Wednesday, July 13, 2011

Ethanol Now Consumes More Corn Than For Animal Feed for First Time, Corn Prices Reach Record High

Financial Times --  "U.S. ethanol refiners are consuming more domestic corn than livestock and poultry farmers for the first time, underscoring how a government-supported biofuels industry has contributed to surging grain demand.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimated that in the year to August 31 ethanol producers will have consumed 5.05 billion bushels of corn, or more than 40% of last year’s harvest. Animal feed and residual demand accounted for 5 billion bushels."

MP: As the chart above illustrates, this also "underscores how a government-supported biofuels industry has contributed to surging, record-high corn prices." 

67 Comments:

At 7/13/2011 11:10 AM, Blogger NC said...

This is what happens when politicians play engineer and calculate a heat balance.

 
At 7/13/2011 11:11 AM, Blogger Benjamin said...

Yet another rural subsidy program in national security drag is our corn ethanol boondoggle.

Imagine if President Obama announced an "urban liquid fuels program," to derive ethanol from urban wastes.

You, the taxpayer, would be forced to not only subsidize the urban fuels program, but the urban fuel would be required to be in the gasoline you buy. The fuel would be more costly than gasoline, but deliver less power.

Well, that is our national ethanol program, but sub in the words "rural liquid fuels program."

Odd how little right-wing hysteria there is about this obvious subsidy, with all of its market distortions. It makes me think the right-wing has no ideological underpinnings, but rather is just a collection of interest groups with ties to the government.

Come to think of it, Obama's urban liquid fuel program would be less destructive than our corn ethanol program--it would rely on urban wastes, and not corn. Thus corn prices would not be shot to the moon.

 
At 7/13/2011 11:15 AM, Blogger Seth said...

It would be nice to know how much of that market price is covered by subsidies.

 
At 7/13/2011 11:20 AM, Blogger Hydra said...

Wish I had planted corn. Probably will next year. This is temporary, supply will expand to meet demand.

 
At 7/13/2011 12:13 PM, Blogger Eric H said...

"...government-supported biofuels industry has contributed to surging, record-high corn prices."

And helped out position #1 on the largest manufacturing industries list (last post) AND pump the DJIA (Exxon Mobil on the post before that).

But most of all, it contributes to record-high tax revenues for the federal government.

Hydra, do you have to plant the Monsanto Franken-corn to play in the ethanol game?

 
At 7/13/2011 12:15 PM, Blogger juandos said...

LOL! From 2005 to 2009, $17 billion in ethanol tax credits were given out to help reduce the nation’s dependence on foreign oil. But, the actual reduction in foreign oil use could have been attained for free by proper tire inflation, obeying the speed limit and using the right grade of motor oil, according to the nonprofit Environmental Working Group in Washington, D.C.....

 
At 7/13/2011 12:18 PM, Blogger Rufus II said...

The FT premise is wrong.

It does not take into consideration the the 1.5 Billion Bushels of livestock feed we get back in the form of Distillers Grains. Also, that feed is 10% more efficient than corn, and costs less.

Once you take the extra 10% efficiency into consideration, you've gotten back 1.7 Billion Bushels of livestock feed.

5.05 billion bu - 1.7 billion bu = 3.35 billion bushels.

Also, the article doesn't consider the 2 Billion bushels that we Export, most all of which goes to feed animals.

 
At 7/13/2011 12:22 PM, Blogger Rufus II said...

Oh, and the ethanol subsidies, and import tariff are going away July 31st.


The Billions of Dollars in Oil subsidies, however, are still intact, as are the Wars in the Middle East, and the Hundreds of Billions to protect the Persian Gulf, and the Straits of Hormuz.

 
At 7/13/2011 12:27 PM, Blogger Rufus II said...

BTW, wholesale unleaded is $3.15, today. Add $0.70 and we're looking at $3.85/gal at the pump in a couple of weeks.

That, during a time that we're sliding into recession. (and, taking 60 Million barrels out of Global Strategic Reserves.

 
At 7/13/2011 12:33 PM, Blogger Rufus II said...

We're, also, barring another horrible August Drought looking at the biggest corn harvest in history (somewhere between 13.5 and 14 Billion Bushels.)

The corn prices you're looking at right now are a result of horrible harvests in the numbers 1, and 2 corn producers in the world (the U.S., and China.)

With any kind of a "decent" harvest in China, and the crop we have growing we could, easily, see $4.50/bu corn by Dec.

