Posted on 01/07/2016 3:48:16 PM PST by Isara
It was broadly reported yesterday that Ted Cruz had "flipped" on the question of ethanol mandates. Pretty much immediately, Cruz's critics suggested a) that this shift in position must mean that he is worried about his position in Iowa, and b) that his "steadfast conservative" claim was being exposed as a charade. I was among those who took the claim that Cruz has shifted his position at face value.
The problem with that? It's not quite true. Cruz has changed his mind on ethanol in the past. But he did so in 2014, in which year he moved from supporting an immediate and full repeal of the ethanol mandate to supporting a gradual phase-out. As Tim Carney notes, his position has not changed since then:
Sen. Ted Cruz in 2013 co-sponsored the "Renewable Fuel Standard Repeal Act," which would immediately repeal the ethanol mandate.
In 2014, he introduced a broad energy bill that would wind down the mandate over five years, slashing the federally mandated volume of renewable fuels (including corn ethanol) by 20 percent every year for five years.
Last night in Cherokee, Iowa, Cruz said again that he believed in "a gradual phaseout" of the mandate over five years. The ethanol lobby group - America's Renewable Future - responded to this by declaring that Cruz had decided to "listen to Iowa farmers."
Or, put another way, America's Renewable Future claimed victory for a position that Cruz already held.
Supporters of Marco Rubio who hit Cruz for a lack of resolve should perhaps consider the glass house in which they are standing. Although imperfect, Cruz's position on ethanol subsidies is infinitely preferable to Marco Rubio's position on sugar subsidies. Not only has Rubio steadfastly refused to back a phase-out for sugar, he's gone as far as to defend the subsidy as an important part of America's national defense strategy. For my money, Cruz wins this round.
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.
###
I’m a Trump supporter, but I could care less what Cruz’s (or Trump’s) position in ethanol is. We have freakin’ terrorists coming into this country, and the last thing I’m going to be worked up about is Iowa farmers getting gubment goodies.
Yep, keep that corporate welfare rolling.
“Cruz has changed his mind on ethanol in the past. But he did so in 2014, in which year he moved from supporting an immediate and full repeal of the ethanol mandate to supporting a gradual phase-out”
A phase out that wont happen until 2022 from what I recall.
So what’s the difference? It kicks the can down the road, giving Iowa plenty of time to lobby an extension. As if Cruz will veto any budget bill just because of this?
Going from immediate to phased is just face-saving. A wink to Iowa so they didn’t reject him in 2016 outright, and allowing him to proclaim that he “stood up” to the ethanol lobby.
Meanwhile the Cruz Caucus Tour moves on!........the man and his supporters, crew, and all he and his campaign are about make me sooo-ooooo proud to support him as the next President of the Untied States of America!!!!
Interviewing in the Cruz Bus......
.
The change was necessary to get the bill passed moron!
without the change, the bill would have just died.
When the facts change it’s wise to revisit the issues....
That’s right...as said...when the facts change you adjust for the ultimate goal.....some people don’t get that....ever!
It is if that principle is survival. Yep, sure is.
Right this moment, I’m so unconcerned about “corporate welfare,” it’s not even relevant. The fact that you are suggests a lot about your understanding of the Republic.
I don’t trust Trump to keep us safe. I don’t trust Trump to represent us internationally without making a complete ass of himself and embarrassing the country.
50% of the people in the Quinnipiac poll said that they would be embarrassed to have Trump as President.
Trump is for Trump and this reality star side show is just that.
We’re fixing to find out how important that grassroots work really is. ;)
"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."
And I don’t trust your judgment at all on this.
We need to get rid of the ethanol in fuel requirement ASAP. I’m scared my car will get pulled over and will blow more than 0.08% and it have to go to jail. Then what will I do, walk? My car needs pure gasoline, it is a tea-totaller!
How many small engines have been ruined by alcohol in gasoline? The crap isn’t any good for cars, either. I guess you’re fine with that?
You don’t have to trust my judgment anymore than I have to trust yours.
That’s why we have elections.
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.