The problem of a fiscally responsible homeowner

Maybe it’s just me, but I’m feeling very frustrated of late. It is the talk of the tax credits and benefits for new home buyers and those facing foreclosure. I just can’t help but be annoyed.

As a homeowner, I am listening to how the Government wants to give so much money to people who over-extended themselves. They want to make it so easy for people buying a new house. And those are good things. But for those of us with a home and paying our mortgage, well we just are being ignored.

There is no benefit to me for paying my mortgage on time. I get no accolade, nor tax break or credit beyond whatever has already existed. Yet I too am suffering. Maybe not as much as those that made bad decisions, or came upon unforeseeable problems. Still this economy is no joyride.

The Obama Administration wants to give a $15,000 tax credit to new home buyers. Those in default or foreclosure get to re-negotiate they mortgages, and/or Government aide. That’s a huge amount of money, individually or as a group. Yet because I am fiscally sound, because I made decisions that would provide me the ability to pay my obligations as I agreed to, I am effectively penalized.

The penalty is not just that I receive no benefit from the Government or via my mortgage. The money that has been spent, and will be spent in the near future, is money that will have to be repaid via taxes. That’s coming out of my pocket. Add to that the fact that since I have no adjustment, and I will have to be paying for what others are receiving for bad decisions I am effectively paying their mortgage and my own.

If I wanted to own another house, I would have bought one. But what I am getting is my home, and another place that I have never seen, cannot live in, and gain no benefit from. It’s almost as if the Government is saying

“You have a nice house. This family will be moving in with you. Oh, and you will pay them to do it. Thank you for being reliable and fiscally sound.”

But maybe it’s just me. Though I imagine that anyone that is renting would be even more upset as they don’t even have the benefit of a home, yet they are paying for someone else’s in spades.

So how do you feel about this?

Ethanol in America - a review of the current state of Ethanol

In looking at the question of ethanol, there is a bit of interesting data. There is intense passion on both sides of the issue. Both sides have strong reasons for and against the issue. And there are more than a few conjecture reasons out there as well. But what is the real final answer?

Well in just a cursory review you will find that ethanol is the production of fuel from plants. Essentially it’s a moonshine that is not consumable by humans. Looking just a bit deeper you will find that it’s also possible to make ethanol fuel from wood, cheese whey, and other parts of plants besides the most common source which is corn kernels.

Also, there is the fact that all ethanol is not used independent of gasoline but in combination with it. Ethanol is used as a blend with gasoline in ratios that vary from roughly 20% to 85% (denoted as E20 – E85). The reason for this will be explained below.

Each of the positives and negatives contain a bit of the opposing side when you honestly review ethanol.

There is the fact that ethanol use reduces ‘greenhouse’ gases, notably CO2 emissions. This is a positive of course, especially if you believe in global warming (which in itself is a questionable issue). But with the lower CO2 you can also receive higher nitrogen based emissions, depending the blend with gasoline used.

There is also an argument out there that states that ethanol creates more CO2 than it cuts. This is due to several factors. The first is that producing more corn (the main fuel source used currently) creates more problems for the environment via pesticides and diesel fuel. Another is that the creation of ethanol itself takes energy and that energy releases greenhouse gases. A recent study from University of California at Berkeley states that overall ethanol cuts CO2 by 13%. And a separate report possibly links ethanol to the ‘dead zone’ (an area that cannot support life) that is in the Gulf of Mexico, and is growing.

Another fact is that ethanol, regardless of blend or if used 100%, is less fuel efficient than gasoline. It takes more ethanol to go as far as with gasoline. Estimates range but roughly ethanol is 2/3 as effective as gasoline. Thus more needs to be used. Whether more use of ethanol blends gives off the same equivalent of greenhouse gases or not is not readily deciphered. It does have a direct effect on cost.

Cost comparisons have several components. The first is for corn. Higher ethanol consumption increases, as is currently happening, the price for corn. Second is the fact that ethanol costs more than regular gasoline. The actual cost varies on where you are in the U.S. but is invariably higher. Even if you were to be in the Mid-West, where ethanol blends are cheaper than gasoline, the cost per mile is higher.

“If you fill-up the Impala’s 17-gallon tank at a station in the Midwest, you’ll save $5.10 by using E85. So far, so good. However, you can’t drive as far on E85 and will have to refuel sooner than if you had purchased conventional gasoline. In fact, your cost per mile is higher using E85: 9.7 cents/mile vs. 8.4 cents/mile for regular gas.”

Costs on the West and East Coast are dramatically higher (far in excess of 200% more). But the actual effect on an annual basis equates to roughly a range of $200 - $600 more in fuel costs. For some that is not too expensive, for others it’s way too much to be feasible.

Another issue is the fact that ethanol is virtually unavailable anywhere outside of 2 states in the nation. Outside of Illinois and Minnesota there are almost no stations offering ethanol to the public. In 4 of the most populous states across the nation (New York, Texas, California, and Florida) there are only 2 stations selling ethanol to the public combined. Thus ethanol use is currently infeasible.

A positive that is not disputed is that ethanol is a reproducible fuel. Supplies can be replaced in less than a year. In addition, research is being made to use other sources of plants and waste material which can improve quality and amounts available.

But a negative that is not discussed is the tax credit that goes with ethanol.

“Ethanol is subsidized with a 51-cent federal tax credit. Increased consumption of blended gasoline leads to higher taxpayer funding for the ethanol industry.”

So is ethanol a good or bad thing?

It depends on your view. Currently the reality is that ethanol is ineffective on a national level, regardless of benefits or detractions. It’s just not available to a wide portion of the nation. But the future is a big unknown. Improved technology, new fuel sources, improved car engines, and environmental impacts of additional emissions all need to be evaluated. Widespread availability is also critical in the ultimate outcome, as are alternative fuels.

Looking forward there is one thing that we can be sure of. Ethanol, like all alternative fuels, must be taken seriously if we are to change our usage as a nation. We will never know the full positive, and negative, effects until we evaluate all the options before us.

One day oil will be gone. That is a fact. An alternative is needed. Giving our children a cleaner and greener world is a benefit that we can do. Whether or not global warming exists, that is something that we can provide them that will benefit their lives and I see no reason why we shouldn’t.