The Ethanol Subsidy and How Biofuel Tax Incentives Work

The Ethanol Subsidy and How Biofuel Tax Incentives Work The primary ethanol subsidy offered by the federal government is a tax incentive called the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit, which was passed by Congress and signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2004. It took effect in 2005. The ethanol subsidy, which is commonly referred to as the blenders credit, offers ethanol blenders registered with the Internal Revenue Service a tax credit of 45 cents for every gallon of pure ethanol they blend with gasoline. That particular ethanol subsidy cost taxpayers $5.7 billion in foregone revenues in 2011, according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office, the nonpartisan congressional watchdog agency. Debate Over the Ethanol Subsidy Supporters of the federal ethanol subsidy argue that it encourages production and use of the biofuel and thereby reduces the amount of foreign oil needed to produce gasoline, a step toward energy independence. But critics argue that ethanol burns far less efficiently than gasoline, driving up fuel consumption and that it increases demand for corn for fuel and artificially boosts the cost of farm commodities and retail prices of food. They also say such an incentive is unnecessary because legislation enacted in 2007 requires oil companies to produce 36 billion gallons of biofuels such as ethanol by 2022. While born of good intentions, federal subsidies for ethanol have failed to achieve their intended goals of energy independence, U.S. Sen. Tom Coburn, a Republican from Oklahoma and leading critic of the ethanol subsidy, said in 2011. The effort to Kill the Ethanol Subsidy Coburn led an effort to repeal the ethanol subsidy in June of 2011, saying it was a waste of taxpayer money - he said the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit cost $30.5 billion from 2005 through 2011 - because consumption remained only a small part of the countrys fuel use. His effort to repeal the ethanol subsidy failed in the Senate by a vote of 59 to 40. While Im disappointed my amendment did not pass, taxpayers should remember that when I offered an amendment to defund the Bridge to Nowhere in Alaska in 2005 we lost that vote 82 to 15, Coburn said in a statement. Over time, however, the will of the people prevailed and Congress was forced to scale back this wasteful and corrupting practice. Today, the earmark favor factory is mostly closed. Only the tax division remains open. Im confident this debate, and many more ahead, will expose the tax code for what it is - an abomination that favors the well-connected over working families and small businesses. History of the Ethanol Subsidy The Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit ethanol subsidy became law on Oct. 22, 2004, when President George W. Bush signed the American Jobs Creation Act into law. Included in that piece of legislation was the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit. The initial bill gave ethanol blenders a tax credit of 51 cents for every gallon of ethanol they mixed with gasoline. Congress reduced the tax incentive by 6 cents per gallon as part of the 2008 Farm Bill. According to the Renewable Fuels Association, gasoline refiners and marketers are required to pay the full rate of tax, which is 18.4 cents per gallon on the total gasoline-ethanol mixture but can claim the 45 cents per gallon tax credit or refund for each gallon of ethanol used in the mixture. The ethanol subsidy benefits multibillion-dollar integrated oil companies such as BP, Exxon, and Chevron. The First Ethanol Subsidy The Energy Policy Act of 1978 was the first federal legislative ethanol subsidy. It allowed for a 40-cent tax exemption per gallon of ethanol, according to Purdue University.The Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 increased the tax exemption to 50 cents per gallon of ethanol.The 1990 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act extended the ethanol subsidy to 2000 but decreased the amount to 54 cents a gallon.The 1998 Transportation Efficiency Act of the 21st Century extended the ethanol subsidy through 2007 but reduced it to 51 cents per gallon by 2005.Bushs signature on the Jobs Creation Act changed the way the modern ethanol subsidy worked. Instead, it offered a straight tax credit to producers, the legislation allowed for the blenders credit. President Trump Protects the Ethanol Subsidy During his 2016 campaign, President Donald Trump came out as one of the ethanol subsidy’s strongest supporters. Speaking in Iowa, where corn is king, on January 21, 2016, he said, â€Å"The EPA should ensure that biofuel . . . blend levels match the statutory level set by Congress,† adding that he was â€Å"was â€Å"there with you [farmers] 100 percent† on continuing federal subsidy for ethanol. â€Å"You’re going to get a really fair shake from me.† After Trump took office in January 2017, all seemed well with the ethanol subsidy until early October, when his own EPA administrator Scott Pruitt announced that the agency was considering lowering the EPA-mandated subsidy payment level for ethanol â€Å"slightly† in 2018. The suggestion sent shockwaves through the Corn Belt and its Republican congressional protectors. Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley accused Trump of a â€Å"bait and switch,† in reference to his empathic campaign promise. Grassley and Iowa’s other Republican senator, Joni Ernst, threatened to block all of Trump’s future EPA appointments. The governors of most Corn Belt states joined in sending Trump warning him than any cutback in the Renewable Fuel Standard program’s subsidies would be â€Å"highly disruptive, unprecedented and potentially catastrophic.† Faced with the potential loss of influence over some of his strongest congressional backers, Trump quickly told Pruitt to back off any future talk of cutting the ethanol subsidy. On July 5, 2018, Pruitt resigned amid multiple accusations of ethics violations involving his excessive and unauthorized personal use of government funds. He was replace within hours by EPA deputy director Andrew Wheeler, a former lobbyist for the coal industry.

