Cruz suffered two huge blows in IA yesterday, Palin's endorsement of Trump, and this from Gov. Branstad:
“Ted Cruz is ahead right now. What we’re trying to do is educate the people in the state of Iowa. He is the biggest opponent of renewable fuels. He actually introduced a bill in 2013 to immediately eliminate the Renewable Fuel Standard. He’s heavily financed by Big Oil. So we think once Iowans realize that fact, they might find other things attractive but he could be very damaging to our state,” Branstad said.
Branstad added that Cruz “hasn’t supported renewable fuels, and I think it would be a big mistake for Iowa to support him.”
Asked if he would want to see Cruz defeated, Branstad said “yes.”
As Sioux County, Iowa goes, so goes the Republican caucus. At least, that is the pattern.
And I haven't seen any Cruz lawn signs come down yet.
(Of course, they may be frozen into place!)
Just to be clear, "renewable fuels" has something to do with corn? Here in NYC we are of the belief that milk comes from a carton, not a cow.
Dave Benke
Ethanol from corn has become a huge business in Iowa and some of the rest of the major corn producing states. Biodiesel from soybean production also falls under the "blanket" term "renewable fuels."
Lou
You know more about this than I do, so please do correct me if I'm wrong.
But as I understand it, ethanol from corn has become a big business in Iowa principally because of the federal law requiring that fuel companies include in their product a mix a specified percentage of "renewable" fuels. Debates rage as to whether the production and use of ethanol in gasoline is on balance of any environmental value. There can be no debate, however, over the impact of the renewable fuel standard on the corn market. The demand and price both are much higher as a result. If the renewable fuel standard were eliminated, ethanol use would assuredly fall, dragging down the demand and corn prices. Iowa corn farmers, therefore, are as a group huge fans of the renewable fuel standard.
Who pays a price? The consumers of corn for purposes other than ethanol. For the most part, this means food consumers. Corn is eaten directly by people and is used as feed for livestock. The price of corn and of corn-fed animals used for meat both are higher as a result of the mandate.
Moreover, the market for corn to some extent is global. Thus, poor nations and poor people are affected by the elevated prices.
Political conservatives (see. e.g., the Heritage Foundation) tend to oppose the ethanol requirement and other agricultural subsidies because they distort the market to the benefit of corn producers and ethanol sellers but to the detriment of everyone else. Some of the farmers who support the fuel mandate no doubt are generally conservative politically. But when one's livelihood is at issue, economic interests sometimes trump political ideology.
On this particular issue, I think that Cruz is right. I also think that he'll pay a price in Iowa.
Again, Lou, I'd welcome your insights.