Government's Priorities Wrong

In the New York Times yesterday, Thomas Friedman writes an op-ed on the government's current policy of putting a 54 cent per gallon tariff on Brazilian ethanol derived from sugar. This is essentially cutting the US energy market off from the 4.8 billion gallons of ethanol produced by Brazil in 2005. The President and Congress want to talk about reducing our depency on energy from hostile nations, yet they cut off a major supplier right here in our hemisphere. As Friedman says:

We tax imported sugar ethanol, which could finance our poor friends, but we don't tax imported crude oil, which definitely finances our rich enemies. We'd rather power anti-Americans with our energy purchases than promote anti-poverty.

You may ask: Why is this happening? The answer is Congress is submitting to the corn farming and agribusiness lobbies who want their client's products to achieve maximum price. Increasing supply of ethanol will lower the price and those price savings will reach the consumer, you and I, sooner rather than later. These domestic businesses do not want the added competition and supply. This tariff is disrupting the free market trading we all say we are in favor of. Even though removing this tariff is common sense, the political environment could not be more favorable with the amount of free trade agreements Bush has signed. Both major political parties are trying to find anything to reconnect with the American public and increasing gas prices have been the major gripe of the populus. Major points could be scored if one party pushes through the removal of this tariff and the pain of the price at the pump is eased. Also, the strong environmentalist would applaud the choice since sugar ethanol provides net eight times the energy used in production, while corn provides only 1.3 times more. The Brazilians say demand is so high they will have invented new technology within five years to double the energy output of sugar cane. It also reduces greenhouse gases more than corn ethanol.

We are told to look for alternative energy sources and here is one right under our nose. Politicians should realize they are essentially taxing the constituents they are elected to represent by limiting the supply of ethanol through this nonsensical tariff. One party or the other needs to stand up to the lobbyists and prove that they are in fact working for their constituents, the consumers, and not a select few who stand to profit from this anti-consumer policy.