With the first Republican presidential debate Thursday and less than six months to go until the Iowa caucuses, lots of voters will soon be taking their first serious look at the wide field of candidates. Given Iowa’s first-in-the-nation status and reliance on corn production, candidates may be tempted to trumpet their support for ethanol subsidies and the renewable fuel standard. That would be a mistake.
It shouldn’t be hard for Republicans to oppose ethanol handouts. All they need to say is, “The president should do what’s best for the country, not what’s best for Iowa. Government shouldn’t be in the business of picking winners and losers, and that’s exactly what the ethanol mandate does. If ethanol subsidies are good for Iowa, then Iowa should do them on their own.”
Every four years, Republican presidential candidates march through Iowa, cast aside their typical free market beliefs, and embrace King Corn.
This year, plenty of presidential candidates have sounded their support for ethanol, including Ben Carson, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker initially opposed the ethanol mandate but switched his position.
Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, Carly Fiorina, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, former New York Gov. George Pataki and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio have all expressed interest in eliminating or phasing out the ethanol mandate that requires a certain percentage of ethanol in transportation fuel.
It would be one thing if ethanol were actually good for cars or the environment, but that’s not the case. “[Ethanol is] an inferior fuel that damages automobile engines and fuel systems, it’s bad for the environment, it has forced U.S. taxpayers to spend billions of dollars in ethanol subsidies, it requires more energy to produce than it generates, and it raises fuel and food prices for consumers,” American Enterprise Institute scholar Mark Perry wrote in 2013. “On a purely economic and scientific basis, corn ethanol is an inferior, costly fuel that wouldn’t even come close to being a viable energy product.”
In 2013, the Associated Press ran an investigative series revealing how the ethanol mandate prompted farmers to wipe out conservation land to grow corn. “The ethanol era has proven far more damaging to the environment than politicians promised and much worse than the government admits today,” the report said.
Mandating the use of corn products in gas raises the price of food, including meat, dairy and poultry. Although the price increase is hardly noticeable at the cash register, the effect is multiplied for millions of grocery shoppers in the country buying tons of corn products.
Oil producers would already have used ethanol in their gas if that’s what was cheapest and highest-quality. But most older engines aren’t meant to use ethanol-infused gas.
It’s time for all Republican candidates to stand up for the free market and against crony capitalism by opposing the ethanol mandate.
