Of course nothing is ever 100% guaranteed however Cruz has been consistent in his statements regarding ethanol. He said much the same last year in Iowa and had introduced legislation to phase it out within 5 years.
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/214430-ethanol-is-explosive-for-cruz-and-paul
video:
http://whotv.com/2014/03/19/ethanol-standard-sen-cruz-against-mandate/
When one is comparing candidates consistency and truthfulness goes a long way to ensure confidence in this voter.
There is no denying that Walker has done very well in WI as a governor. It pays to remember that he had little dissention within his own ranks. It won’t be so easy in DC. One has to ask themselves how Ted Cruz would have done as a governor of a state with the same circumstances. Would he have been just as successful? Knowing what I know about him and his past record I believe that he would have.
One or two inconsistent statements isn’t earth shattering but when it becomes a pattern you have to think about that person a bit and wonder what they really believe in.
Thank you for your input.
>>(Senator Cruz) had introduced legislation to phase it out within 5 years.<<
And Senator Cruz in his speech in Iowa could have put the emphasis on the need to gradually phase out a subsidy that many had come to rely upon, but he didn’t.
Walker effectively did, however, since he still ended up saying the ethanol subsidy had to end eventually.
We’ll see, I guess, which strategy played the best in Iowa, but both were strategies as to how to address the issue politically, and both want the same end game.
>>One has to ask themselves how Ted Cruz would have done as a governor of a state with the same circumstances. Would he have been just as successful? Knowing what I know about him and his past record I believe that he would have.<<
That’s possible, but I do think it’s highly unlikely that any other politician in the country would have even attempted Act 10, much less actually got it passed. Frankly, I think it was Walker’s reaction to having to deal with government unions, and particularly the teachers union, in Milwaukee when he was County Executive.
The reason I say this is because Act 10 really did cut teachers’ take home pay, something I don’t think any other politician would have dared to attempt. But it was about the only way to make the numbers work if he was going to simultaneously work out a balanced budget. In the end, I think teachers are going to be professionally better off, but those pay cuts are the very reason the state remains so divided today, in my opinion. Nearly every family in the state had someone in the extended family (grandparents, parents, children) who took a pay cut under Act 10.
Or, for the several large school districts that quickly signed contracts prior to Act 10’s passage, they saw serious job losses due to the cut in state funding in the bill, a cut that they would have been able to compensate for if they hadn’t rushed into new contracts. (I’m actually not sure if teachers in those districts also saw a pay cut immediately, or if that happened two years later, but eventually they, too, had to pay the employee share of retirement payments.)