Iowa does not form a candidate’s character as much as it reveals it. So far, this sunlight is not flattering for Scott Walker.
Walker, the second-term governor of Wisconsin, joined the parade of GOP presidential hopefuls last weekend at the Iowa Ag Summit, where ethanol mogul and GOP moneyman Bruce Rastetter asked candidates to pledge allegiance to the ethanol mandate and the wind tax credit.
The ethanol mandate is among the least defensible corporate-welfare boondoggles Washington has created (the sugar program, and the Export-Import Bank round out the unholy trinity). It forces drivers to put corn alcohol in their cars by forcing refiners to blend the stuff with real gasoline.
Ethanol is far less efficient than gasoline. It increases food prices by taking up cropland that could go to other crops. It makes animal feed more expensive, hurting ranchers and boosting meat prices. It places extraordinary stress on water supplies.
The ethanol mandate is not good for the environment or national security. It’s bad for cars, drivers and eaters. And it’s antithetical to free enterprise.
Walker knows that. In his 2006 run for governor, Walker stood alone in opposing a renewable fuel standard, calling it a “big government mandate” at the time. “Central planning will not help our family farmers, protect our environment or provide jobs,” Walker wrote. “The free enterprise system must drive innovation to relieve our dependence on foreign oil, not mandates from the state or federal government.”
That’s how a conservative who believes in free enterprise speaks. It’s not how Walker spoke last week in Iowa.
After saying “I’m someone who believes in a free and open market. I don’t like a whole lot of government interference,” Walker then said: “I’m willing to go forward on continuing the Renewable Fuel Standard.” The Iowa crowd applauded.
Walker’s people insist “[h]e didn’t shift his position” on ethanol. “He’s been against mandates and is still against mandates,” spokeswoman Kirsten Kukowski wrote to theWashington Examiner editorial page editor Philip Klein. “What he’s saying is he isn’t going to get rid of it on day one because there’s a level of certainty that these people depend on and we need to factor that in when phasing it out.”
Here were his own words on that subject: “Long-term … my goal would be to get to a point where we directly address those market access issues and I think that’s a part of the challenge. So that eventually you didn’t need to have a standard.”
It sounds like Walker wants to keep the ethanol mandate until ethanol can compete broadly with oil in a free market. Given ethanol’s inherent shortcomings, that day may never come.
All corporate welfare recipients defend their favors as a remedy for some other market distortion. And most of them say they’ll give up their government goodies when free-market nirvana arrives. It’s hogwash.
If Walker will swallow the hogwash from Hawkeye Energy and Archer Daniels Midland, then there’s no subsidy-suckler to whom we can expect him to stand up. He has indicated he opposes the Export-Import Bank, but what will he say when the Chamber of Commerce drags him onstage to discuss it?
If Walker really believes in markets and opposes the ethanol mandate, he should say that clearly, even in Iowa. Especially in Iowa.
Dismantling political privilege, rejecting all forms of favoritism, and ensuring equal opportunity — these must be at the heart of any conservative candidacy and any agenda of economic liberty. They provide the moral basis for free enterprise. Absent a fierce attack on cronyism, any talk of free markets is really just a cover story for big business shilling.
Walker doesn’t need to imitate Jesus in the temple, overturning the tables of the money-changers. He could just follow the example of Ted Cruz.
Cruz, before the same crowd, acknowledged his was an unpopular view, but he flatly said, “I don’t think Washington should be picking winners and losers.” He put ethanol in the context of other types of corporate welfare, but also in the context of burdensome federal regulations: “I have every bit of faith that businesses can continue to compete, can continue to do well without having to go on bended knee to Washington asking for subsidies, asking for special favors. I think that’s how we got in this problem to begin with.”
Some conservatives see the shameful ethanol cronyfest as an indictment of the Iowa caucuses. They’re not wrong, but that argument misses the point.
The special-interest subsidy-sucklers do deserve our scorn for corrupting conservative politicians. But a candidate who believes what he says and cares about free enterprise can actually resist being corrupted — if he has the courage.
Timothy P. Carney, The Washington Examiner’s senior political columnist, can be contacted at [email protected]. His column appears Sunday and Wednesday on washingtonexaminer.com.