 
At 7/13/2011 12:46 PM, Blogger arbitrage789 said...

Rufus (12:22),

“The Billions of Dollars in Oil subsidies, however, are still intact…”

^^^^^^^^^^^

They’re not “subsidies” if the government collects more from the oil companies than they provide in tax benefits. In deciding what the government collects from the oil companies, one certainly has to include the tax on profits that are paid. In addition, I think one should include the tax on gasoline. But I also think one should include taxes that are collected from employees of the oil companies. The reason is that the tax writeoffs that are offered will have an effect on the extent to which oil is drilled for in the U.S. versus purchased from other countries. More drilling here means more people employed here. (There’s nothing wrong with including gasoline taxes and employee taxes in the analysis, as long as it is made clear that this is being done).
So, the government collects FAR more from the oil companies (and their employees) than they provide in tax breaks. Hence, the oil companies are not getting a net “subsidy”.

 
At 7/13/2011 12:56 PM, Blogger Rufus II said...

Well, VEETC stands for "Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit.

So, if a "tax credit" to the oil company isn't a subsidy, then I guess a tax credit to the Ethanol blender isn't a "Subsidy."

In fact, the VEETC never went to the ethanol "Producer," anyway. It went to the Blender (re: oil company.)

But, like I said, it doesn't matter. July 31 is it.

 
At 7/13/2011 1:02 PM, Blogger Rufus II said...

The EIA Reported, yesterday, that the "supply/demand" situation would be worse next year than this year.

How does That sound?

 
At 7/13/2011 1:03 PM, Blogger Benjamin said...

Rufus:

In your opinion, should we collect urban leafy wastes and convert them into ethanol, even if a subsidy is required? And mandate use of said ethanol in gasoline?

Why or why not?

 
At 7/13/2011 1:10 PM, Blogger arbitrage789 said...

Rufus (12:56)

“if a "tax credit" to the oil company isn't a subsidy, then I guess a tax credit to the Ethanol blender isn't a subsidy”

^^^^^^^

I don’t know the answer. My impression is that the subsidies to the ethanol industry are greater than the taxes collected. But if you’re sure that’s wrong, then so be it.

 
At 7/13/2011 1:13 PM, Blogger juandos said...

"The EIA Reported, yesterday, that the "supply/demand" situation would be worse next year than this year"...

Like every other intrusion into a market sector by the federal government... Skewed prices...

 
At 7/13/2011 1:16 PM, Blogger Rufus II said...

urban leafy wastes?

:)

Aw, I don't know, Benny; I don't think I'll go to war over that one.

Look, we spent $15 Billion, or so (which we more than got back in lower fuel costs/other types of taxes collect, expanded economic activity, etc,) and got a good, viable industry out of it.

Now, I do believe, we should cast our baleful eye on biofuels from cellulosic sources (among other things.)

I'll base my whole case on one observation: We've never had gasoline costs (in real terms) approaching $3.85/gal that wasn't followed by recession.

If our gasoline costs stay where they are, now, or rise, and we don't fall back into recession I'll abdicate my entire case.

 
At 7/13/2011 1:21 PM, Blogger arbitrage789 said...

Rufus (1:16)


“We've never had gasoline costs (in real terms) approaching $3.85/gal that wasn't followed by recession”

^^^^^^^^^

O.K., but how soon?
I think that the odds of a recession with Fed funds at 25 basis points, and QE3 lurking, are slim.

Things will change after the election, however.

 
At 7/13/2011 1:22 PM, Blogger juandos said...

Ethanol Profitability vs. Gasoline Prices vs. Corn Prices

The study suggests that even if the VEETC subsidy is not reinstated the end of this year, ethanol production would be profitable enough to exceed its mandated level for each of the scenarios presented in the chart if crude oil is above $95 per barrel.

 
At 7/13/2011 1:23 PM, Blogger Rufus II said...

Arbitrage, to be fair, there are still (at this moment) a couple of much smaller subsidies at work. There is a "small producer tax credit) of that, probably, in whole adds about $0.03 to a gallon of ethanol.

and, there is still a small subsidy to Corn farmers in the form of some help with their Crop Insurance. That, also, might add two to three cents/gallon.

Total, you're probably around a nickel/gallon.

 
At 7/13/2011 1:23 PM, Blogger Benjamin said...

Rufus:

Well we agree on one thing: We have spent a fortune--nearly $4 trillion--in the last 10 years trying to set things right in the Mideast, and have nothing to show for it.

