I appreciate the willingness to engage in fair debate.
But that IS what Trump is saying.
Now, as to whether it’s a fair way of looking at ethanol, it really should be viewed in light of his total remarks that he wants American energy independence.
What is that worth considering how many trillions in our defense budget have been focused on the Middle East over the last 50 years?
So, I actually consider it to be an astute observation on his part. He’ll encourage fracking, wildcatting, drilling, brewing, etc. ANYTHING that produces energy.
And we all know that those industries ALSO get tax breaks.
And that’s all the ethanol subsidy is: a tax break for refiners. It’s not even for farmers. They benefit from greater competition for their corn.
It’s not the tax breaks that are troublesome, as much as the mandate: FORCING AT THE POINT OF A GUN (that’s what laws are, after all) that we MUST use ethanol in our vehicles.
That does not foster market driven energy independence. Just the opposite, in fact. It creates artificial demand.
And what Trump vocally supported here — and Cruz opposes — is an upcoming increase in the percentage of ethanol in the blend that the EPA has mandated must occur.
And it’s not done in the name of reducing our dependence on foreign oil. It’s done in the name of the pagan earth worship called “climate change”.
Support for free market ethanol is a conservative position. Support for mandated ethanol is anything but.
While you may applaud Trump for desiring to reduce our dependence on OPEC and prevent war in the Mideast, and I’m sure you really believe that in your heart — the Occam’s Razor explanation for Trump’s position is that he is simply pandering to voters in the #1 state that benefits from ethanol production.
And for the record — I live in an “oil state”, and I am very much AGAINST subsidies to the oil industry.
Ted Cruz has also gone on record opposing ALL energy subsidies — not just ethanol.
That, my FRiend, is a CONSERVATIVE position!
FRegards