Post-WWII Jewish Migration

Post-WWII Jewish Migration Approximately six million European Jews were killed in the Holocaust during World War II. Many of the European Jews who survived the persecution and death camps had nowhere to go after V-E Day, May 8, 1945. Not only had Europe been practically destroyed, but many survivors did not want to return to their pre-war homes in Poland or Germany. Jews became Displaced Persons (also known as DPs) and spent time in helter-skelter camps, some of which were located at former concentration camps. As the Allies were taking Europe back from Germany in 1944-1945, the Allied armies liberated the Nazi concentration camps. These camps, which housed from a few dozen to thousands of survivors, were complete surprises for most of the liberating armies. The armies were overwhelmed by the misery, by the victims who were so thin and near-death. A dramatic example of what the soldiers found upon liberation of the camps occurred at Dachau where a train load of 50 boxcars of prisoners sat on the railroad for days as the Germans were escaping. There were about 100 people in each boxcar and, of the 5,000 prisoners, about 3,000 were already dead upon the arrival of the army. Thousands of survivors still died in the days and weeks following liberation and the military buried the dead in individual and mass graves. Generally, the Allied armies rounded up concentration camp victims and forced them to remain in the confines of the camp under armed guard. Medical personnel were brought into the camps to care for the victims and food supplies were provided but conditions in the camps were dismal. When available, nearby SS living quarters were used as hospitals. Survivors had no method of contacting relatives as they were not allowed to send or receive mail. The survivors were forced to sleep in their bunkers, wear their camp uniforms, and were not allowed to leave the barbed-wire camps, all while the German population outside of the camps were able to try to return to normal life. The military reasoned that the Holocaust survivors (now essentially their prisoners) could not roam the countryside for fear that they would attack civilians. By June, word of poor treatment of Holocaust survivors reached Washington, D.C. President Harry S. Truman, anxious to appease concerns, sent Earl G. Harrison, the dean of the University of Pennsylvania Law School, to Europe to investigate the ramshackle DP camps. Harrison was shocked by the conditions he found, As things stand now, we appear to be treating the Jews as the Nazis treated them, except that we do not exterminate them. They are in concentration camps, in large numbers under our military guard instead of SS troops. One is led to wonder whether the German people, seeing this, are not supposing that we are following or at least condoning Nazi policy. (Proudfoot, 325) Harrison strongly recommended to President Truman that 100,000 Jews, the approximate number of DPs in Europe at the time, be allowed to enter Palestine. As the United Kingdom controlled Palestine, Truman contacted the British Prime Minister Clement Atlee with the recommendation but Britain demurred, fearing repercussions (especially problems with oil) from Arab nations if Jews were allowed into the Middle East. Britain convened a joint United States-United Kingdom committee, the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry, to investigate the status of DPs. Their report, issued in April 1946, concurred with the Harrison report and recommended that 100,000 Jews be allowed into Palestine. Atlee ignored the recommendation and proclaimed that 1,500 Jews would be allowed to migrate to Palestine each month. This quota of 18,000 a year continued until the British rule in Palestine ended in 1948. Following the Harrison report, President Truman called for major changes to the treatment of Jews in the DP camps. Jews who were DPs were originally accorded status based on their country of origin and did not have separate status as Jews. General Dwight D. Eisenhower complied with Trumans request and began to implement changes in the camps, making them more humanitarian. Jews became a separate group in the camps so Jews no longer had to live with Allied prisoners who, in some cases, had served as operatives or even guards in the concentration camps. DP camps were established throughout Europe and those in Italy served as congregation points for those attempting to flee to Palestine. Trouble in Eastern Europe in 1946 more than doubled the number of displaced persons. At the beginning of the war, about 150,000 Polish Jews escaped to the Soviet Union. In 1946 these Jews began being repatriated to Poland. There were reasons enough for Jews not to