EPA's move to raise ethanol mix in gasoline fuels alarm over engine damage.

[AURaptor 1,128]

I keep ethanol away from both my boats, chainsaw, weedeater, blower and in September I start using 100% gas in mowers. Ethanol does most of its damage sitting idle. Pure gas is about 30% higher but worth it in 2 strokes or anything that is not used regularly.

1% er

[TitanTiger 20,542]

All here are in agreement that ethanol used in gasoline is a bad idea, from subsidies through production to engine wear? If this group can agree, then congress should have no problem killing the program with a unanimous vote!

Unfortunately, there are Members of Congress in the midwest who continue to support this. I wish it would be unanimous!

But they have to have a substantial number of allies from states that don't really benefit at all from this. What's the tie-in there?

[homersapien 11,513]

While it's on my mind, this (elimination of outdated or otherwise wasteful programs) is a systemic problem with our current system.

There's no point in even trying to address it until we solve the fundamental problem of money influencing politics.

And to do that, we must first pass legislation that reverses the "Citizens United" decision.

if you want to eliminate corporate money then you have to take out the unions too. Money has been a big influence in politics as long as both have been around.

I want to eliminate all money other than personal contributions - which would be limited. That would naturally include unions.

Regardless, Citizens United must be reversed.

[maxwere 82]

While it's on my mind, this (elimination of outdated or otherwise wasteful programs) is a systemic problem with our current system.

There's no point in even trying to address it until we solve the fundamental problem of money influencing politics.

And to do that, we must first pass legislation that reverses the "Citizens United" decision.

if you want to eliminate corporate money then you have to take out the unions too. Money has been a big influence in politics as long as both have been around.

I want to eliminate all money other than personal contributions - which would be limited. That would naturally include unions.

Regardless, Citizens United must be reversed.

This has a very anti-collectivist impulse Homer. Well done.

[channonc 466]

All here are in agreement that ethanol used in gasoline is a bad idea, from subsidies through production to engine wear? If this group can agree, then congress should have no problem killing the program with a unanimous vote!

Unfortunately, there are Members of Congress in the midwest who continue to support this. I wish it would be unanimous!

But they have to have a substantial number of allies from states that don't really benefit at all from this. What's the tie-in there?

Which Members? I've only ever seen it come from the Midwest, at least in the Senate. Maybe I'm missing something.

[channonc 466]

While it's on my mind, this (elimination of outdated or otherwise wasteful programs) is a systemic problem with our current system.

There's no point in even trying to address it until we solve the fundamental problem of money influencing politics.

And to do that, we must first pass legislation that reverses the "Citizens United" decision.

if you want to eliminate corporate money then you have to take out the unions too. Money has been a big influence in politics as long as both have been around.

I want to eliminate all money other than personal contributions - which would be limited. That would naturally include unions.

Regardless, Citizens United must be reversed.

To me, those are two seperate ideas. On reversing Citizens United, I agree. I disagree with limiting contributions to only personal contributions. You would actually have more dark money that way.

[homersapien 11,513]

While it's on my mind, this (elimination of outdated or otherwise wasteful programs) is a systemic problem with our current system.

There's no point in even trying to address it until we solve the fundamental problem of money influencing politics.

And to do that, we must first pass legislation that reverses the "Citizens United" decision.

if you want to eliminate corporate money then you have to take out the unions too. Money has been a big influence in politics as long as both have been around.

I want to eliminate all money other than personal contributions - which would be limited. That would naturally include unions.

Regardless, Citizens United must be reversed.

To me, those are two seperate ideas. On reversing Citizens United, I agree. I disagree with limiting contributions to only personal contributions. You would actually have more dark money that way.

What if we limited contributions to $50 and required broadcast companies to provide 'X' free hrs of air time for commercials/debates as a requirement for use of the public airwaves?

[homersapien 11,513]

While it's on my mind, this (elimination of outdated or otherwise wasteful programs) is a systemic problem with our current system.

There's no point in even trying to address it until we solve the fundamental problem of money influencing politics.

And to do that, we must first pass legislation that reverses the "Citizens United" decision.

if you want to eliminate corporate money then you have to take out the unions too. Money has been a big influence in politics as long as both have been around.

I want to eliminate all money other than personal contributions - which would be limited. That would naturally include unions.

Regardless, Citizens United must be reversed.

This has a very anti-collectivist impulse Homer. Well done.

I don't think that was a compliment.

[maxwere 82]

I don't think that was a compliment.

^^^...of course it was.

