Posted on 01/31/2016 11:19:49 AM PST by justlittleoleme
Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz explains why he opposes farm subsidies as well as biofuel mandates.
“Cruz put all his political eggs in the IA basket.
How brave of him to sacrifice them all.”
It doesn’t appear Cruz believes Iowa is his only basket.
Approximately 2 weeks ago, Hannity asked him if Iowa was a must-win for him. Cruz [paraphrasing] said “absolutely not, and neither is NH.”
We’ll know soon enough.
Regarding the video, G-d bless the gentleman who expressed concern to Cruz about the farm subsidies. But with all due repect mom & pop, if the gentlemans parents had made sure that their now adult farmer son had been taught about the federal governments constitutionally limited powers, then he would know that the Supreme Court had clarified the following about Congresss limited power to appropriate taxes.
Not only have previous generations state sovereignty-respecting justices clarified that Congress is prohibited from appropriating taxes in the name of state power issues, but the Court has also singled out agricultural production as a state power issue. This is evidenced by the following excerpts from Supreme Court case opinions.
”Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” - Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited. None to regulate agricultural production is given, and therefore legislation by Congress for that purpose is forbidden [emphasis added].” - United States v. Butler, 1936.
And this get me to the problem that I have with Harvard Law School-indoctrinated Cruz. Regardless that his opinion on farm subsidies is constitutionally based, who cares about opinions when the Constitution has already decided this issue; no federal government subsidies for any reason unless the states amend the Constitution to grant the feds the specific powers to tax and spend for such purposes.
So why does Cruz volunteer his opinion about federal subsidies in general without pointing out constitutional problems with subsidies?
And with great reservation, I will also mention the following. Given that Ohio citizens are faith-based people, the cost of not knowing the federal governments constitutionally limited powers to tax and spend means that they are cluelessly stealing revenues from other states with respect to wanting unconstitutional federal farm subsidies.
Also, I wonder if Ohio farmers would actually be better financially off if they were to work with state lawmakers to put a stop to corrupt Congress stealing their states revenues and their personal income though unconstitutional taxes even if they lost their farm subsidies.
Also, with the exception that the states might not want to do it, there is nothing stopping the states from amending the Constitution to give the feds the specific power to tax and spend for INTRAstate agricultural purposes.
I disagree that Cruz has more riding on Iowa than Trump.
I know the Trump supporters here have spent tons of time innoculating against a Trump loss (no big deal) vs a Cruz loss (game ender).
It’s just not true.
Iowa from a delegate count perspective means little. It’s important for how it sets the table going forward.
A Cruz loss will be very bad but certainly not terminal for Cruz. The field will clear before the delegate count gets going in earnest and it will be a 3 man, or possibly, a 2 man race. Cruz’ whole strategy has been to get to a two man race. If Rubio remains viable, he’ll run interference for Trump at that point. That wasn’t the original intent of Rubio’s campaign, but that’s where he is. If he were smart, Rubio would turn the art of a deal with Trump and turn his position into a VP nomination.
For Trump, a loss tomorrow is equally as bad, but still not terminal. Trump’s whole campaign is based on being a winner. See, winners aren’t losers. Unless they are. A Trump loss pokes a decent if not fatal hole in his aura of effective deal-making invincibility. If Trump isn’t invincible, then he’s very beatable. If he loses Iowa, he’s not invincible. It goes to the heart of his argument.
Iowa is supremely important for both candidates.
Listen to the "free market" arguments from the oil producer crowd sometime and notice that their main objective is to avoid the very regulated, not free, market within the US even though they wrap their arguments in the cloak of their love for pure Conservative free market principles.
IMHO, Ted's against Ethanol in IA because before Trump got in the mix when Ted was planning his campaign he was quite willing to be second if not third in IA then blame that loss on his "brave and principled Conservative stand" against subsidies.
Now that NH and SC don't look so good, Ted is between a rock and a hard place with IA much more important to him and his stand on Ethanol already well known.
I believe his "solution" being a five year phase out shows he's always been willing to play ball with that issue so there's a reduced percentage mandated or or even the whole thing left untouched in return for something else (being allowed to export oil is something now off the table but something producers saw as a quid pro quo for not fighting Ethonol too hard). Otherwise, why have a five year "solution" when that neatly exceeds both his current term in the Senate and a first term as President were he to win leaving him without that symbolic victory ?.
Beating the, "help me to finish what we started" drum is a big thing in reelection campaigns is my guess as to why five years.
JMHo, and everyone has one ;-)
Ethanol sucks. Subsidies suck. Subsidies to eat up the o-rings and fuel lines on my chainsaw, lawnmower and other small engines really suck. As does the damage to my valves and valve seats on my older Jeeps.
If after the “shaming” ad, Cruz goes all negative on Rubio, who most people like, isn’t it just reinforcing his “nasty” image?
Ethanol subsidies are not only immoral (making food into fuel) but unnecessary due to the cheap price of oil. The subsidies are the epidemy for what is wrong with our government, and I believe that how each candidate responds to that question says a lot about how they would govern as POTUS.