want to remain in Poland but one incident in particular convinced them to emigrate. On July 4, 1946 there was a pogrom against the Jews of Kielce and 41 people were killed and 60 were seriously injured. By the winter of 1946/1947, there were about a quarter of a million DPs in Europe. Truman conceded to loosen immigration laws in the United States and brought thousands of DPs into America. The priority immigrants were orphaned children. Over the course of 1946 to 1950, over 100,000 Jews migrated to the United States. Overwhelmed by international pressures and opinions, Britain placed the matter of Palestine into the hands of the United Nations in February 1947. In the fall of 1947, the General Assembly voted to partition Palestine and create two independent states, one Jewish and the other Arab. Fighting immediately broke out between Jews and Arabs in Palestine but even with the U.N.s decision, Britain still kept firm control of Palestinian immigration as long as they could. Britains complicated process for regulation of displaced Jewish immigration to Palestinian was plagued with problems. Jews were moved to Italy, a trip which they often did on foot. From Italy, ships and crew were rented for the passage across the Mediterranean to Palestine. Some of the ships made it past a British naval blockade of Palestine, but most did not. The passengers of captured ships were forced to disembark in Cyprus, where the British operated DP camps. The British government began sending DPs directly to camps on Cyprus in August 1946. DPs shipped to Cyprus were then able to apply for legal immigration to Palestine. The British Royal Army ran the camps on the island. Armed patrols guarded the perimeters to prevent escape. Fifty-two thousand Jews were interned and 2,200 babies were born on the island of Cyprus between 1946 and 1949. Approximately 80 percent of the internees were between the ages of 13 and 35. Jewish organization was strong in Cyprus and education and job training was internally provided. Leaders on Cyprus often became initial government officials in the new state of Israel. One shipload of refugees heightened concern for DPs throughout the world. The Jewish survivors had formed an organization called Brichah (flight) for the purpose of smuggling immigrants (Aliya Bet, illegal immigration) to Palestine and the organization moved 4,500 refugees from DP camps in Germany to a port near Marseilles, France in July 1947 where they boarded Exodus. The Exodus departed France but was being watched by the British navy. Even before it entered the territorial waters of Palestine, destroyers forced the boat to the port at Haifa. The Jews resisted and the British killed three and wounded more with machine guns and tear gas. The British ultimately forced the passengers to disembark and they were placed on British vessels, not for deportation to Cyprus, as was the usual policy, but to France. The British wanted to pressure the French to take responsibility for the 4,500. The Exodus sat in the French port for a month as the French refused to force the refugees to disemba rk but they did offer asylum to those who wished to voluntarily leave. Not one of them did. In an attempt to force the Jews off the ship, the British announced that the Jews would be taken back to Germany. Still, no one disembarked as they wanted to go to Israel and Israel alone. When the ship arrived in Hamburg, Germany in September 1947, soldiers dragged each passenger off of the ship in front of reporters and camera operators. Truman and the much of the world watched and knew that a Jewish state needed to be established. On May 14, 1948 the British government left Palestine and the State of Israel was proclaimed the same day. The United States was the first country to recognize the new State. Legal immigration began in earnest, even though the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, did not approve the Law of Return, (which allows any Jew to migrate to Israel and become a citizen) until July 1950. Immigration to Israel increased rapidly despite war against hostile Arab neighbors. On May 15, 1948, the first day of Israeli statehood, 1,700 immigrants arrived. There was an average of 13,500 immigrants each month from May through December of 1948, far exceeding the prior legal migration approved by the British of 1,500 per month. Ultimately, the survivors of the Holocaust were able to emigrate to Israel, the United States, or a host of other countries. The State of Israel accepted as many that were willing to come and Israel worked with the arriving DPs to teach them job skills, provide employment, and to help the immigrants help build the wealthy and technologically advanced country that it is today.

