A true progressive, Obama transcends pandering; plus, Rice foresees progress on Mid-East peace deal

Speaking on NBC's 'Meet The Press' this morning, Senator Barack Obama argued that, in order to curb rising food costs, the U.S. might need to reassess its ethanol policy. Currently, Congressional mandates, backed by the Bush Administration, require that a certain minimum of ethanol be incorporated into standard gasoline. The purpose is two-fold: on one hand, including ethanol and other renewable resources that are cleaner than pure petrol lessens the environmental damage created by exhaust; on the other, mandating that increasing levels of ethanol must be used in the U.S. fuel supply, the policy seeks to reduce the country's dependence on foreign oil sources.

The problem with requiring that ethanol be blended into standard gasoline is that U.S.-produced ethanol utilizes corn as its main energy source. This means that as lawmakers require higher and higher percentages of ethanol to be utilized in gasoline, demand for corn shoots up, with prices following suit. For millions of Americans, corn represents a staple food and is heavily utilized in daily cooking. As a result, higher corn prices seriously pinch the budget of middle-class workers and make it more difficult for them to feed their families and pay for other necessary goods and services.

The problem is more acute abroad, particularly in Mexico and Central America, wherein corn plays an even more important role in families' nutritional survival. As prices for the staple good began to climb last year, it was reported than families in Southern Mexican communities (the birthplace of 'maize', where corn-farming and culture has been intertwined for thousands of years) were paying up to 75% of their daily salaries buying corn to produce tortillas and other key components of their diet. Within these extreme conditions, thousands of impoverished Mexicans were faced with their terrible choice of meeting minimal caloric requirements and paying for other basic goods, such as water. Clearly, the detrimental effects of rising corn prices spread beyond U.S. borders.

While investing more in biofuels, especially corn-based ethanol represents a necessary step in the U.S. quest to become more energy independent and slowing the brutal march of global warming, policies that require a greater percentage of corn-based ethanol to be used in gasoline also epitomizes old-fashioned political economy. With the vast majority of the U.S.' corn production based in states like Iowa, Indiana, and Ohio that are hugely significant in presidential politics, opposing any mandates that hurt the bottom line of farmers in these states becomes politically risky at best, and political suicide for a presidential candidate at worst.

Bold, then, was Obama's proclamation that the U.S. should rethink its policy towards mandating ethanol minimums in the fuel supply. The move, however, is largely indicative of the Senator's willingness to buck political expedience and stand up for policies that are in the long-term interest of the United States. This is the same leader who stood before an audience at the National Education Association and supported the virtues of merit pay for teachers; who told United Autoworker Workers union members in Detroit that the country needs to prepare for further downsizing in its automotive industry and make responsible strides toward increased fuel-efficiency standards; and who has told millions of voters that he would happily work with any lawmaker, regardless of party affiliation, who is truly interested in promoting the common good. Indeed, Obama's remarks on ethanol policy reform should hardly come as a surprise.

McCain Right on Tariffs, Wrong on Biofuel Minimums:

Across the aisle, Senator John McCain has wisely called for a reduction in U.S. ethanol tariffs, which prevent cheaper, more energy-efficient Brazilian sugar-based ethanol from entering the U.S. and competing with Midwest farmers' corn-based product. However, the Senator has balked on the issue of biofuel production and is an outspoken proponent of standards that call for a certain percentage of ethanol to be used in gasoline, despite their serious and detrimental financial effects on middle- and low-income U.S. consumers, as well as their less prosperous counterparts abroad.

Clinton's Unappealing Middle Game:

Meanwhile, Obama's rival in the Democratic nomination contest, Senator Hillary Clinton of New York, has played a disappointing middle game, saying that corn-based ethanol mandates need to be reassessed and that the U.S. should focus on utilizing other parts of corn crops, such as the cob and stalk. While on the surface this would seem like a creative way to both please corn farmers and retain environmentally-helpful results of increased ethanol usage in the fuel supply, it represents little more than the Senator's placating farm-state interests.

Rather than sticking with corn-based ethanol, lawmakers should take steps to reduce the tariff on Brazilian, sugar-based ethanol, which is more than three times as energy efficient as its corn-based counterpart and, without tariffs, would be available to U.S. consumers for a fraction of the cost. We've yet to see Clinton come out and take the truly progressive stand of endorsing ethanol tariff reductions.

Obama, on the other hand, has not shirked away from taking a bold stand on ethanol policy reform, despite the serious political consequences that this stance might bring come November, or, more immediately, in Indiana's Democratic Primary this Tuesday. True progress requires true leadership, and Senator Obama does not shy away from presenting himself as such.