Posted on 01/17/2016 7:07:15 PM PST by conservativejoy
For more than 30 years, Iowa's obsession with its ethanol fuel industry has played an outsize role in its presidential caucuses. The winner of every caucus in both parties during that period has strongly backed federal subsidies or mandates for the corn-grown fuel. That winning streak could end this year if Senator Ted Cruz takes Iowa. Polls currently show him with a narrow lead.
In 2008, Fred Thompson told me he didn't see merit in subsidizing one fuel over another, but in Iowa's GOP caucus that year "opposing ethanol was like pushing against a mountain."
Hillary Clinton voted against ethanol a total of 17 times in the U.S. Senate, saying she found it "impossible to understand why any pro-consumer, pro-health, pro-environment, anti-government member" could vote for ethanol mandates. In 2007, as she announced for president, she took a sharp turn on the Road to Des Moines and embraced ethanol. This year, she calls ethanol "a success for Iowa and much of rural America." But on the Republican side, two candidates have broken ranks. Senator Rand Paul, true to his libertarian principles, supports an immediate phase-out of subsidies.
And Cruz addressed the Iowa Agriculture Summit, run by ethanol and wind-subsidy interests, in March 2015.
His message: The federal mandate on ethanol, which has cost consumers at least $10 billion since 2007, had to end. In front of a crowd of pro-ethanol farmers and moneymen, Cruz said: "I don't think Washington should be picking winners and losers. I have every bit of faith that businesses can continue to compete, can continue to do well without having to go on bended knee to Washington asking for subsidies, asking for special favors. I think that's how we got in this problem to begin with."
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
Good. The ethanol mandate boosts food prices unnecessarily.
There is only one candidate in the race on the Republican side that is not pulling favors in exchange for campaign contributions.
One thing which I remember from when I first moved to Western Kansas.
Not everyone worshiped farmers.
The oil shortage is OVER.
You mean the liberal Democrat conman Trump?
Your article is outdated.
Here is the new Cruz position:
Cruz now says it’s “utter nonsense” to assert that he opposes ethanol. In a Des Moines Register op-ed on Wednesday, he said “I’m fighting for farmers against Washington,” explaining that, in his view, eliminating the federal rule would free refiners to put more ethanol into gasoline.
Good for Cruz! Subsidies should only last a few years, if ever.
Its an easy way to prove his conservative bona fides.
Most Iowans could not care less, and even the farmers know that there’s a much bigger world out there than growing corn for crony-capitalists like ADM. Hell, if properly rotated, you would only grow corn once every 3 years on the same piece of land anyway.
I mean Trump.
Stop all farm subsidies. No so-called conservative can be for this level of gubmint interference. If it is okay for the gubmint to influence food supply, why not in other areas?
It is either no gubmint control or ALL gubmint control. Choose wisely.
I just add more qualifiers to the liberal Democrat conman’s name.
And it has cost a lot more than $10 billion since 2007. It costs closer to $8 billion per year.
This is the same position he’s held since 2014 when he sponsored legislation to phase out the mandates over % years. He hasn’t changed. He says the ethanol industry can thrive without the mandates and regulations that go with them.
Trump supports the ethanol mandate, so he is taking an unprincipled stand for potential votes. Is that really any different than taking money?
>> Cruz now says it’s “utter nonsense†to assert that he opposes ethanol.
He NEVER literally “opposed ethanol”. (How could one “oppose ethanol” anyway? Ethanol is a chemical. It just *is*.)
Ted Cruz opposes the ethanol MANDATE — the federal laws that FORCE gasoline to contain it (and therefore effectively subsidize its production).
In other words, Ted Cruz holds the conservative, free market position.
So Cruz opposed the ethanol subsidy before he decided to support it? How charmingly Kerry-esque of him.
“Good. The ethanol mandate boosts food prices unnecessarily.”
It’s one of the things that brings the illegals north into the US.
They can’t afford their food staple, corn, and there was also shortages.
One or two will come here to work and send money home so their families can buy corn.
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.