Posted on 03/08/2015 6:45:11 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
It is now conventional wisdom that Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker is a first-tier candidate, if not the frontrunner, for the Republican presidential nomination in 2016. It is just as much a given that Senator Ted Cruz is not regarded as likely to win the nomination. The reasons why this is so were on display yesterday at the Iowa Ag Summit, a cattle call event that brought leading politicians from both parties to Des Moines to hawk their wares to farm-state voters. As in the past, the agriculture industry and political observers were interested to see which of the potential candidates would show their obeisance to corn farmers by supporting ethanol subsidies and, in particular, the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) that mandates its use in gasoline. Though Walker has opposed the RFS in the past, as Politico noted, this year he acted like the Iowa frontrunner the polls tell us he is and backed it. By contrast, Cruz launched a frontal attack on it. It’s not clear that such a stand is as sure a guarantee of political death as it has been in the past. But these two stands as well as Jeb Bush’s more equivocal approach provide us with a chance to see how the crucible of principle works these days in Iowa as the rest of the country pays close attention.
Given that recent history tells us that winning Iowa requires a candidate to support the ethanol boondoggle that helps support corn farmers, it’s hard to quarrel with Walker’s decision. Walker needs to win Iowa and he feels he can’t afford to antagonize the farmers and the Ag industry groups that will pour millions into the GOP caucus fight to support candidates that back ethanol and oppose those who don’t. Walker is a man who has taken chances in his political life, taking on the unions and left-wing special interests in Wisconsin and winning fights that made him a conservative folk hero. But he sees no great benefit to playing the same game with Iowa farmers. He played it safe at the Ag Summit.
By contrast, Cruz knows that if he is to assume leadership of the Tea Party wing of the Republican Party, it won’t be by playing it safe. Instead, he chose to take on the ethanol/corn interests head on saying he was there to “tell them the truth.” There was no hedging his bets or resort to nuance. He said he’s against corporate welfare and the government picking winners and losers. Ethanol and the RFS are exactly that and he opposes them.
Does that doom him in Iowa? Maybe. But, then again, maybe not. Corn may be king in Iowa but not everyone who votes in the GOP caucus is looking to the federal government for a handout or hoping that government policies will keep pushing up the value of their land. Moreover, there is a case to be made that what voters want is principle rather than pandering. With many conservatives who talk a good game about small government nevertheless falling over themselves to make an exception for ethanol in order to win in Iowa, Cruz may be able to stand out as the candidate who isn’t willing to sell out.
It also presents an interesting contrast to Bush’s belief that he, too, won’t pander in order to win the nomination. Yesterday in Iowa, the former Florida governor reiterated his support for a path to citizenship for illegal aliens as well as his continued backing for the Common Core education standards. That’s consistent with his theory that seems to hold that in order to win in November 2016, he’s going to have to stand up to his party’s base on issues where he disagrees with it. But he wasn’t willing to extend that principle to ethanol. On that issue, he was all nuance yesterday, floating ideas about eventually phasing out the RFS “somewhere in the future.”
I believe it’s a mistake to think that any candidate can run against his party’s base and win its nomination, though Bush has an opportunity to prove me wrong. But I think it’s hard to take that sort of stance seriously when the same candidate is unwilling to be just as tough on a local GOP constituency whose desires for subsidies runs afoul of the party’s basic principles about the role government in the economy.
Walker appears to have made a powerful impression on the audience in Des Moines yesterday, taking shots at Jeb Bush for having “inherited fame and fortune” and signaling farmers that he will do their bidding. That may ensure that he will hold onto his current lead and follow in the footsteps of past ethanol appeasers like Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum, and Mitt Romney and do well in the first-in-the-nation caucus.
