Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 1
Staff Directory | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Legal Notices | Subscriber Services | Site Help | Site Map | RSS
Latest News | Local | State | Nation/World | Crime | Public Record | Money | Special Sections | Entertainment
Blogs | Columns | Political Cartoons | Polls
Preps | Jets | Packers | Brewers | Bucks | Badgers | Golf | Motorsports | National | Other
Photos | Photo Galleries | Podcasts | Videos | Slide Shows | Maps | Photo Reprints
Births | Couples | Obituaries | Death Notices
Blog List | Latest Blog Entries
Subscribe | Advertising | Customer Care | Newspaper In Education | Tearsheets | E-Edition | Photo Reprints
Reader Rewards | Retail Locations
On Milton ethanol plant doesn’t have permit to revoke
Posted on September 24 at 5:25 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
boosmaker, ethanol is definitely subsidized. First Congress mandates how much corn based ethanol must be blended and then they give a 45 cent per gallon blenders credit to make it happen. If there was no blenders credit given it would be unprofitable for blenders and they wouldn't do it. To keep US corn based ethanol insulated from the pressures of the world market, they slap a 45 cent tariff on all but a small amount of ethanol that gets imported. Plus there is a $1.5 million tax credit available to United Coop, which is the majority owner, since they are farmer owned. So ethanol is definitely subsidized as are many other industries, including the petroleum industry.