An anti-ethanol coalition that spans conservatives, Pizza Hut franchises, and clean-air advocates is pressing House lawmakers to pare back the national biofuels mandate beyond what the Environmental Protection Agency has proposed.
A letter to senior House lawmakers Monday brings together over 30 advocacy groups and industry interests such as the Competitive Enterprise Institute, several grocery and meat industry groups, and the Clean Air Task Force.
The EPA floated a draft plan in November that cuts the amount of ethanol and other biofuels that must be blended into the nation’s motor-fuel supply in 2014. The proposal was a defeat for the ethanol industry and its Capitol Hill allies, who are now waging a campaign to reverse the EPA plan.
But the new letter to the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s bipartisan leadership from ethanol critics, led by the National Council of Chain Restaurants, says that EPA didn’t go far enough in restricting the “unworkable” ethanol mandate.
It says only Congress has the power to make big changes to the biofuels blending mandate that’s known as the renewable-fuel standard.
“[T]he proposed [EPA] reduction is small in percentage terms and would do little to decrease pressure on corn demand or lower ethanol’s share of U.S. annual corn production,” the groups state.
“At these volumes corn ethanol will continue to provide perverse incentives to overplant corn, distort commodity and energy markets, and wreak economic and environmental havoc,” states the letter signed by groups such as the American Frozen Food Institute, the National Grocers Association, the National Marine Manufacturers Association, Taxpayers for Common Sense, the International Pizza Hut Franchise Holders Association, and the National Turkey Federation.
What We're Following See More »
Before we get to the specifics of this exposé about escorts working the Iowa and New Hampshire primary crowds, let’s get three things out of the way: 1.) It’s from Cosmopolitan; 2.) most of the women quoted use fake (if colorful) names; and 3.) again, it’s from Cosmopolitan. That said, here’s what we learned:
- Business was booming: one escort who says she typically gets two inquiries a weekend got 15 requests in the pre-primary weekend.
- Their primary season clientele is a bit older than normal—”40s through mid-60s, compared with mostly twentysomething regulars” and “they’ve clearly done this before.”
- They seemed more nervous than other clients, because “the stakes are higher when you’re working for a possible future president” but “all practiced impeccable manners.”
- One escort “typically enjoy[s] the company of Democrats more, just because I feel like our views line up a lot more.”
No matter where you stand on mandating companies to include a backdoor in encryption technologies, it doesn’t make sense to allow that decision to be made on a state level. “The problem with state-level legislation of this nature is that it manages to be both wildly impractical and entirely unenforceable,” writes Brian Barrett at Wired. There is a solution to this problem. “California Congressman Ted Lieu has introduced the ‘Ensuring National Constitutional Rights for Your Private Telecommunications Act of 2016,’ which we’ll call ENCRYPT. It’s a short, straightforward bill with a simple aim: to preempt states from attempting to implement their own anti-encryption policies at a state level.”
Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”
The New Covenant. The Third Way. The Democratic Leadership Council style. Call it what you will, but whatever centrist triangulation Bill Clinton embraced in 1992, Hillary Clinton wants no part of it in 2016. Writing for Bloomberg, Sasha Issenberg and Margaret Talev explore how Hillary’s campaign has “diverged pointedly” from what made Bill so successful: “For Hillary to survive, Clintonism had to die.” Bill’s positions in 1992—from capital punishment to free trade—“represented a carefully calibrated diversion from the liberal orthodoxy of the previous decade.” But in New Hampshire, Hillary “worked to juggle nostalgia for past Clinton primary campaigns in the state with the fact that the Bill of 1992 or the Hillary of 2008 would likely be a marginal figure within today’s Democratic politics.”
At first, “it was pleasant” to see Trevor Noah “smiling away and deeply dimpling in the Stewart seat, the seat that had lately grown gray hairs,” writes The Atlantic‘s James Parker in assessing the new host of the once-indispensable Daily Show. But where Jon Stewart was a heavyweight, Noah is “a very able lightweight, [who] needs time too. But he won’t get any. As a culture, we’re not about to nurture this talent, to give it room to grow. Our patience was exhausted long ago, by some other guy. We’re going to pass judgment and move on. There’s a reason Simon Cowell is so rich. Impress us today or get thee hence. So it comes to this: It’s now or never, Trevor.”