It’s a long, hard slog to next winter but if Walker is to be knocked off, I doubt that Bush’s odd combination of challenging the party core on hot-button issues while folding on ethanol will do the trick. Cruz may still be a long shot but I think he’s right in thinking that the only way for him to prevail is to slay all the sacred cows and not just those in states other than Iowa. As much as his well-earned image as an uncompromising zealot may make him an unlikely nominee, sticking to his guns on even this Iowa litmus test will make an interesting experiment in modern politics. Though Cruz is widely accused of debasing our political culture with his take-no-prisoners style, he may actually be enhancing it by giving us an example of what it means to stand on principle. And he may do himself no harm in the process.
You’re buying the liberal mainstream media slander of Scott Walker.Walker has been very impressive as Governor . LOOK up his record there where’s hes passed several conservative policies
I’m saying walker has passed conservative laws in a liberal state and defeated the media and democrats there, several times. Those are successful conservative actions. They prove who he is,a conservative . And they prove that he is very effective and can get things done . what the news media says he said or didn’t say mean NOTHING as actions mean everything, words mean nothing. Take Rubio he says a lot of things that sound good but I don’t trust him and what he’s done is try to pass a horrible amnesty bill. Rubio is as fake as 3 dollar bill imo. We have to stop bashing Walker or Cruz because that’s what the liberal news media want, divide and conquer. we can bash Jeb Bush, Huckabee and Rubio because they are liberals/socialists jerks and con men imo .
Walker has been very impressive as Governor . LOOK up his reocord there. put down the liberal news media spin and buzz
Walker also has a problem with the Homosexual lobby that we've yet to hear about
from him. He's gone offline on that topic. Unless I missed something.
It's important to know the true person and we should all conjure up due diligence.
I refuse to fall prey to the lessons of the past.
Cruz does have more integrity and he looks eager to do battle. Walker has already flipped on a few things. I fear another establishment politician with Walker.
Walker doesn't play it safe, he plays it smart
Walker is dismantling the Democrat money and muscle machine in WI [unions-university] - I expect that is what he will do if he's elected president.
Watch what a candidate does, not only what he says.
Haven't we heard farmers argue against all the EPA rules, regulations and paper work that was taking all their time [= money]?
Here is ONE example of how Walker loosens their grip.
March 7, 2015 - Farm Bureau, others question Scott Walker's proposed farm research cuts
"Researchers and supporters of a program that helps farmers run cleaner and more efficient operations say they were “stunned” and “blindsided” by Gov. Scott Walker’s proposal to cut a third of the project’s funding.
Discovery Farms, a UW-Extension program that dates to 2001, applies science from a “plows-on” level, evaluates and monitors efforts by state farmers to control runoff, calibrate fertilizer use and employ techniques to conserve land and water.
It has a $750,000 budget, of which $248,000 would be cut in the governor’s proposed state budget.
UW-Extension officials noted the loss affects longstanding projects and the ability of the small program to leverage crucial additional grants and funds.
“We would have a 1.2-employee reduction of staff and we would pull back some of our sampling efforts, water quality analysis and a project (set) for Rock County,” said Amber Radatz, project co-director.
The project’s programs include monitoring 20 state farms and educating thousands of farmers on conservation strategies.
“This was a big surprise to our agency partners as well as our partners in farm groups and in UW-Extension,” she said. “We never had an inkling.”
The $248,000 comes from a surcharge on farm chemical sales that would be discontinued."....
Let the market decide.
...”Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker said he would continue the subsidies for now but phase them out once ethanol producers are assured access to markets. “I think eventually you can get to that,” he said. “But you can’t get to that unless you deal with market access.”...
“...Saturday’s forum also was an opportunity for likely contenders to display knowledge of rural issues and connect with Iowa’s farmers. Walker waxed nostalgic about growing up as the son of a Baptist preacher in the small Iowa town of Plainfield, where he said he learned that “farming isn’t just a business, it’s a way of life.”....
Walker said that he favored drawing down federal tax credits for wind power over time and opposed mandatory labeling of foods made from genetically modified crops. This is one of those where I believe it's served its purpose," Walker said of the credits. "I would support phasing that out over a period of time." Source
America needs a strong conservative who has the strategic “vision thing” - seeing what is wrong and a plan to correct it to get America back to a Constitutional republic.