Management accounting- R-11 Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 5000 words

Management accounting- R-11 - Assignment Example Private organisations tend to have smoother management control process whereas public organisations experience more turbulence, conflicts and interruptions. Many scholars attribute these differences to the roles and purpose of private and public organisations in the society. Private organisations produce and sell products to consumers in the markets with objective of creating shareholders’ wealth. On the other hand, public organisations, such as state health centers and public schools undertake their operations for public interests. The distinct roles mean that there are diverse kinds of expectations and accountability that may can call for distinctive management control and decision-making processes (Ring & Perry. 1985). The problem of exercising management control in private sector versus public sector The contextual influence in the exercise of management control arises from the role of an organisation in the society. Whereas private organisations are means for creating sha reholders’ wealth, public organisations are instruments of public policy. The functions of each sector dictate the governance and leadership arrangements that are necessary to exercise management control for different diverse types of owners and shareholders. The approach to governance adopted in each sector subject general managers in each sector to different demands and expectations, which have far-reaching impact on exercise of management control. The role of each sector dictate ways of dealing with clients and users of services or goods offered in different ways, and this may also influence how management control is exercised. Public organisations are constrained in ways that limit how they exercise their management control and strategic choices being made. In most cases, discussions of how management control should be pursued in public organisations are subject to public disclosure. The government passes legislative mandates which tend t affect budgets and budgeting proc ess in a public organisation. As cited by Ring and Perry (1985), managers or leaders of public organisations are required to conform to budgets and legislative mandates passed by the state. As such, this is likely to limit the amount of money available for research on how to exercise management effectively. These mandates may even limit managers of public corporations from spending money on data collection and research thus influencing decision making process negatively. Management team of most public corporations must report to oversight committees, whose occupants are often political appointees, who are prone to leaking organisation’s undertakings and progress. This influences planning and management process in a negative way. These influences make management control problematic in public corporations than in for-profit organisations (Nutt, 2005). The external environment influences any organisation. Some of the attributes of external environment include cooperation, compet ition, political influence, cooperation and data availability. Private organisations can assess market situations through consumer buying behavior thereby enabling them to effectively manage their actions. Public organisations lack markets which can be source of revenue. As such, they depend on funds from oversight bodies that have tendency of setting reimbursement rules for the products or services offered by a public organisa

