>>21614737
The article about the corn subsidies in interesting, J.D. Vance thinks farm subsidies are corporate welfare.
Here he is complaining about the carbon emissions.
Norquist Loses in Ethanol Subsidy Fight
Written by J.D. Hamel on Friday June 17, 2011
These subsidies, in their superficial aim, inevitably work. Corn farmers receive billions of dollars a year to produce ethanol. This reduces the money they spend on producing ethanol, and thus directly increases their profits and encourages them to increase output.
The problem is that like every other tax expenditure, ethanol subsidies are a direct wealth transfer.
As Grover Norquist is undoubtedly aware, taxpayer dollars don’t grow on trees. The money that pays for ethanol subsidies is confiscated from the American public at large. So while the farm lobby benefits from the expenditures, the rest of us lose in the form of higher taxes or increased deficit spending.
To be fair, ethanol proponents argue that the subsidies serve a valuable function reducing our dependence on foreign energy sources, or decreasing carbon emissions. I find the first of these arguments unpersuasive, while the second is laughably unsupported it takes lots of carbon emissions to grow corn, and more to turn it into a workable fuel – but I’ll leave the wisdom of ethanol to the side.