That “vision thing” supersedes a Governor (Walker, Bush) who has been an administrator but lacks the commitment & courage to stop ALL forms of amnesty including its various brand names.
Cruz is that visionary much in the same vein as Reagan and not afraid to speak the truth. Walker & Bush, not so much...
Walker announced Friday that he will sign the bill at Badger Meter in Brown Deer.
Badger Meter’s CEO and Chairman Rich Meeusen this week said passing the bill will lead to between 30 and 50 new jobs at his factory. He spoke out after a coalition of more than 400 businesses joined together in opposition to the proposal.
The Assembly passed it Friday morning on a party line vote with all Republicans in favor and all Democrats against.
“What we`re gonna be seeing is a weakening of the power of labor over the next couple years and along with that the weakening of the power of the Democratic Party.
It`s almost like what we`re seeing (Monday) is the moment Wisconsin becomes a Republican state,” UW-Milwaukee Professor Mordecai Lee said....." Source
A big part of the rationale for mandating ethanol use in our gasoline blends was that it was a suitable replacement for the chemical additive MTBE. Just how harmful MTBE may or may not have been is subject for an entirely different debate, but it is nevertheless all water under the bridge. Ethanol was chosen as the replacement for MTBE, and it would not make much sense to eliminate it completely from our gasoline.
The real debate should be over how much ethanol is needed in gasoline to serve as a suitable replacement for MTBE. The original E10 formulation (or gasohol, as it used to be known) contained much more ethanol that was needed to prevent knocking in engines. Even a 5% blend (E5) is overkill. E5 was never a popular blend in the U.S., but in Europe it is the blend which is found in premium grades of gasoline (which contains other additives to give it octane numbers of 93 and higher).
Instead, in the U.S. we went the other way. If E10 was okay, then E15 must be better, right? Instead of answering that question, Congress rushed to try to standardize E15 as the the blend of record for the nation.
That caused all sorts of problems for small engine makers such as Briggs & Stratton. They invested heavily in the 1970s to make their engines safe for use with E10, and Congress comes along and pushes the standard up to E15. That was too much for most of these small engines and the companies which made them. Brands such as Clinton and Tecumseh either disappeared completely or were bought out by the Chinese. The only silver lining of the EPA’s assault on small engine makers is that the survivors have maned to make the small four-stroke engine incredibly light for the amount of power that it produces.
Reports of problems caused by E15 in lawn care equipment, outboard motors and small industrial engines by owners were overwhelming, and as a result of E85 and other factors, the small engine industry changed almost overnight. Now only Kohler and Briggs remain from the old days, and newer players such as Honda, Kawasaki and Ryobi are now on the list. The two-stroke small engine has virtually disappeared, with Lawn Boy switching to four strokes across its product line. A few two-stoke makers, such as Göbler-Hirth are still around, but their products are highly specialized (like Italy’s Vortex engines, which as used in go-karts).
Abolishing the ethanol mandate overnight, while an appealing idea for champions of limited government, would send shock waves throughout the system. Phasing it out, or at least down, appears to be the compromise which would cause the fewest problems for consumers and manufacturers. For the latter, the damage has already been done.
High blends of ethanol, such as E85 are ridiculous and wasteful. Proposed escalation of the mandate to blends of E30 or E35 has thankfully been met with significant resistance. Sorry, Al Franken. Now the idea of keeping it at E15 for the time being and scaling it back to E10 is gaining in popularity.
Again, E5 is a blend which would contain more than enough ethanol to do the job for which it was originally justified. Actually, E1 or E2 would be more than sufficient, but good luck getting it down that low. E5 would be a significant victory.
So any candidate who supports phasing out the mandate is doing more than just pandering, whether they realize it it or not. An incremental approach to lowering the mandate, as distasteful as it is to absolutists, would cause fewer problems for farmers, consumers, refiners and manufacturers in both the long and short runs.
- JP
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.