Donad Trump’s support of Ethanol subsidies are a hot topic, listen to these episodes to find out what that danger is and what it does to your car!
.
Interviews include Alex Epstein, Author of the Moral Case for Fossil Fuels and Jim Amos, Chairman of Proctor & Gamble’s Franchising Division
https://soundcloud.com/jacki-daily/moral-case-for-fossil-fuels-restricting-them-means-loss-of-human-life-ethanol-mandate-kills-jobs
.
Jacki speaks with Kathleen Hartnett White of the Texas Public Policy Foundation about her new book, Fueling Freedom, laying out the economic and ethical case for fossil fuels. She also weighs in on the President’s job-killing “Clean Power Plan.” Jacki also talks with Jim Amos, Chairman of Proctor & Gamble’s Franchising Division, about why the International Franchise Association opposes the Renewable Fuel Standard.
.
https://soundcloud.com/jacki-daily/why-wendys-opposes-ethanol-law-amospg-franchising-fossil-fuels-lift-billions-from-poverty-white
.
Jacki Daily speaks with Pam Villarreal of the National Center for Policy Analysis about other options besides college. She also talks with the Car Coach, Lauren Fix(www.laurenfix.com)about how bad E15 ethanol is for your cars. She is also joined by the CEO of Nouveau Inc, Brigham McCown, to discuss federal transportation safety and energy infrastructure policy.
.
Talk RadioThe Blaze Radio NetworkEnergyJacki DailyEthanolGasCar CoachLauren FixPam VillarrealBrigham McCownEnergy InfrastructureCollegeEnergy JobsFossil Fuels
.
https://soundcloud.com/jacki-daily/fracking-lifts-hs-drop-out-rate-real-oil-safety-record-pipelines-rail-ethanol15-kills-warranties
.
Cruz is right on this one, and I could vote for either Trump or Cruz. They have their respective strengths and weaknesses, but both are a far sight better than any RINOs or Dem. We need to start pointing our guns at the real enemies.
Why do good politicians oppose farm subsidies? Because farm welfare is theft to the American Tax payer...idiot!?!
The USA can become energy independent any time it wants to. But what will it cost relative to buying crude oil from the Muslim middle east?
Why should we produce alternative energy in the USA that costs the equivalent of $100 per barrel of crude, when we can buy crude oil for a lot less?
The true test of the economic value of alternate energy is remove the subsidy and then see if any is produced.
The issue is national security. A self sufficient USA needs X gallons of liquid fuel per year produced within our borders by us. Until we have that we are vulnerable to the hatred of nations that have us over a “barrel”.
There is no problem with ethanol that cannot be solved and most already are.
Then why do we want the US to produce it’s own weapons and be able to produce all we can conceivably need?
The same with rare earth metals by the way. We Should be producing our own.
Regarding your national security argument. If we converted all the farm land in the USA to produce only corn to only be used as an ethanol feedstock, not enough would be produced to make the USA energy independent.
And after we had converted all of our USA farm land to produce corn, we then would have to buy all of our other farm products from foreign countries at high prices because the USA had stopped producing wheat, oats, cattle, etc.
No we must be prudent about making high cost alternative fuels. Otherwise, we can bankrupt the country just to prove a point that we can be energy independent.
Sorry, but ethanol subsidies are one of the worst boondoggles out there.
I agree it's among the worst and the real reason it exists is because they can wrap it in "energy independence" and "clean energy" garb. This county directly subsidized many crops including corn for a long, long time.
In order to declare victory against such obvious direct subsidies, many of the same people yelling about Ethanol now got behind the Ethanol subsidy as a way to keep paying subsidies to corn farming without having to fight over open, direct subsidies for corn.
You can bet your bottom dollar that one of two things is on the agenda of those who are yelling about ethanol. Either 1) much more money from lobbyists for big oil that now finds itself with far more product than they ever expected to expected to have and would like 100% pure petroleum going in your tank again or, 2) some other boondogle that hides subsidies for both oil and corn in a new disguise.
If this country was really interested in energy independence we'd be promoting the use of diesel and coal instead of declaring war on both.
No problem except all the ones that have been mentioned on this thread. Cruz is right here.
12% plus or minus of our liquid fuel is ethanol. It is the preferred octane booster. Engines that can use ethanol can also use methanol. Methanol can be produced from coal our most plentiful form of energy AND cleanly. Every large quantity is important. We produce that 12% and have too much food if the American waistline is any indication.
Besides no one figures into their cost formulas for ethanol that once the alcohol is produced the grain doesn’t disappear. It is perfectly viable feed for cattle with everything remaining except the sugar. Protein and other nutrients are just fine.
There is no good argument against ethanol. National security and farmers are right. Doctrinaire textbook conservatives haven’t even begun to factor in the blood and treasure we have spent on the middle east.
Thank God for the rural, religious American farmer
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.