If anything, Islamic fundamentalism seems to getting worse, Iraq is teaming up with Iran, and Islamic-nutballs and narco-kings run Afghanie.

$17 billion for ethanol? That was a monthly cash bribe-roll in Iraq.

 
At 7/13/2011 1:25 PM, Blogger Rufus II said...

Arbitrage, I've said since last fall that we would be "In Recession" by the end of December. I'll stick with it.

 
At 7/13/2011 1:27 PM, Blogger Rufus II said...

I'd put the over/under on GDP Growth in the last quarter at 1%, and I wouldn't fall off my chair if it actually went negative.

 
At 7/13/2011 1:29 PM, Blogger arbitrage789 said...

Rufus (1:25)

If we’re in recession by December, Obama’s toast.

In any case, if you’re not a fan of Gary Shilling, you ought to become one.

 
At 7/13/2011 1:31 PM, Blogger Rufus II said...

I used to make fun of Gary Schilling. Kind of hard to, now, isnt it?

 
At 7/13/2011 1:36 PM, Blogger Michael Hoff said...

Benjamin,

The righty rant against ethanol is that it's all based on eco-marxist, global warming nonsense. Government isn't pushing it as an ag subsidy. They're pushing it as part of the leftist environmental agenda, all of which is based on a hoax.

 
At 7/13/2011 1:39 PM, Blogger Rufus II said...

Actually, it was GW Bush that got it rolling, and he did it because he was aware of impending "peak oil."

 
At 7/13/2011 1:44 PM, Blogger Michael Hoff said...

Bush got it rolling because, as a typical republican politician, he was afraid of fighting a damned democrat lie by calling it out for what it really was. Instead, he wanted to look like he cared about the environment, too. "See?!? We're not meanies! Ethanol!"

 
At 7/13/2011 2:25 PM, Blogger Rufus II said...

Michaael, what you seem to be missing is, "The Enviro-nazis" Hate ethanol.

Ethanol means the continuation of the Infernal combustion engine. The Eco-nuts want nothing less than "wind-powered" plug-in Priuses.

The enviro-whackos have hammered ethanol, virtually, since its inception.

 
At 7/13/2011 3:04 PM, Blogger juandos said...

"The righty rant against ethanol is that it's all based on eco-marxist, global warming nonsense"...

What?!?!

Did you fall from a great height and bounce your head off of the concrete several times in a row?

No, what the conservatives don't like about the 'federal' ethanol program is that it can only hold its own if the federal government extorts money from the productive to keep that idiot program going under the alledged aegis that ethanol will off-set the need to import more oil...

 
At 7/13/2011 3:13 PM, Blogger Rufus II said...

Well, Juandos, you're in luck. Ethanol will "go away" after July 31.

 
At 7/13/2011 3:28 PM, Blogger juandos said...

"Well, Juandos, you're in luck. Ethanol will "go away" after July 31"...

Wellllll, not exactly...

Try a dose of this rufus: The Latest Ethanol Compromise: Who won? Who lost?

Thursday, July 07, 2011

• The 45-cent-per-gallon ethanol blender credit (VEETC) will be repealed on July 31, saving $2 billion through the remainder of 2011.
• The 54-cent-per-gallon tariff on ethanol imports will also expire on July 31.
• The tax credit for cellulosic biofuel production, currently set to expire at the end of 2012, will be extended for three years, with annual caps on gallons, and will be expanded to include promising fuels from algae. This will allow the non-corn advanced biofuels industry— the cleanest form of vehicle fuel—to emerge and develop.
• Reduced tax credits for alternative fueling infrastructure, including electricity charging stations and natural gas fueling stations, will be extended through 2014. The small-producer tax credit will expire at the end of 2012, with a reduction in the per-gallon credit.
• Repeal of the 45-cent per gallon ethanol blender credit (VEETC) on July 31, saving $2 billion over the next five months.

