Gov. Pawlenty’s slash yesterday in the ethanol subsidy program greatly disappointed local representatives. Pawlenty did so when he made $356 million in cuts for the current year.

Though Pawlenty reduced the cut from $27 million in his original proposal to $20 million, the number is exceeding by far the House final proposal of $5.4 million and Senate $7.2 million.

“The best thing for not only us here in Freeborn and Mower County but also the state overall would have been to have the House and Senate reach an agreement,” Rep. Dan Dorman, R-Albert Lea.

Dorman pointed out that House proposal was based on cutting four cents out of a 20-cent subsidy, and the reduction would be reimbursed to the producers in the subsequent fiscal years.

He thinks the proposal was reasonable, and emphasized the program is not about just subsidizing the plants but also stimulating rural economy.

“No one is saying, ‘Leave us alone. This (subsidy program) is a ten-year commitment. We are accepting nothing but that,'” Dorman said. “We are saying, ‘Hey it’s got to change. This is what our proposal is, reducing the amount now and shift it out to later.’ I haven’t heard of one farmer, one member of co-op, come up and say absolutely no change….They understand what’s going on in the state. But, they don’t understand the total elimination of the program, neither do I.”

During the compromising efforts with the House, the Senate inflated the cut from $2.3 million, which targeted a plant in St. Paul alone, to $7.2 million.

Sen. Dan Sparks, D-Austin, said in the negotiation process the Senate had to come up with the amount, but emphasized that the number was still much lower than the governor’s unallotment.

“We tried everything we could. I understand how this ethanol industry is not only in my own district but in the entire state,” Sparks said. “I think it’s unfortunate that the state made the promise to get these plants up and running, and now they’re going to pull the subsidy out from underneath them.”

“I agree (with Gov. Pawlenty) that we’ve got to do something. But, we want to make sure we are not moving so quickly. We want to make sure the people in the State of Minnesota have a chance to absorb and realize what these cuts mean when we are starting them,” he said.