A good idea that fails does not exist. It is simply a bad idea.

Alarmed over the effects of rising food prices, Governor Rick Perry of Texas requested a partial waiver pertaining to ethanol mandates from the federal government. It is now becoming obvious to almost everyone that converting portions of the nations agricultural land over to fuel production has caused what some term a food crisis around the world.

The Texas governor said that such a waiver was “the best, quickest way” to ease rising food costs before lasting damage was done. The governor will get no argument from me on this point. His statement, however, should have been the one that President Bush gave several hours earlier in the Rose Garden instead of the one glorifying the $600 rebate checks from the US Treasury.

The President had the opportunity to call for a national outcry against government intrusion into the energy markets. He could have apologized for the failures of government manipulation and lead the charge to eliminate bureaucratic intervention in the production and consumption of energy, but he did not, and neither did the major candidates for President.

Even though I agree with the call for suspension of ethanol mandates, the Texas governor stopped well short of what needed to be done. Why only call for a partial waiver. In a twist to the saying about a good idea, one moment of a bad idea is a moment too much. On top of ethanols affect on food prices, it has also been well documented about the deficiencies of ethanols true energy savings and environmental friendliness. The whole idea of burning your food supply was bad from the beginning.

So why ask for a partial waiver? Governor Perry should have demanded an immediate full stop to the madness. Instead he softens his critique of the federal legislation by adding that he appreciated the good intentions behind the program.

The reality of life is not found in intentions, but consequences. Good intentions combined with a bad idea always results in a bad outcome. This is what politicians call an unintended consequence.

The Texas governor and all governors around the country now have an opportunity to reestablish the rights of their citizens. No where does the US Constitution address the governments role in energy or for that matter most of the current programs directed by the federal bureaucracy. Under the tenets of the Tenth Amendment, Governor Perry does not need permission from Washington D.C. to opt out of ethanol mandates. Similar to Utahs experience with No Child Left Behind, Texas and any other state can simply tell the federal government to take a hike.

Now is the time for governors around the country to show whether they represent the interests of citizens within their state or the agents of the federal government. Who is to go hungry, the one who toils or the one who takes?

Half Bad Idea is Still Bad

A couple of years after our son was born, doctors discovered that one of his kidneys had very little function. Plagued by several years of high temperature illnesses related to problems with the urinary tract, an operation was performed to relieve the stress caused by the defective organ.

Annual check-ups and x-rays became the normal procedure for many years in order to evaluate the functioning of the two kidneys. About the time our son became a teenager, the urologist suggested that the less effective kidney be removed, and thus preventing any possible problems later in life. My wife and I decided that such a drastic remedy needed a second opinion, and with medical folders in tote, we headed to the Mayo Clinic.

The specialist we saw at this world famous clinic had no debate as to the function of the bad kidney. He then continued to relay his feelings about removing body parts, which should only be done as a last resort. Though the deficient kidney was only about 20% functional, this doctor reasoned that in case of a traumatic injury to the good kidney, then the little function of the other kidney could very well save our sons life. After hearing his logic, we took no time in deciding that the kidney would stay.

The current state of food prices and possible shortages due to ethanol production certainly is a cause for concern. But the wheat yields from Australia this year may be a harbinger of an agricultural Armageddon. A big reason for the lower than normal wheat output from down under was due to weather. The growing season started off in the southern hemisphere cool and wet, similar to what the farmers in the plains are experiencing now. The less than ideal weather for planting was then followed by a drought. The toll on the harvest is now partially to blame for the dislocation in the world wheat markets.

The domestic push for biofuel production has converted approximately 25% of the agricultural landscape to the production of ethanol. I have no hard statistics, but one could speculate that the balance of farmland used to produce commodities for human consumption would need to yield to its fullest potential in order to avoid any additional disruptions in the food supply. But what if the weather in this countrys farm belt mimics that of Australia? No doubt commodity prices would continue to leap higher along with the prospect of widespread famine around the world.

In the worst case scenario for weather, the 25% of farm land now involved in ethanol production could be the difference between life and death for some people.

Government policy has in effect removed the bad kidney.

Responding to a question concerning rising commodity prices and food shortages that are now encircling the world, the chairman of Caterpillar Corporation stated that the agricultural crisis was an unintended consequence of government policy toward biofuel production.

Whenever a legislative action results in a less than desirable outcome, we often hear the explanation that such a result was an unintended consequence. In other words, the policy carries no burden of blame because the outcome was unforeseen. It is as if the reason for the negative result was simply an act of God.

Though it is hard to believe that anyone would intentionally invoke a policy that would result in people starving, the consequences, however, of using farmland to produce fuel is far from a chance outcome. The realm of the human condition is governed by specific natural laws. Gravity for instance not only keeps us from falling off the earth, but it provides the boundaries from which a rocket operates. Ignoring the laws of gravity would result in a cataclysmic disaster.

Another illustration would be of a person driving an automobile, without malice, and running stop signs at a busy intersection. The driver has no intention of causing harm, but the outcome of ignoring this particular traffic law will almost certainly result in property damage and injury to other drivers. To say the actions of the offending driver resulted in unintended consequences is bordering on the absurd.

The so-called unintended consequences of government action are no different than our driver ignoring the stop sign. The negative outcomes are a result of breaking the natural law. In the case of biofuel production, the most basic tenet of economic law was ignored, the scarcity of resources.

The fact remains that only a set amount of land exists in the world. Taking into account climate and topography, only a limited amount of the earths surface has the necessary composition for crop production. Planting, therefore, is a zero-sum game whereby the increased production of one plant means less production of another. Using fertile fields for corn based ethanol results in a decrease yield for other crops including corn for human and animal consumption.

People have come to believe that almost anything is possible through the collective action of government. But government can no more circumvent the laws of economics than it can the laws of gravity, and in attempting to do so, the result will be a predictable disaster.