Owen posts a letter from Jim Sensenbrenner regarding the ethanol problem.
Here's the key sentence:
As the 110th Congress addresses energy policy and alternative fuels, be assured, I will oppose ethanol mandates and continue to oppose wasteful government spending and subsidization of private industries.
In the case at hand, the mandates are law. Jim Sensenbrenner should know--as he voted FOR the legislation in the first damn place.
So what does "oppose ethanol mandates" actually mean?
Not much.
It means that he'll talk about wasting money (see his letter on Owen's site) and....who knows.
But that's meaningless, folks. Jim Sensenbrenner should put his b%##s on the table and introduce legislation repealing the ethanol mandate.
Or he could introduce legislation forbidding the use of FOOD CROPS as ethanol. Or, as suggested in the combox, he could introduce legislation forbidding the use of food-growing land for growing ethanol-crops.
See, Congressmen are in a position to do something more than "oppose" bad laws. Unlike us, Congressmen can actually introduce laws!! There are millions of people who "oppose" this stupid legislation, Jim--in case you haven't heard--but only 535 who can DO something about it.
Talk is cheap, Jim.
A helluvalot cheaper than food is these days.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
"Or he could introduce legislation forbidding the use of FOOD CROPS as ethanol."
Dad - That doesn't go far enough. We need to forbid conversion of land that can be used for food crops to use in growing ethanol feed stock.
The problem being that with the right federal subsidies, growing crabgrass instead of soybeans can make financial sense.
No intelligent response because all I can think right now is, "He's a weenie RINO". Arg.
Post a Comment