Performance appraisal system and performance management system Essay

Performance appraisal system and performance management system - Essay Example Performance management systems refer to measures that the organization has put in place with the aim of establishing what employees ought to do in a certain period. For example, it can constitute measures on how the employee should perform in the next quarter of a year, the next sixth months, or the next one year. A performance management system outlines what should be met within a certain time frame, as well as the benefits that accrue to employees when they meet these objectives (Grote 1996, p.17). Differences between performance Appraisal System and Performance Management System There are certain differences, which exist between performance appraisal systems and performance management systems. These differences represent the most fundamental components of the two approaches, as well as how the two approaches differ in terms of what they address. The major differences between performance appraisal and performance management systems lies in the scope of what they aim to cover. While performance management systems represent a traditional approach to the management of human resources, performance management can be termed as a contemporary approach to the management of human resources (Rao 2004, p. 213). ... 333). During performance appraisal, the principal activities that the human resource department engages in include evaluating employees, as well as rating their performance. On the contrary, performance management aims at the review, analysis, and planning of the expected performance of employees, and how an employee should make improvements (Deb 2006, p.201). While performance management can be regarded as a continuous process within the organisation, performance appraisal takes place in an annual basis. In performance management, there may be reviews that take place quarterly while, in performance appraisal, the review of the employee takes place once a year. However, there may be periodic ratings of employees in the course of the year (Rao 2004, p.214). Performance appraisal is a function entirely performed by the human resource department of the organisation. This means that the human resource department has the responsibility to design, evaluates, as well as monitor the implemen tation of the performance appraisal system (Roberts 2003, p.89). On the contrary, the performance management system can be designed by the human resource department, but the implementation of the system can be done by the various departments. In performance appraisal systems, there are reviews that may be conducted to ensure that the ratings of employees enhance objectivity. In performance management systems, the reviews serve the purpose of ensuring that the organization improves its performance (Waal & Counet, 2009). In performance appraisal, the need for making development is identified when the year ends. During performance management, the need for development can easily be

Compare and Contrast Between Rwanda and Darfur Genocide, from the Const

The analysis of the genocides that took place both in Rwanda and Sudan’s Darfur region exhibit some similarities as well as differences. The character of violence was similar in both cases, but in Rwanda the violence was more intense, participatory, and extraordinary. The violence in these two places took place in an environment that had experienced civil wars. It was a period of political transition which was further aggravated by ethnic nationalism and a conflict of ethnic populations that were living in close proximity. However, in the Rwandan genocide, the state is more centralized, compact, and effective. This is what explains the intensity and variation. The international response to these genocides through observers emphasized on using the genocide label to create domestic constituencies especially in the Rwandan case. The Darfur case however, revealed that both of these strategies are not effective. Responding to the genocide in Darfur, the US officials declared the label genocide to be occurring. Thereafter, a politically civil-society coalition emerged so as to lobby the administration. The net outcome of these two scenarios however was the same in the absence of effective policies that could halt the genocide. The Rwandan genocide has always acted as the point of reference for similar genocides taking place around the world. Since the 2003 crisis in Darfur, a lot of comparisons have been made to Rwandan genocide. Observers have likened the Darfur genocide to what happened in Rwanda and of course giving it two connotations. First, the violence in the western parts of Sudan has been referred to another Rwanda, by basing their arguments on the nature of the violence. Since whatever was happening in Darfur is similar t... ... different since the US was guided by the realism approach of not extending humanitarian help beyond their borders. Works cited Kupperman, Alan. Genocide: The Cases of Rwanda and Sudan. (2007) Retrieved from http://www.fpri.org/footnotes/1215.200705.kuperman.genociderwandasudan.html Lim, Timothy. Analyzing foreign policy: duties beyond borders? (2000) Retrieved from http://instructional1.calstatela.edu/tclim/F09_Courses/425f09_duties.pdf Merlingen, Michael. European security and defense policy: an implementation perspective, (2008). New York: Routledge publishers. Shapiro, Alan. Genocide in Darfur, Inaction in the Security Council Retrieved from http://www.teachablemoment.org/high/darfur.html Straus, Scott. Rwanda and Darfur: A Comparative Analysis. Retrieved from http://www.chgs.umn.edu/histories/occasional/StrausGSP2006.pdf

