.5 billion gallons and advanced to this year. Congress's target for 2022 is 36 billion gallons. They'll be growing corn on the Washington mall.

A countermovement has begun. Earlier this month, Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson called for a freeze in ethanol mandates and quickly got the support of two dozen of her Republican Senate colleagues, among them John McCain. Also, a provision in this week's farm bill would shave a tax credit given refiners who blend ethanol into gasoline to 45 cents per gallon from 51 cents.

A predictable backlash has set in against the Perry petition. Iowa Republican Senator Chuck Grassley and South Dakota Democrat Tim Johnson have written the EPA to defend ethanol as representing a small fraction of the rise in food prices. In line behind them are the Texas Corn Producers Association and the Texas Grain Sorghum Association.

At the moment, candidate John McCain, who has been losing lobbyist advisers, could use some help shoring up his credentials as an opponent of special interests. It looks as if Governor Perry has teed up a good one in the ethanol mandate. He might want to let voters know that EPA has the power to call a timeout on biofuels.