• Repeal of the 54-cent per gallon tariff on ethanol imports on July 31.
• Cellulosic Biofuel Production Tax Credit (currently expires 12/31/2012) will have a 3 year extension of $1.01 per gallon credit (to 12/31/2015).
• Annual cap of 50 million gallons of cellulosic ethanol in 2013, 100 million gallons in 2014, and 155 million gallons in 2015. Unused gallons roll to the next year.
• Includes depreciation allowance for cellulosic plants, and expands the definition of cellulosic biofuel to include fuels from algae.
• Alternative Fueling Infrastructure Tax Credit (currently expires 12/31/2011). It will have a 3 year extension (to 12/31/2014), modified as proposed in S. 1185.
• Investment Tax Credit reduced from 30% to 20%, effective 1/1/2012. It covers technology neutral investments in electricity charging stations, blender pumps, or natural gas fueling stations, as specified in 26 USC 30C. Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that approximately half of qualifying investments will be in non-ethanol infrastructure.
• Small Producer Tax Credit (currently expires 12/31/2011); there is a 1 year extension (to 12/31/2012). Financially, the per-gallon credit is reduced from 10 cents to 7 cents per gallon

 
At 7/13/2011 3:33 PM, Blogger Rufus II said...

Yeah, just figure, Juandos, that the Big One, the Blenders' Tax Credit is gone, and a few very small, under-utilized (if utilized at all) programs will remain awhile.

Net Effect: A bit over $5 Billion, annually.

 
At 7/13/2011 3:36 PM, Blogger Rufus II said...

Uuhm, make that $5.5 Billion, annually.

 
At 7/13/2011 3:37 PM, Blogger Paul said...

Benji,

"..Odd how little right-wing hysteria there is about this obvious subsidy, with all of its market distortions. It makes me think the right-wing has no ideological underpinnings, but rather is just a collection of interest groups with ties to the government."



Odd how Benji routinely shoots his mouth off and makes an ass of himself:
NY Times 6/23/2008:Obama Camp Closely Linked With Ethanol

Obama was in the midst of a campaign swing through the state where he would eventually register his first caucus victory. And as befits a senator from Illinois, the country’s second largest corn-producing state, he delivered a ringing endorsement of ethanol as an alternative fuel.

The article goes on to elaborate on Benji's Big Ag Whore boyfriend's connections, and how John McCain, by contrast, has stood against ethanol his entire career.

 
At 7/13/2011 3:42 PM, Blogger Che is dead said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 7/13/2011 3:47 PM, Blogger Che is dead said...

"Yet another rural subsidy program ..."

I'll go out on a limb and assume that you know how to read. If so, then it's comprehension that's your problem. In the thousands of posts that you have made this stupid argument it has been pointed out time and time again that the vast majority of farmers do not receive farm subsidies. Most of the monies doled out in the form of farm subsidies go to parasites living in urban areas.

 
At 7/13/2011 3:50 PM, Blogger Che is dead said...

"We have spent a fortune--nearly $4 trillion--in the last 10 years trying to set things right in the Mideast, and have nothing to show for it."

Don't you mean $100 trillion? If you're going to make shit up, you may as well follow the lead of your lefty friends and go for the big lie.

 
At 7/13/2011 3:58 PM, Blogger Paul said...

Che,

"If so, then it's comprehension that's your problem."

That's probably the most annoying thing about Benji. Here's his routine:

A)He rants on about something he knows very little about.

B)His uninformed rants are corrected by someone who has a clue.

C)He disappears from the thread without comment.

D)Next time the subject comes up, he repeats the same idiocies.

E) Rinse and repeat over and over.

 
At 7/13/2011 4:00 PM, Blogger Che is dead said...

"Actually, it was GW Bush that got it rolling, and he did it because he was aware of impending "peak oil."

Ethanol has been added to gasoline in the U.S. since the 1970's. It's usage was increased as an additive following the discovery that MTBE was contaminating ground water. Bush's ethanol program was only one in a long line of energy related nonsense from the federal government.

 
At 7/13/2011 4:03 PM, Blogger Che is dead said...

"... the government collects FAR more from the oil companies (and their employees) than they provide in tax breaks. Hence, the oil companies are not getting a net “subsidy”.

Absolutely right.

 
At 7/13/2011 4:18 PM, Blogger Michael Hoff said...

Juandos

"No, what the conservatives don't like about the 'federal' ethanol program is that it can only hold its own if the federal government extorts money from the productive to keep that idiot program going under the alledged aegis that ethanol will off-set the need to import more oil..."

That's not mutually exclusive from the conservatives who howled that it's based on a hoax. Said hoax perpetuates bigger more intrusive government. That's what it was always all about.

Rufus,

"Michaael, what you seem to be missing is, "The Enviro-nazis" Hate ethanol."

Many do now, but there were a lot I heard/saw/read who were all for it. Oil is dirty and it's warming the earth, they said. Ethanol is sustainable. Now with abundant proof that it's more of a hazard, they've raised more of an outcry.