[channonc 466]

While it's on my mind, this (elimination of outdated or otherwise wasteful programs) is a systemic problem with our current system.

There's no point in even trying to address it until we solve the fundamental problem of money influencing politics.

And to do that, we must first pass legislation that reverses the "Citizens United" decision.

if you want to eliminate corporate money then you have to take out the unions too. Money has been a big influence in politics as long as both have been around.

I want to eliminate all money other than personal contributions - which would be limited. That would naturally include unions.

Regardless, Citizens United must be reversed.

To me, those are two seperate ideas. On reversing Citizens United, I agree. I disagree with limiting contributions to only personal contributions. You would actually have more dark money that way.

What if we limited contributions to $50 and required broadcast companies to provide 'X' free hrs of air time for commercials/debates as a requirement for use of the public airwaves?

If you eliminate all other ways to contribute, I would imagine a $50 limit would be subject to a Constitutional challenge. I think "free air time" sounds great, until you realize that the Broadcasters will oppose that and/or demand that there be a government subsidy given to them for ad time they can't sell.

While money has gotten out of hand, it is not the traditional giving that has gotten out of hand. I can tell you from experience (I attend many fundraisers for both sides of the aisle as a part of my job), that the money has shifted to the Super PACs. My opinion is, I'm not for limiting contributions, I'm for eliminating direct corporate contributions (not given through their PACs) and for complete disclosure of any and all donations given. I don't think there should be a minimum contribution that does not get disclosed. Right now, a campaign doesn't have to disclose (and contributions can be anonymous) up to $50, further disclosure for contributions over $200. That's contributions directly to campaigns. Individuals are limited to giving a candidate up to $2,700 per federal election (meaning per 2 year cycle). Connected PAC donations are disclosed above $250 and individuals are limited to giving $5000/year. Corporations or groups cannot give directly to PACs, PACs however can give to one another (called a PAC to PAC donation).

Super PACs however circumvent all of that. A Super PAC has really just 2 rules to follow: 1) Can't give directly to a candidate or another PAC; 2) can't coordinate with a candidate. If you pass that test then you can accept as much money as you want from anyone you want. While you must disclose your contributions, seeing as you can accept contributions from organizations that do not have to disclose their donors, true disclosure is easier to hide.

Again, regular PACs and individual campaign committees have pretty low limits, require full disclosure, and cannot accept corporate or nonprofit donations. They can only accept donations from individuals. I don't have a problem with this, and believe that this system of limits and disclosure met the objective. Citizens United opened up a whole new branch of campaigning that cannot be controlled.

Finally, another reform that is needed is the national party donation limits. Single candidate PACs can contribute up to $33,400/year to a political party, multi-candidate PACs can contribute up to $15,000/year to a party and individuals can give up to $33,400/year. Of course, there is a whole other ball game when it comes to conventions, etc. The limits go way up and don't count against your party donations. Personally, this is where the "traditional" world of campaign finance could be revamped. But this would be a real uphill climb given it is likely that both parties would agree not to change any of this, therefore unlikely anyone in Congress would take this part on.

Let me conclude by saying that I have seen in practice that it is the Super PACs who have influence over those who can be heavily influenced through contributions. Do you have access at fundraisers to make your "ask", sure. But trust me when I say that for most Members (on both sides) I have found that the influence is still somewhat limited and not what the media makes it out to be.

I could go on, but I'll stop there.

[Guest NC1406]

There is also a company that can produce ethanol from a hybrid tobacco product. The group has purchased an ethanol plant here in NC. Unfortunately they are still using corn as the feedstock today but hopefully will transition to the hybrid tobacco feedstock within 24 months. The hybrid tobacco produces 4x the output per acreage versus regular tobacco.

This could help move the ethanol production to a feedstock that does not take away from our food sources. Ethanol is a terrible fuel. Creates unbelievable problems in the retail storage tanks that have the E10 product. Huge costs that the public pays for but has no idea it occurs. 90% of the product I have sold as waste in the last 3 years has been due to issues related to ethanol.

E15 is an incredibly stupid idea. Mandates are the only thing that makes less sense.

With all that said, if we really want to take one food out of our diets......corn might be one of the highest on my list. Terrible energy source for vehicles and probably even worse for our bodies.

EtOH is a cheap and easy way to increase octane if you have a high performance (high compression) engine.

Ethanol has an octane rating of 114. Due to the mandate to blend, most suppliers now ship and store 84 octane (CBOB) at most terminals from MS up through VA. Once you blend 10% ethanol into the 84 octane CBOB you end up with a 87 octane rated product to sell to the public.