Posted on 01/11/2016 12:07:32 PM PST by Isara
Here is a recurring frustration during election season: Candidates who seem attractive before the race begins suddenly sound squishier or change their positions once they hit the campaign trail.
On the issue of cronyism, there is one noticeable exception during this year's campaign. In spite of what could be perceived as a political risk, one candidate has remained true to his opposition to (and his commitment to end) the terrible renewable-fuel standard, which requires blending ethanol and other biofuels into the gasoline supply, thereby driving food prices up and creating all sorts of distortions in the energy market: That's Senator Ted Cruz. The Wall Street Journal reports
Mr. Cruz is calling for an end to the Renewable Fuel Standard, a law first passed in 2005 that requires refineries to blend an increasing amount of biofuels, including the corn-based ethanol produced here, into the U.S. gasoline supply each year.
Cruz has long been an opponent of the renewable fuel standard; he even sponsored a bill to repeal it in 2013. Since 2014 he has argued for phasing it out. He is sticking to his plan, which would end the standard by 2022. With the Iowa caucuses just weeks away, that's brave.
America's Renewable Future, which is now solely dedicated to attacking Mr. Cruz, is papering GOP caucus-goers' homes with mail accusing the Texas senator of being beholden to his home-state oil industry, and it is airing countless television and radio ads urging Iowans to vote for anyone else.
I have to say that I admire Cruz's consistency here. It is unusual in politicians and it's important. As the Journal explains, the stakes could be high for us taxpayers. Indeed, if Cruz ends up winning in Iowa without having either supported the standard or made accommodations to the demands of America's Renewable Future, it will signal to all the other candidates that you do not necessarily need to cater to cronyism to win there. That could mean being more honest about one's position on the issue or being even outspoken against cronyism.
For the trade groups that represent Iowa's ethanol producers, Mr. Cruz represents an existential crisis: If he proves a presidential candidate can win Iowa without the approval of the ethanol lobby - represented here by a group called America's Renewable Future - the fear is no candidate will ever back their agenda again. . . .
To fight Mr. Cruz, the ARF has a paid staff of 22 pushing its message across the state - larger than many of the GOP candidates' campaigns here. The group has collected commitments from more than 50,000 people who say they will only caucus for candidates who back the federal fuel standard.
Cruz's anti-cronyism position extends beyond the ethanol mandate. He was a fierce opponent of the Ex-Im Bank and he has come out loudly against sugar subsidies too. Marco Rubio, on the other hand, may have demonstrated his establishment bona fides by being super pro-sugar subsidies and by changing his position on the ethanol mandate.
Sen. Marco Rubio was one of four GOP candidates to improve his ARF rating from "needs work" over the summer by publicly embracing the federal ethanol mandate. The Florida senator said Tuesday that the federal government's agriculture mandates aren't the same as federal regulations on other industries he is seeking to eliminate.
"We cannot analyze issues before agriculture as being equal to what other industries face, because it's not an equal playing field," Mr. Rubio said. "It's a very weak industry."
This is a strange thing for him to say since these are the very arguments he thought didn't hold water when he was fighting against the Ex-Im Bank. But maybe that's only because he understood that one's opposition to the Ex-Im Bank had become a litmus test of one's free-market credentials.
The bottom line is that I wish more candidates were consistent and willing to oppose cronyism even when campaigning in Iowa or Florida. It would be a powerful signal that business as usual is indeed over.
I’d rather they be honest. Since only Cruz is against cronyism, I like that he’s the only one coming out against it.
Please click on the pictures at the top of the columns for more details on the ratings of the candidates.
 |
 |
 |
 |
| Budget, Spending & Debt |  |
|
 |
| Civil Liberties | |
|
 |
| Education | |
|
|
| Energy & Environment | |
|
|
| Foreign Policy & Defense | |
|
|
| Free Market | |
|
|
| Health Care & Entitlements | |
|
|
| Immigration | |
|
|
| Moral Issues | |
|
|
| Second Amendment | |
|
|
| Taxes, Economy & Trade | |
|
|
More at Conservative Review: https://www.conservativereview.com/2016-presidential-candidates
National Review has had some mixed reviews on Cruz. Not like the old WFB days. I like this article.
