Actually I did not know that. I just assumed that evey liberal rag in Iowa was in cruz’s corner by default. That assumption is correct 99%, well 97% now, of the time.
Of course, supporting those subsidies and the Ethanol mandate is real conservative, considering the effects of the program. (Costs the taxpayer, hurts the people required to use it, and in most places, doesn't solve a problem because there wasn't one.)
The writer goes on to howl about ethanol having multiple uses, well, so does manure, but I don't want to put it in my fuel tank. If there are so many uses, the market will decide, the ethanol will be bought, and they don't need our tax money. In the meantime the Federal redistribution of wealth continues.
The writer also howls (in all caps) to eliminate oil subsidies. What oil subsidies?
Federal leases are leased, just like private leases, the Federal Government gets oil royalties (payments of a negotiated percentage of production--it's in the lease), just like private mineral owners do, and the Federal Government makes it considerably more difficult to drill on Federal Land because the permitting process is convoluted and goes through more federal agencies than any well drilled on private land. That's why more gas is flared at the wellhead on Federal Leases--the permitting process for feeder pipelines to get that gas to processing facilities is far more difficult to navigate than for a pipeline crossing privately leased rights of way. It costs more to drill on Federal Leases, but the Government gets paid, too. I don't see that as a 'subsidy'.
About that point, I quit reading. I noticed the comment about the Koch Brothers and others not sitting on their checkbooks, but changing the person they backed when Walker dropped out.
Does any of us behave differently if the candidate who was our first pick doesn't continue in the race? We find another person to back or we take our ball and go home.
The writer said Trump isn't beholden to any outside interests. Trump, however, is big enough to have 'inside' interests: namely Donald Trump.
Trump sold America down the river in Iowa. He not only said he backed the ethanol mandate but that he would have the EPA enforce the mandate to the extent required by law, which means the mandate is not going anywhere, the subsidies (reallocation of our tax money) will continue, but there is more--so will the EPA.
If I had to pick the one Federal agency, the destroyer of Coal, the bane of petroleum, the spiller of mine waste and polluter of rivers, the agency which has tried to give away a million acres of Wyoming, the one which should be cut back or abolished, the EPA would get my vote. Trump has already said he would continue the agency, and sold every driver in America down that river (10% lower fuel mileage) for ....Iowa.
Now, that concerns me. If the EPA, and E10(+) and those subsidies which affect virtually every driver and every taxpayer in the country are up for trade in the deal for Iowa, what will be in the deal for New York or California? Our RKBA? Maybe 'just' those ugly black rifles? Common core? Abortion on demand?
Someone who prides themselves in 'the art of the deal' to the extent that the 'deal' is more important than principle is cause for deep concern to me, and should be cause for concern for any Conservative.
We haven't even gone into the attempt to use eminent domain to ultimately benefit a developer over the property owner.