The Anti-Sam Brownback Blog

According to the AP:

On another issue sure to be central to his would-be campaign, Brownback said the country is finally serious about taking the steps to reduce its dependence on foreign oil.

As part of a broader energy plan, the senator said he would be willing to consider changing his position on fuel economy standards to require automakers to make vehicles that go farther on a gallon of gas. Brownback has opposed a raise in the so-called CAFE standards but said he would support one as long as it wasn’t too steep to endanger the U.S. auto industry while it is at financial risk.

Not a position that will win him votes in Michigan, but when mixed with a large helping of ethanol worship I’m sure it will go over fine in Iowa.

From the State’s News Service comes word of Brownback supporting a tax credit for E-85 fuel:

The demand for greater access to alternative fuels such as E-85 ethanol and biodiesel has increased significantly among the American public in recent months. Given that this tax credit became effective for properties placed into service January 1, 2006, we urge you to issue preliminary guidance or rulemaking on this new provision as soon as possible. Many stakeholders, including fuel station owners and feedstock suppliers, require certainty for business planning purposes and will benefit from expedited guidance from the Internal Revenue Service regarding this tax credit, the letter states.

Sens. Evan Bayh (D-IN), Sam Brownback (R-KS), Norm Coleman (R-MN), Mark Dayton (D-MN), Richard Durbin (D-IL), Tom Harkin (D-IA), Joseph Lieberman (D-CT), Barack Obama (D-IL), Ken Salazar (D-CO), and Jim Talent (R-MO) joined Lugar in signing the letter. (from lexis-nexis)

First, let me applaud Senator Brownback for supporting research into alternative fuels. We need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and if we are smart we will engineer our own solutions and then seel them to the rest of the world. That being said, Ethanol increasingly appears to be a pork-barrel handout to states like Iowa which just happens to be the first in the nation for 2008 presidential caucuses.

The main problem with ethanol as a fuel is that it takes more energy to produce it that it gives.

The total fossil energy expended to produce 1 liter of ethanol from corn is 10,200 kcal, but note that 1 liter of ethanol has an energy value of only 5130 kcal. Thus, there is an energy imbalance causing a net energy loss. Approximately 53% of the total cost (55¢ per liter) of producing ethanol in a large, modern plant is for the corn raw material (Pimentel 1991). The total energy inputs for producing ethanol using corn can be partially offset when the dried distillers grain produced is fed to livestock. Although the feed value of the dried distillers grain reduces the total energy inputs by 8 % to 24%, the energy budget remains negative.

Not that I blame Brownback for playing this game. All candidates for President have to at one time or another. If they don’t, they run the risk of ending up like Gen. Wes Clark. I wanted to point this out only as a further indicator that Senator Brownback is still preparing to run for president.

Last Thursday I mentioned Brownback’s foray into energy policy. While trolling the murky depths of the conservative blogosphere I happened upon a white paper by one of the authors of the the Fuel Choices for American Security Act of 2005. Written by Rep Jack Kingston, one of the bill’s cosponsors in the House, it outlines much of what all of the news organizations have mentioned plus one glaring exception:

The U.S. must expand domestic oil production from domestic resources in Alaska, the deep ocean waters of the outer continental shelf, and other areas that will be economically viable in this new higher price oil market – western shale reserves for example. Most of the 130 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil reserves in the U.S. are currently off limits due to restrictions on new development in Alaska, on federal lands, and on the Outer Continental Shelf. Likewise, all previous conservation efforts and efficiency improvements in the transportation industry have been overwhelmed by rapidly expanding demand. With oil consumption expected to grow by another 60 percent over the next 25 years, conservation alone is not the solution.

Drilling. Who woulda thunk it? Obviously drilling in Alaska is a bad idea consisting of a handout to Oil Corporations with no actual payoffs for American petroleum consumers.

More interesting is the lack of this information in the stories about the plan. As we all know, the republicans in the House of Representatives have enough votes to pass drilling in Alaska. Where they lack is in the Senate. If the Senate version of the bill does not include the drilling provisions while the House version does, in conference committee the drilling could be rammed through by republicans.

Plus, with no CAFE standard raises this bill does nothing to prevent GM from getting government subsidies to manufacture a hybrid Hummer that gets 2 more mpg.

We still don’t have a copy of the actual legislation. I’ll continue to follow up as more information becomes available.

Senator Sam Brownback was part of a group that yesterday unveiled their “Vehicle and Fuel Choices for American Security Act of 2005″. The Kansas City Star Explains:

Because two-thirds of the oil used in this country is used in transportation, the bill focuses on reducing oil consumption by changing the way Americans fuel their vehicles.

The legislation would include tax breaks, as much as 35 percent, and loan guarantees to get automakers to switch to gas-electric hybrids, advanced diesel or other alternative technologies, including ethanol.

Ten percent of all vehicles sold in the United States would have to be hybrids, hybrid-electric plug-ins, or operable on alternative fuels by 2012. That would rise to 50 percent by 2016.

