Posted on 01/06/2016 9:00:32 PM PST by Isara
Spirit Lake, IA – Today, the Cruz campaign responded to the false claims from the ethanol lobby that presidential candidate Ted Cruz has shifted his position on the Renewable Fuel Standard mandate:
Cruz has consistently supported a five-year phase out of the Renewable Fuel Standard. Cruz first introduced the five-year phase out in 2014.
Cruz publicly called for the phase out at the Iowa Ag summit last March: "But Cruz, who has called for phasing out the RFS program over five years, said Americans are fed up with “career politicians” who pander to voters, especially in places like Iowa, with its outsized role in the presidential nominating process."
Cruz reiterated this strategy in an interview with RFD-TV last September: "And so I've introduced legislation to phase out the mandate, not to drop it out immediately, but phase it out over five years, in part to recognize, as you pointed, the investment-back expectations and to give some time in terms of changing the rules."
Further, Cruz has always said government shouldn’t pick winners or losers. Which means government shouldn’t be handing out subsides or creating mandates to or for favored industries, but they also shouldn’t create barriers that prevent industries from having access to and expanding their markets.
To that end, he would instruct the Justice Department to vigorously enforce antitrust laws and he would eliminate the EPA's regulations that impose a hard wall against the general sale of mid-level ethanol blends, such as E25 (25% ethanol, 75% gasoline). This opens up entire new markets for ethanol. Indeed, his argument is that ethanol manufacturers would more likely be better off without government interference than with the mandates and regulations. Far from a “shift,” this approach is consistent with Cruz’s free market principles that encourage innovation and competition.
###
So why would an article come out saying he had backtracked on his original statement that he wants to get rid of the subsidy?
Thanks for posting. Unfortunately, that will not stop some from the hate speech. I’m about to quit sending my monthly donations and sit out for a while, as I am beginning to see that there are some who are already coming to the hateful point that if their guy doesn’t win, they will not vote for anybody else. I cannot take this any more. It is stealing my Christian joy and making it hard to sleep at night. Maybe it’s best I read here as little as possible.
Because everybody is gunning for him and are willing to twist anything he says...or doesn’t say, for that matter.
We will grow spiritually from this. Hatred cannot touch us.
Eliminate the following Agencies, Bureaus, Commissions, and programs:
1. Appalachian Regional Commission
2. Climate Ready Water Utilities Initiative
3. Climate Research Funding for the Office of Research and Development
4. Climate Resilience Evaluation Awareness Tool
5. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
6. Corporation for Public Broadcasting (privatize)
7. Corporation for Travel Promotion
8. Global Methane Initiative
9. Green Infrastructure Program
10. Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program
11. Legal Services Corporation
12. National Endowment for the Arts
13. National Endowment for the Humanities
14. New Starts Transit Program
15. Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund
16. Presidential Election Campaign Fund
17. Regulation of CO2 Emissions from Power Plants and all Sources
18. Regulation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Vehicles
19. Renewable Fuel Standard Federal Mandates
20. Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation
21. Sugar Subsidies
22. Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery
23. UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
24. UN Population Fund
25. USDA Catfish Inspection Program
What's funny is that you are tweaked because Cruz is going to eliminate the RFS over 5 years, but you seem to be just fine the with fact that Trump supports the RFS and has no plans to eliminate it at all. Just goes to show that your outrage is just an act, just a way to try to gin up opposition to Cruz.
The "article" was a hit piece from the ethanol lobby, trying to turn Cruz supporters against him by portraying him as a "flip-flopper".
Why 5 years? Sounds like a plan to keep it going through an electoral term and make sure it's in place and not an issue for a re-election campaign.
Not buying what he's selling.
Nobody cares that you are not "buying" it. You keep posting this same drivel, even though it has been explained to you repeatedly. Your only goal is to tear down Cruz to protect Trump. You said on another thread that Trump would end all of those programs right away, even though Trump has never even proposed ending most of them, and has specifically endorsed the RFS. So you are all about Trump -not about smaller government, ending mandates and subsidies, constitutional government - just Trump and whatever snakeoil he is selling you today.
Cruz clearly states why 5 years. If you don’t read the article don’t come here and ask stupid questions.
He has always favored a phase out. Now he is endorsing a phase out.
Some people forget one of the things we hated about Clinton and about Obama. They write EOs like there is no tomorrow. DO we want our side to do the same? Ruling by dictator-style is supposedly what we are against. It will take time to get things done. Remember that Reagan tried to eliminate the Dept. of ED. We know that did not succeed. Let’s not be hypocrites. If we don’t like the other side ruling by their pen and phone, then we should not expect our side to do the same. What’s wrong is wrong. PERIOD! We have a Constitution. I’d like for once to live under it instead of the pen of a tyrant/dictator...regardless of how benevolent. The next guy will just come and do the same, only worse.
If you just jack it all out at once, it would be economically disruptive. A phase out gives farmers time to adjust, and it’s a smoother transition for them and for teh economy.
At least Cruz is proposing to get rid of it — perhaps not fast enough for you and me. Trump and pretty mucah ALL the otehr Republicans support the ethanol mandate and have no intention of getting rid of it at all.
So tell me, which do you prefer?
a) A 5-year phase out, or
b) Leaving it in place permanently?
Cruz has said that on day one he will get rid of all of obama’s unconstitutional and/or illegal executive orders. The ethanol mandate, voted and passed by Congress, isn’t one of them. Nor are probably most of the other agencies on his wish list to get rid of.
Obama’s illegal amnesty, the Iran deal, things obama added to obamacare and other EO’s will be on the chopping block.
The consumer financial protection bureau sounds like something that should be kept. What is it and why should we get rid of it?
A quick search came up with the above article. What the article has a problem with is the privacy issue. I guess this federal bureau can access all of your records from the banks. Even individual checks and who you wrote them to. Who knows. Maybe they are also a budget drain.
bttt
Ted must be sweating up a storm from all this backpedaling. Trying to play both sides is not easy work. Just ask Romney or Kerry.
As far as ethanol, reasonable people can argue about costs vs strategic benefits. Just pick a side.
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.