Devices Types of Electronic Communication Essay

As technology becomes more advanced and affordable, we are often presented with new ways to perform old tasks. Many of these advances improve the ways we communicate with others, allowing us to stay better informed and better connected. As these devices evolve, our communication methods will continue to evolve with them. Types of Modern Communications Devices When cartoonist Chester Gould gave comic strip detective Dick Tracy a two-way wrist radio, he couldn’t have known that he was foreseeing the development of a variety of portable communications devices. The digital revolution of the late 20th century led to communications devices that make Tracy’s wrist radio seem quaint. Cellular Phones In 1979, the world’s first cellular telephone network went on line in Tokyo, Japan. Similar networks spread rapidly after that, and by 2006, the majority of people in North America, Europe and affluent areas of Africa, Asia and Latin America had access to cell phones. Reportedly, 206 million people use cell phones in the United States, as of 2011. Smartphones A smartphone is small computer that also functions as a telephone. Although features vary by manufacturer and model, smartphones typically include digital voice service, Internet access, email and text messaging. Other options include MP3 players, digital cameras and video players. Smartphones also run a wide range of computer applications for business and entertainment. Leading brands of smartphones include BlackBerry, iPhone, Motorola and Samsung. *******Initializing Message Log:TSSysprep.dll 06/01/13 20:10:17 *******Version:Major=6, Minor=1, Build=7600, PlatForm=2, CSDVer=, Free sysprep.cpp(283)Entering LSMSysPrepRestore sysprep.cpp(511)WARNING: RestoreTSCustomSercurity – NameSIDList.LoadAndDelete FAILED. sysprep.cpp(512)If no Names/SIDs were saved during LSMSysPrepBackup, this is NOT an error. Otherwise, it IS an error, saved names and SIDs were NOT restored. sysprep.cpp(513)Please verify that no Names/SIDs were saved during backup sysprep.cpp(288)WARNING: RestoreTSCustomSercurity() FAILED: 2. To see if this is an error, please see message(s) above. sysprep.cpp(291)Leaving LSMSysPrepRestore logmsg.cpp(38)********Terminating Log. *******Initializing Message Log:TSSysprep.dll 06/01/13 20:10:17 *******Version:Major=6, Minor=1, Build=7600, PlatForm=2, CSDVer=, Free sysprep.cpp(330)Entering RdpSysPrepRestore sysprep.cpp(358)Leaving RdpSysPrepRestore logmsg.cpp(38)********Terminating Log. *******Initializing Message Log:TSSysprep.dll 06/01/13 20:12:51 *******Version:Major=6, Minor=1, Build=7600, PlatForm=2, CSDVer=, Free sysprep.cpp(309)Entering RCMSysPrepRestore sysprep.cpp(314)ERROR: ResetTSPublicPrivateKeys() FAILED: 2 sysprep.cpp(316)Leaving RCMSysPrepRestore logmsg.cpp(38)********Terminating Log.

The Jury Of A Jury - 1507 Words

Jury Paper The concept of juries dates back to the eighth century. Instead of it being an impartial body of unbiased people, juries interrogated prisoners. It was not until the fourteenth century that juries would start to become what we know them today. About three million people are called to serve jury duty every year in the United States. On average only 1.2 million actually serve their request according to the American Bar Association. A jury is picked from a jury pool. The jury pool is made up of around sixty people. These sixty people are questioned and screened by both lawyers to weed out any that are to bias toward the subject of the case. The first part of jury is picking one person to speak for everyone, they are known as the†¦show more content†¦Juries in other countries are not quite like ours. In the United Kingdom they do not have a grand jury. If the judge or police feels that the crime is serious enough it is sent straight to a jury trial. Other countries su ch as Canada, Australia, and New Zealand have started to adopt the concept as well. Other than this a jury trial is set up relatively the same as they are in the United States. Both sides are able to present evidence to a jury and the jury discusses and comes up with a verdict. A former New York judge, Sol Wathtler, once said â€Å"A district attorney could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.† (Hans, 2008). This is because a prosecution is able to get a jury to believe anything due to they are able to present evidence such as hearsay and illegally obtained evidence that wouldn’t be used in a jury trial. The defense is not allowed to be in the court when a grand jury is in session, that is the reason the prosecution is able to present that evidence. This is one major reason why many countries stopped showing cases in a grand jury. In the United States .027 percent of trial by juries are tried unfairly. That gives our justice system a 99.973 percent success rate a ccording to researchers from National Geographic (Hughes, 2014). In a case known as the Affluenza Teen; teenager Ethan Couch