It also includes new tax breaks for those who buy such vehicles for car fleets, and incentives for developing alternative fuels, such as ethanol from cellulosic biomass, research into use of lightweight material in cars, and the promotion of mass transit corridors.

Before I discuss what we know about the bill, I would like to point out there is much we do not know. I haven’t been able to find the text of the bill (it is not in thomas.loc.gov) so the only information we have has been fed to us in political sound bites.

That being said, I find one glaring problem with the bill that the KC Star mentions:

The bill’s supporters range from liberal Democrats to conservative Republicans, mainly because the bill avoids issues like increased drilling or mandated vehicle fuel-efficiency standards.

This is what kills me. They are happy to talk about the way Americans fuel their vehicles, but are not willing to talk about the actual vehicles Americans drive. I don’t see the point if in ten years we have hybrid Hummers that instead of 7 mpg get 10 mpg. Fuel choices are an important piece of the puzzle, but are not all we need to address. This bill gains support by sacrificing hard issues.

Additionally, it looks as though this bill will be a boon to ethanol producers. Ethanol sounds great, but there needs to be more research as to the total energy cost of making the fuel. I have heard estimates that it uses more energy to produce make the ethanol product than the ethanol product provides. We need to be clear as to the real efficiency of the process. Will any politician bring that up? Not likely considering ethanol is the golden calf of the Iowa Caucuses. Every politician must worship at its feet in order to curry favor for Presidential election season.

I feel like this is a good first step. The reality is that talk is cheap. I want to see specifics and I want to see methods of enforcement. If any of these long term goals are going to be met we must start today.

I have been asked what issues Senator Brownback might run on in a republican primary and what he needs to do between now and then to bolster his support. While I obviously am not included in Brownback’s strategy meetings, we can glean from his public appearances what he will attempt to use.

1. First we’ll hit abortion, his most obvious issue of affection. Brownback makes the issue of abortion work for him. Practically all of his name recognition outside of Kansas is within anti-abortion groups. These religious organizations also make up a large part of his speaking tours. On this issue Brownback is more extreme than any other likely primary opponents. In the next two years I expect Brownback to begin utilizing this network of passionate conservatives to raise money and awareness for his campaign. Of special interest is Brownback’s friend from college, Chuck Hurley, who now is the president of the Iowa Family Policy Center. Hurley has already endorsed Brownback for president and has vowed to use his organization to spearhead a Brownback Iowa caucus effort.
2. Next is the group of people he loves to hate. Gays, Lesbians, Bisexuals and Transgender people have been constantly attacked by Brownback and his supporters. His current pet project, the anti gay marriage constitutional amendment, is only the latest in a long history of discriminatory acts. This issue also feeds his hardcore religious conservative base and goes hand in hand with abortion. Brownback has been grooming this issue ever since the Christian fundamentalist were ignored by the white house after Bush’s 2004 election. They were promised action on the amendment and Bush went with Social Security destruction instead. Now Brownback is trying to give them what they want, and they will love him for it.
3. “But wait!” conservatives will scream. “He’s not all social issues! What about his work in the Sudan?” Sudan is Brownback’s attempt at gaining the moderate vote. Putting the compassionate back into the conservative, so to speak. I have in the past applauded the attention that he has helped to bring to the situation there and I will continue to agree with him (gasp!) when he says more needs to be done. I will be interested to see how much he focuses on the Sudan in the next two years. I think it is an issue that will play well with moderates, but he will have to show he can make a difference there and not just make speeches.

Those are the big three. Beyond those we have the issues that he has not pushed as of yet, but probably will.

1. On defense, Brownback toes the GOP party line. While this has served him well in the past, this could become a problem if public opinion about the war in Iraq continues to plummet. Look for him to become more hawkish on Iran. He has connections to several Iranian separatist movements and has already vocalized his wish for regime change.
2. On the economy Brownback is know to be friendly to corporations. His largest donor by far is Koch Industries whose owners founded the Cato Institute. He is ranked 100% compliant with the Business-Industry Political Action Committee. This could be a true stealth fundraising angle for him. The Koch brothers could conceivably raise ungodly amounts of cash for Brownback’s campaign. I doubt Brownback will make business issues more public.
3. According to the pundits, immigration is likely to be a hot button issue in 2008. Brownback currently favors a guest worker program similar to that which the president supports. This is not popular with the conservative base. I think Brownback will begin to change course on immigration to come more in line with the extreme views of his potential voters.
4. On energy he again tends to take the party line. He supports drilling in ANWR and increasing domestic oil production. He is also a ethanol brown noser for the obvious (Iowa) political reasons. I expect he will begin to focus more on energy in the next two years. Speaking on ethanol in Iowa will give him a jumping off point for a more substantive policy outlay.
5. He has addressed health care with rural health provider concerns but has not spoken out on policy issues that would help the average American pay for health insurance. I have no clue what his health care policy will entail and how he will address rising costs for employees and employers alike.