Talk Elections

Vote is to be held on June 14 -and does anyone think it will make it to President Obama's desk?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Tom Coburn forces Tuesday ethanol vote

By DARREN GOODE | 6/9/11 8:41 PM EDT Updated: 6/10/11 11:13 AM EDT

Sen. Tom Coburn has pulled the trigger and is forcing a long-sought vote on an amendment repealing billions in annual tax incentives for ethanol.

The Senate will vote Tuesday afternoon on Coburn’s motion limiting debate on his amendment that would do away with the 45 cent blender tax credit for ethanol — worth about $6 billion this year — and the 54 cent tariff on imported ethanol.

Coburn didn’t inform either Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid or Minority Leader Mitch McConnell before he made his move, appearing to catch both completely off guard.

“He was not able to give a heads up to either Reid or McConnell,” Coburn spokesman John Hart said. “There was no agreement. Coburn just did this.”

It is the prerogative of any senator to file a cloture motion to file a vote on an amendment as long as there are 16 signatures. But it is more customary for senators to force a vote by filing a motion to suspend the rules — which requires a higher 67-vote threshold than the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster.

The Oklahoma Republican has had exactly 16 signatures — all Republican — lined up for a cloture vote on his amendment in his back pocket for a while and thought of using it earlier.

Read more:  http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/56669.html#ixzz1P5ry7Q9z

Morally correct idea.

Even if this manages to overcome the filibuster, I expect this will be wiped away whenever the bill goes to conference with the House.

As a US Senator from Minnesota, I would have much choice. Nay.

AYE!! Really really need to go.

Personally I hate ethanol. It's a total waste in the end (when it comes to land use, energy expended to grow and refine). So I don't have an ideological thing against protectionism, but some things don't need protecting. The government should subsidize technologies that will reduce emissions instead, it would be money better spent.

Crazy to see him do some good for a change. I suppose a broken clock is still right twice a day. Not mentioned in the article is that nearly all House GOPers are against Coburn's amendment becuase OMGZ its a new tax!!!1111

Yes, of course.

It should be ended, but replaced by some greater amount of spending targeted to the same group - for example some kind of buyout of farmers plus special pensions in order to get them off the land and perhaps retired in Florida. 

So, given that this bill ends it without increasing net government spending, I would have to vote 'no', even though ethanol is utter nonsense and destructive to old cars.

I would end all ethanol subsidies.  It seemed like a great idea on paper but you have to be able to change course when you get new data.  We should be subsidizing green technology research, but we should not be wasting our money on things that don't work and have no future.

Good for Sen Coburn.

Yes

Toomey signaled his support for the legislation yesterday. Yet another great move on his part.

I'd have to vote nay.  I would support a slow phase out of ethanol and an increase in other greener tech research.  I really think electric cars are the future.  We will actually be able to run our cars on sunshine, sea breezes, and cow farts.

Vote failed 40:59, but another is going to be held next Friday:

Senate keeps ethanol subsidies

By DARREN GOODE | 6/14/11 4:03 PM EDT

The Senate on Tuesday rejected, 40-59, a symbolic attempt to strike ethanol tax subsidies as Democrats are working on a deal to hold at least one vote on ethanol next week.

The amendment from Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) fell well short of the necessary 60 votes to invoke cloture and limit debate. Five Democrats supported the amendment and 12 Republican ethanol backers, largely from the Midwest, opposed it.

Coburn’s amendment would have repealed a 45-cent-per-gallon tax credit to blend ethanol in gasoline that is set to expire at the end of the year. It is estimated that the tax credit would be worth upward of $6 billion if it were to continue the whole year. The amendment also would have repealed a 54-cent-per-gallon tariff on ethanol imports.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) told reporters this afternoon he will hold an ethanol vote by June 24 as part of a deal with Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who had initially co-sponsored Coburn’s amendment.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/56969.html#ixzz1PI7upTrx

There isn't much that is is less 'Green' than Ethanol...

It's certainly not a strategy for solving America's coming energy crisis. Unfortunately, America was built for car travel and the low density, even in somewhat urban and suburban areas, makes it inconvenient to create alternatives that are a part of everyday life in Europe.

I'm afraid the U.S. is in for a terrible shock sooner or later. And nobody in government takes it seriously, like most things. But everyone is always shocked when it happens.

Grassley says effort to cut ethanol subsidy is full of myths (http://www.radioiowa.com/2011/06/14/grassley-says-effort-to-cut-ethanol-subsidy-is-full-of-myths/)

I disagree.  I'd vote to end the subsidies and the import tariffs, but Grassley makes a good point in the last paragraph.

Casey voted against ending the subsidies. As if I needed another reason to dislike this guy...

Disgusting that Kirk voted NO as well. It's to be expected from Durbin....but this does disappoint me.

Maybe Kirk wants to run for President in '16

Ethanol production could be part of the cause for higher food prices...
http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/37848/?p1=A3

It's only 6$ billion, but it's something and this needed to be done. Ethanol is a farce and a waste of time and corn.