Republican Presidential Hopefuls Discuss Ethanol In Iowa

Cameron Aubernon
by Cameron Aubernon
republican presidential hopefuls discuss ethanol in iowa

A handful of Republican presidential hopefuls converged upon Iowa last weekend to discuss the pros and cons of ethanol.

Autoblog reports U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, former governors Mike Huckabee of Arkansas and Jeb Bush of Florida, and Govs. Chris Christie of New Jersey and Scott Walker of Wisconsin debated ethanol and the federal standards linked to them at the 2015 Iowa Ag Summit in Des Moines.

While most of the hopefuls supported keeping the standards as they are or increasing them, Cruz was the only one to reject the notion, comparing the program to “corporate welfare.” He added that private businesses could continue to successfully compete in the marketplace “without going on bended knee to the government.”

Cruz’s remarks follow a recommendation by the Environmental Protection Agency to reduce a proposed increase in corn-based ethanol use in gasoline, stating that the biofuel can only go so far when blended with petroleum-based fuels. Meanwhile, both sides of the aisle object to the reduction, citing the economic damage that would hit Iowa — the largest producer of said ethanol in the United States — if the reduction were to go forward.

Join the conversation
11 of 78 comments
  • Ruggles Ruggles on Mar 11, 2015

    RE: "Good candidates would be Paul Ryan for the Republican Party and Cory Booker for the Democratic Party. Both are a bit too young, and only Booker has executive experience, but they are both pragmatic and interested in creating policy that works." Good call on Cory Booker, although I wonder if he's ready. Of course, Obama wasn't ready until be defeated Hillary and the Republican Recession torpedoed McCain, along with Sarah Palin's mouth. I'd like to see Chris van Hollen run, although he has no national profile. Sometimes a lack of resume works, as seen with out current President. But that hasn't kept the RW from making up a volume of fabrications after he beat them badly. The Republicans are again over confident after the 2014 elections, as they were after 2010. They have turned a lot of people off with their vitriol and traitorous ways. As a lifetime Republican, until Obama, I've been appalled. They will have to throttle their RW base and go back to becoming the party of IKE before I could ever support them as a party. As it is, I'm an issue by issue type of guy, but I find it hard to support Republicans even in the rare instance when they are right on an issue.

    • TW5 TW5 on Mar 11, 2015

      Eisenhower's America has been dead for a long time. His great ambition was to convert military might into industry and public works. The military has been successfully dismantled, despite lots of misinformation to the contrary. Unfortunately, LBJ threw the funds into the furnace at the senior center and the homeless shelter. Such clever use of funds, which were provided by the lower working classes as FICA tax revenue, has dismantled American industry and entry-level employment. Lack of economic activity led to slumping revenues, which first spawned inflation before monetary easing. The Great Society convinced Republicans that Eisenhower's vision was naive and susceptible to perversion by Machiavellian authoritarians and closet leftists, who were public enemy #1 at the time. The era of Goldwater Republicanism dawned, and it eventually blossomed into the Reagan Revolution. Even now Pubs refuse to channel Eisenhower. They'd much rather redistribute wealth and create new entitlements via refundable tax credits, and they want the IRS to run it all.....funny considering how often they slam the IRS. They hate the IRS so much right now, they even shot down their own EITC expansion plans. Republicans will never go back to Eisenhower, and I don't think they should. The Romney-esque blue blood bureaucrats have more sophisticated policy now. Democrats need to claim the turf vacated by Eisenhower. If you watch House of Cards, you'll find that the writers of that show are trying to make it happen.

  • Ruggles Ruggles on Mar 11, 2015

    RE: "Ever wonder why OPEC doesn’t produce any more oil now that they did in 1930 when they had fewer members?" Maybe because OPEC didn't exist in 1930?" Sorry, that was a typo and should have read 1973. The question remains. "If you figure that one out you’ll understand why OPEC still controls price via their spigot." "The low cost producer has the advantage. Guess who that is." RE: "He who controls the Straights of Hormuz dictates cost of production for all the sandbox. Guess who that is?" Control of the straights has nothing to do with the fact that OPEC can crank up production if it wants to lower the price and drive competitors out of business or curtail production if the goal is to maintain a higher price. The frackers are at their mercy. In fact, the depend on OPEC adhering to its usual pattern to even have a business, but every now and then OPEC will allow a glut for their own self serving reasons. Why? Global population has doubled. Energy consumption almost tripled. OPEC membership expanded. Yet they still produce about as much now as they did in 1973.

    • See 4 previous
    • Pch101 Pch101 on Mar 12, 2015

      @Pch101 "Members have come and gone." Only three nations have cycled through OPEC membership: Ecuador, Gabon, and Indonesia. Not exactly the top producing members. "Again, it ain’t about market share." You can say it again if you want, but I've pointed out why declining market share has diminished OPEC's role as a price setter -- there's competition today that did not exist in 1973. "Perhaps you think OPEC is made up of nothing but camel herders and tent dwelling bickering tribesmen?" Thanks for the strawman, but I've provided you with specific examples of internal issues that have caused their production to decrease. You should learn about their history and current events, as your knowledge is lacking.

  • Ruggles Ruggles on Mar 11, 2015

    RE: "I realize that some Americans think that Community Organizer in Chicago is the best qualification a candidate can have. And that could be why we're in the mess we're in." Obama inherited the mess from the "more qualified" Republicans. I know that's a minor detail, but .................

    • Highdesertcat Highdesertcat on Mar 11, 2015

      "But this is what America wanted. This is what the majority voted for. So I’m cool with that as long as they don’t ask me to contribute to it or help pay for it. With only 65.3% labor participation, my guess would be that 34.7% of America’s labor force is letting the working 65.3% pick up the tab for them as well." Be it Democrat or Republican governance, Americans always get exactly what they deserve, because we vote for it! The trick is to make whatever governance we vote for, work for you. After all, it's not about how much you make. It's about how much you actually get to keep.

  • Ruggles Ruggles on Mar 12, 2015

    RE: "good counterpoints. Time will tell but you initially were talking OPEC now you just mention Saudi Arabia. They did not want to loose market share by cutting production." Its NOT about market share despite the comments by the Saudi Prince made recently. If it were, the Saudis wouldn't need OPEC. They would simply undersell everyone until they ran out of cheap oil The entire purpose of OPEC is to curtail their production to prop up the global market price EXPECT when they periodically allow over production to drop the price to drive high cost competitors out of business. Despite the fact that members cheat, and they don't always act in unison, they HAVE succeeded in moderating production to maintain price. A glimpse of the graph I posed a link to shows this clearly. RE: "It is a well played move by them since it hurts fellow OPEC nations with more pricy oil." Well, it does for the short term. When a monopoly sells at a loss to drive out competitors, it hurts for the short term. It wins in the long run. RE: "It also destabilizes their rivals. That also happens to be the USA." The USA is hardly destabilized by the recent OPEC move and corresponding drop in oil prices. Texas, North Dakota, Oklahoma might use that word but the economy in the U.S. just received a major shot in the arm. RE: "People forget that most of the 9-11 terrorists were Saudi. The Bin Laden family new the Bush family. Big oil is big oil." Don't confuse Saudis in general with the Saudi government, even if members of the Saudi royal family fund terrorists. Bin Laden was once funded by the U.S. I think they left that part out of "Charley Wilson's War."