 
At 7/13/2011 4:25 PM, Blogger Benjamin said...

Che-Paul-

The costs of Iraqistan are well understood to be in the $3 to $4 trillion range, even by GOP commentators (many of whom are belatedly asking that we get out).

I do not always respond to your pathetic ad flatulencies. True.

Here is a recent article:

NEW YORK — When President Barack Obama cited cost as a reason to bring troops home from Afghanistan, he referred to a $1 trillion price tag for America's wars.
Staggering as it is, that figure grossly underestimates the total cost of wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan to the U.S. Treasury and ignores more imposing costs yet to come, according to a study released Wednesday.
The final bill will reach at least $3.7 trillion and could be as high as $4.4 trillion, according to the research project "Costs of War" by Brown University's Watson Institute for International Studies.

Che/Paul-

Instead of ad hominem attacks, now about explainng all the benefits we get from that $4 trillion spent on Iraqistan?

Fire away!

 
At 7/13/2011 4:43 PM, Blogger Rufus II said...

No "hazard," Paul. It's just the Politics have changed.

 
At 7/13/2011 4:44 PM, Blogger Rufus II said...

The only "hazard," is to oil company profits, and oil co. Republican (and, Democrat) sockpuppets' PAC donations.

 
At 7/13/2011 5:12 PM, Blogger Paul said...

Benji,

"I do not always respond to your pathetic ad flatulencies."

Because you have nothing to offer but uninformed rants. I pointed out how your boyfriend eagerly shovels billions to Big Ag while you do nothing but tut tut the right-wing.

"Fire Away"

Change the subject when you have no substantive response. Another typical Benji move.

 
At 7/13/2011 5:40 PM, Blogger Bobby Caygeon said...

Anyone who blames ethanol subsidies on the "right-wing" has lost all bearings with the real world.

 
At 7/13/2011 5:53 PM, Blogger KauaiMark said...

Time to end all subsidies, foreign and domestic

 
At 7/13/2011 5:54 PM, Blogger Benjamin said...

Bobby-

Not really. It is a typical rural subsidy program, another pillar of the Red State Socialist Empire.

 
At 7/13/2011 6:06 PM, Blogger VangelV said...

The left and the right try to buy votes. Consumers get killed.

 
At 7/13/2011 6:42 PM, Blogger Benjamin said...

Vange-

Worse than that. Producers get killed.

 
At 7/13/2011 8:55 PM, Blogger Rufus II said...

It was Bush, and a Republican Congress that passed the Renewable Fuel Standard, complete with Tax Credits, Mandates, and Import Tariffs.

You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.

 
At 7/13/2011 8:59 PM, Blogger Rufus II said...

Energy Policy Act of 2005

 
At 7/13/2011 9:00 PM, Blogger VangelV said...

Worse than that. Producers get killed.

Eventually, that might be true if producers depend on the government mandates and prices do not fall well under the cost of production. But given where food prices are and the short term picture, the producers have been huge beneficiaries so far.

 
At 7/13/2011 9:10 PM, Blogger VangelV said...

It was Bush, and a Republican Congress that passed the Renewable Fuel Standard, complete with Tax Credits, Mandates, and Import Tariffs.

You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.


Correct. The facts show little difference between the big-government Democrats and big-government Republicans.

 
At 7/13/2011 9:23 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

Rufus: "It does not take into consideration the the 1.5 Billion Bushels of livestock feed we get back in the form of Distillers Grains. Also, that feed is 10% more efficient than corn, and costs less.

Once you take the extra 10% efficiency into consideration, you've gotten back 1.7 Billion Bushels of livestock feed.

5.05 billion bu - 1.7 billion bu = 3.35 billion bushels.

Also, the article doesn't consider the 2 Billion bushels that we Export, most all of which goes to feed animals.
"

LOL

Just a couple more spins using your usual imaginative math, and you'll have shown that ethanol didn't use any corn at all!

 
At 7/13/2011 9:27 PM, Blogger Rufus II said...

Not "imaginative," Ron; just accurate.

 
At 7/13/2011 10:04 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

Rufus: "Once you take the extra 10% efficiency into consideration, you've gotten back 1.7 Billion Bushels of livestock feed."

You have magically turned 1.5 billion bushels into 1.7 billion bushels. You don't call that imaginative? Give me a break.