=============
 |
click on the YouTube vid to find out why it's GOOD to be a Crony...
Trump’s whole life has been about cronyism, and many of his admirers think that’s swell. Everyone does it they tell us, like how Bill Clinton’s admirers said all presidents have sex in the Oval Office.
And wreaking havoc with your machinery.
Nice conflation there, elhombre. How long you had the Tee Dee Ess fer Trump now?
Going on a year? You're like one of the Walkers in The Walking Dead...
"I - I - I don't mean to interrupt your clown pitch there", but the customer is always right.
Remember that little bit from Business 101?
And, of course, he is for Renewable Fuel Standard (ethanol mandate), so governement can pick winners and losers.
Trump's Record on Free-market Issue: (from the Conservative Review)
Trump has a terrible record on free market issues. The only bright spot is the Federal Reserve's quantitative easing, but this glimmer is countermanded by his repeated support for bailing out Wall Street and the auto industry, and increased stimulus spending. Of particular concern is Trump's belief that the government can use eminent domain powers to seize private property in the name of private economic development. This comes as no surprise, given his support for using eminent domain to profit his own company.
Trump supported the Supreme Court’s 2005 decision in Kelo v. City of London, allowing public authorities to seize private land for economic development by private investors; Trump said, “I happen to agree with [the decision] 100 percent.” (National Review) This is no surprise given Trump’s attempt to use eminent domain in his own line of work. (Institute for Justice)
Trump supported President Obama’s 2009 stimulus, saying: “The word stimulus is probably not used in its fullest…you know, certain of the things that were given weren't really stimulus. They were pork, as we call it, or they were gifts to certain people. But overall, I think he's [President Obama] doing very well. You do need stimulus and you do have to keep the banks alive.” (CNN)
Trump supported TARP, saying, "You had to do something to shore up the banks, because ... you would have had a run on every bank." (CNN)
Trump supported the 2008 auto bailout, saying, “I think the government should stand behind them 100 percent. You cannot lose the auto companies. They’re great. They make wonderful products.” He also said that the federal government could “easily save the companies.” (Daily Caller)
Trump criticized the Federal Reserve’s intervention in the debt market, saying quantitative easing creates “phony numbers” that mislead the marketplace and “will not ultimately benefit the economy. The dollar will go down in value and inflation will start rearing its ugly head.” (CNBC)
Donald Trump has a history of using eminent domain to complete business deals. Multiple times Trump has supported the use of government agencies to take possession of homes and businesses for use in his private business plans. Eminent domain seizures are reserved only for public use of property rather than abuse by the government taking property from one individual and giving to another. (Washington Post)
Donald Trump has sought and received crony capitalist tax breaks for his commercial properties in New York. These tax breaks, and even an abatement, force the property taxes of other property owners to rise at the expense of the connected. Special treatment for one business or industry over another with the tax code conflicts with free market principles. (National Review)
In 2009, Trump supported Barack Obama's call for limits on the pay of executives. (CNN)
Go TRUMP!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75Cd7oHG6pk
Don't be fooled by a phony conservative.
If Trump can build “The Wall” and have Mexico fund it, I’m in just to see how it is done.
If Trump can build “The Wall†and have Mexico fund it, I’m in just to see how it is done.
___________________________________________________________
The Mexicans are laughing. They aren’t paying for a wall. You know it. I know it. Trump knows it. The Mexicans know it.
While we are waiting for the Mexicans to pay for it under a Trump administration, the wall never gets built.
I’m sure more would come out against “cronyism,” but they are worried about being labeled as hypocrites when they later engage in cronyism.
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.