Sunday, January 22, 2006

Sgt. Schultz

While the Sgt Shultz of "Hogan's Heroes" was a blustery nincompoop with no real power, the Sgt. (er, Senator) Schultz currently running the Wisconsin State Senate is a blustery nincompoop WITH power.

Critical difference.

It makes our Sgt/Senator a whole lot more malevolent, and a lot less likeable, especially when he uses his power to jam corncobs into that hole towards the rear of your car . Gehr' steh?

Campaign-finance records will not be very helpful; as we pointed out below, the money-interests in Corn-a-Hole are individual farmers (and tax-scam folks otherwise known as "investors") and Archer-Daniels-Midland. Schultz didn't raise a lot for his last campaign ($125K.)

Much more foggy are the trails in the "Republican Senate Campaign" committee...

Wisconsin's Sgt Schultz is hellbent on increasing the cost of transportation for Wisconsin taxpayers/residents by forcing them to use a less-efficient, highly-subsidized (read: taxpayer-supported) pollution-creating fuel "blend." He can do it. But it really won't "reduce foreign oil imports" and don't even THINK about storing the crap for your lawnmower over the winter; it doesn't last that long. (Ask Paul Harvey why he's now taking money from Sta-Bil. Answer: Corn-a-Hole)

OK, Dale. Maybe you'll pull this one off. But we have the ability to remember, and the will to punish. Perhaps your next job will be with Luther Olsen's brother--at his Corn-A-Hole plant.

9 comments:

Fidei Defensor said...

I'll have to disagree with you here.

I met Schultz he's a good guy and I of course voted for him over Ron Kind.

The Corn gas is more expensive short term but it helps our farmers, and I have a Jeffersonian affinity for farmers, they are good people, mostly Conservative and they deserve some help from the party.

This sort of fuel will burn cleaner, and it won't run out.

Plus I wouldn't be surprised if some Saudi types are against this, I would imagine there is more Corn grown in any given Wisconsin county than that whole nation.

Dad29 said...

It will NOT burn cleaner. The NoX emissions go up, and DNR has promised to enforce the caps on NoX, meaning that more industry will be forced to leave the State.

2) While the oil-boys are vaguely against it, they're crying crocodile tears. We WILL consume more petroleum by the process required to make this crap AND to transport it (can't be pipelined--it evaporates too easily.)

3) When the farmers are forced to send me checks (I'm a nice guy, too) then I'll consider sending some to them.

4) Finally: this is NOT for small farmers (<600 ac.) This is for the big players, the tax-dodgers, and for ADM, which has more than 1/2 the facilities required (not to mention the trucks and tankers.)

Please re-consider.

Fidei Defensor said...

Ok if your right and it isn't cleaner and not going to benifit small farmers you've won me over.

RRfan said...

Any product that can be developed as a future viable alternative for oil has merit and will help keep pressure on oil prices. Ethanol is one of these products. (so is Natural Gas, Coal, Wind/Solar, Geothermal and Nuclear Energy)

Unfortunately, the MKE talkers and bloggers have been mis-stating and using either old or inaccurate data to bash ethanol. The DNR statement was based on a very old California study that is not applicable with today's emission techonologies. In addition, the byproducts and methods for producing ethanol are significantly improved and advancing every day. The Wall Street Journal has a front page article on using cow waste to fuel an ethanol plant. In Minnesota, the University System is committing all sorts of research dollars to advancing ethanol. One recent breakthrough is the production of hydrogen. The case for ethanol is much stronger than what any talk radio zealot will ever acknowledge.

Dad29 said...

rr:

You want to provide actual numbers?

I'm willing to learn, if you're willing to educate.

It's irrelevant that DNR is using old stats. What's relevant is their threat to USE them.

If you're claiming that Corn-a-Hole can be made at a 1:1 tradeoff for similar petroleum products in energy, show us.

More important, rr: if the damn crap is that good, it can be sold WITHOUT a State-mandate which now benefits 1)ADM and 2)tax-scam "investors," not small farmers.

How come nobody wants to buy it unless the taxpayer (state and fed) have to subsidize it?

Hmmmmmm?

RRfan said...

Here is the best link for
Lanny Schmidt

http://www.it.umn.edu/news/inventing/2004_Summer/harvestinghydrogen.html

RRfan said...

2nd try at comment -

Ethanol is cost effective at current oil prices. The price at the pump is driven by the price of oil not the minimal amount of ethanol added. The government subsidy is not needed but let's not forget the unaccounted for costs of Arab oil plus all the tax credits for oil exploration etc.

E85 is the real cost savings fuel. Many cars are already made to use this fuel. However, how doe you get it? It is kind of a chicken/egg problem.

Alternative fuels hold down the price of oil. Oil producing nations fear a substitute technology and anyone that is cost competitive will force the price of oil lower.

With genetic engineering and no-till farming methods, corn is cheaper than ever to produce. If Wisconsin dairy cows can produce the cow fuel (as in Texas), then the primary ingredients are corn and cow manure. (versus corn and natural gas).

We need to look forward not backwards. Sadly, talking head conservatives spend way too much time looking backward

Dad29 said...

RR: Don't forget that the price of imported oil is also driven by the value of the USD against (inter alia) gold, the Euro, etc. It ain't just a bunch of guys sittin'around a tent in the desert with a dartboard.

2) Depreciation and business expense deductions are standard-issue tax deductions for anybody. But tax CREDITS and direct subsidies are NOT 'standard' for all industries.

3) What you've presented so far gives me a great deal of interest in the future of Corn-A-Hole. But let's assume the stars align and the technology stabilizes by 2015.

Why do you insist on FORCING consumption before then?

RRfan said...

I would rather force access versus consumption. However, we are already forced to consume the stuff. We have too many different fuel mixes and if you mandate fewer mixes, it would lower the cost.

We probably won't see the future unless we force the issue with big oil on access.

Exploration and depletion credits are special deductions for oil companies. No problem with that but oil advocates should not claim a holier than thou position versus ethanol on subsidies. As for currency/gold etc., you provide another reason why a home grown (dollar based) fuel source is a better idea. In any event, the dollar remains the global currency of choice.

Also - if the numbers are run right, ethanol is already cheaper than oil at over $60/barrel oil.