No one can take your comments seriously when you torture numbers in that way. Did you learn that from Michael Mann and his hockey team?

The FT article points out that more corn is headed for ethanol production than for animal feed. You can't just make it not so by playing with numbers. The amounts of corn leaving the field don't change just because you spin a good yarn.

 
At 7/13/2011 10:15 PM, Blogger Rufus II said...

They ignored what was "coming back." They're the ones using incomplete, and, ultimately, misleading information.

Maybe, theirs is a sin of Omission, not commission, but a sin, nevertheless.

I'm just trying to set the record straight. Information - you're for that, right?

 
At 7/14/2011 12:12 AM, Blogger Che is dead said...

"Actually, it was GW Bush that got it rolling ... You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts." -- Dufus

"Bloomberg data show the annual market value for ethanol in the U.S. has risen to $27.1 billion since federal support began under President Jimmy Carter during the 1970s energy crisis."

"Jimmy Carter's administration first placed this taxpayer-financed bet on corn-based ethanol in hopes of reducing the nation's dependency on oil, particularly foreign oil."

Jimmy Carter created the Dept. of Energy which provided support for the production of ethanol. He signed the Energy Security Act in 1980 which provided direct subsidies to the ethanol industry and he was the first to subsidize corn-based ethanol.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

 
At 7/14/2011 12:49 AM, Blogger Che is dead said...

"The costs of Iraqistan are well understood to be in the $3 to $4 trillion range ... The final bill will reach at least $3.7 trillion and could be as high as $4.4 trillion, according to the research project "Costs of War" by Brown University's Watson Institute for International Studies ..." --"Benji"

This study is a sham produced by left-wing, pro-Islamofascist academics in order to generate headlines and cover their golden boy's big-spending ass.

-It counts $400 billion in Homeland Security spending as war related.

-It counts $300 billion “social costs” to veterans and military families.

-It counts the the regular costs of the military as war related.

-It counts the cost of interest on war related costs ($1.184 trillion) extended out to an imaginary date. No other federal program is assessed this way.

While stretching reality to arrive at an inflated cost estimate, they make absolutely no adjustments for the benefits of removing two of the most sadistic regimes in modern history.

Let me say it again, "Benji", comprehension is your problem.

 
At 7/14/2011 6:24 AM, Blogger VangelV said...

Jimmy Carter created the Dept. of Energy which provided support for the production of ethanol. He signed the Energy Security Act in 1980 which provided direct subsidies to the ethanol industry and he was the first to subsidize corn-based ethanol.

You have no idea what you're talking about.


I think that the record is very clear. Both parties use tax revenues to buy votes, to reward special interest groups, and to grow the size of government. Bush was a huge spender just as Obama is a big spender.

 
At 7/14/2011 8:17 AM, Blogger Rufus II said...

Ethanol production was well below a billion gallons/yr (it's 14 Billion, now) when bush pushed through the RFS.

 
At 7/14/2011 8:19 AM, Blogger Rufus II said...

The important thing, though, is: you're looking at a return to $3.80 gasoline in just a couple of weeks.

What would it be w/o the 900,000 bbl/day of ethanol in the market, soaking up demand for oil?

 
At 7/14/2011 1:47 PM, Blogger Angie said...

The lie about teachers salaries being low...Our Tax dollars at work! At least 178 teachers and principals in Atlanta Public Schools cheated to raise student scores on standardized tests. Average teachers' pay is just shy of $66,000 and average principals' pay $109,000.(FOX 5). Now we have to pay for paid administrative leave to get rid of them....

 
At 7/14/2011 1:47 PM, Blogger Angie said...

The lie about teachers salaries being low...Our Tax dollars at work! At least 178 teachers and principals in Atlanta Public Schools cheated to raise student scores on standardized tests. Average teachers' pay is just shy of $66,000 and average principals' pay $109,000.(FOX 5). Now we have to pay for paid administrative leave to get rid of them....

 
At 7/15/2011 9:43 AM, Blogger VangelV said...

The important thing, though, is: you're looking at a return to $3.80 gasoline in just a couple of weeks.

What would it be w/o the 900,000 bbl/day of ethanol in the market, soaking up demand for oil?


Actually, having to blend ethanol with gasoline increases the cost of fuel for drivers. And when you have a negative return for the ethanol that is produced you also have higher costs. Any rational argument for ethanol would argue for the import of Brazilian sugar cane based ethanol to compete with the corn based ethanol.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home