Regarding the Nov. 21 Herald editorial, “Principled senators should stop energy bill”: It’s interesting that one person’s “pork” is another’s livelihood. You commented that Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle will vote for the energy bill “because it contains a costly ethanol subsidy that will help him get re-elected in corn-producing South Dakota.”
Yet when I read in The Herald earlier about the subsidies, I noted at that time that ethanol wasn’t listed as getting one. So why wouldn’t we want ethanol on a level-playing field since ethanol can be produced by our nation’s farmers?
We used ethanol-enhanced gas for years while living in Minnesota. We liked it and sought it out at stations. Only with subsidies can alternative sources of fuels compete with the subsidized oil companies – at least for now. But please note that the people who benefit are not only the farmers, but everyone they purchase from and also those of us who need gas to move vehicles. Why not buy in-house rather than out of the country? Isn’t this what we are aiming for?
The energy bill may be a bad one and one that should be stopped, but including ethanol is one positive. I suspect that Sen. Daschle sees that it will get passed with or without him and he wants to be sure the Midwest and the U.S. benefit.
Everett
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
