- Cruz vs Grassley feud is bigger than Northey
- Cruz et al say they are willing to compromise, are Grassley et al?
We suppose corn-chauvinism is to be expected as is petro-chauvinism from farm and oil state Senators respectively. But call the practitioners fair-minded or conservative poseurs, consistent or inconsistent, the position of the oil industry senators, Senator Cruz et al, has more truth and rational basis for the good of the country as a whole (indeed mankind) on its side than that of the corn-ethanol industry senators as espoused by our own Senators Grassley and Ernst.
The narrowness of corn-ethanol politics* is unsustainable and is not good for the majority of U.S. tax payers, including Iowa, as it has bred an unhealthy dependence on subsidies.
If any government regulation or subsidy is to be involved, it ought to be such that Iowa’s corn acreage is used predominantly for food or product chains that are not efficiently sourced otherwise. It is an atrocity to use over 40% of it for the boondoggle of corn-based ethanol for automotive fuel driven by Renewable Fuel Standards (RFS) mandates ( a “marketing” subsidy).
Incredibly, given the subsidies (mandates), the corn ethanol industry has continued to insist that it is a comparatively efficient energy source compared top gasoline. If that were the case then no government subsidy or mandate would be necessary. The industry could stand on its own. If various derivatives of the industry are so compelling then the over-all economics at this stage of the game (40 years of subsidies and mandates) should suffice to make the massive use of corn for ethanol viable without continued RFS content mandates for ethanol. We would not like it that farmers devoted so much prime cropland to corn for fuel in any case, but we would allow the market to adjust so as to protect farmers and keep food prices down.
We admire Senators Grassley and Ernst and Governor Reynolds for much, no Democrat could ever be better and few Republicans on balance, BUT GOOD GOD PEOPLE — TWO GENERATIONS OF ETHANOL SUBSIDIES OR MANDATES ARE ENOUGH.
The matter of RFS content mandates, which EPA administrator Scott Pruit has said will be continued as President Trump promised, has resulted in a demand by oil state senators that they be heard and a compromise be struck over the matter as it adversely impacts their states’ interests including jobs and costs to produce fuel for the nation. Senator Cruz has been characterized by politicians here as an obstructionist by putting a hold on hearings for Iowa Agriculture Secretary Bill Northey who wants to cap his career with a gig in Washington. But what led up to this, why is such leverage required, among the gentlemen and ladies of the Senate?
The no-friend-of-Ted-Cruz Cedar Rapids Gazette explained:(bold emphasis ours)
EPA Director Scott Pruitt had announced the likelihood of decreasing the amount of advanced biofuels that would be required. After being pressed by Grassley, Ernst and other senators from corn-growing states who cited Trump’s commitment to corn-based ethanol, Pruitt reversed course.
During the fight for the higher renewable volumes, Ernst temporarily blocked an EPA nominee until the administration supported renewable fuel policies benefiting Midwest farmers and producers.
Now Cruz is using the same tactic by blocking the Northey nomination.
His oil state allies say the price of credits used to show compliance with the rule have been driven up by speculators. That’s increasing costs for refiners, according to Cruz, and risking jobs.
Senator Grassley’s vociferousness towards Cruz (see link collection) regarding the matter is not without some conflicts of interest rumors besides seeking home state advantage — as in “homestead advantage” – as in wiring his grandson’s appointment to replace Northey.
It could be Pat Grassley is as qualified as anyone, however we doubt he is more qualified or deserving than some. But then we figure anyone appointed will be totally in the tank for continuing mandates. Who the Iowa Ag. Secretary appointee is after Northey is confirmed (we predict Northey will be confirmed) may lend credence to the rumors.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
With the understanding that none of these media outlets like Grassley all that much, certainly not Trump and definitely not Cruz, they each provide a tidbit of useful background, some including as regards Cruz and the oil states problems with RFS and their willingness to compromise.
Cruz puts hold on Northey’s USDA nomination, report says
Grassley says Majority leader could override Cruz hold on Northey
As regards ethanol subsidies long being past their shelf-life (if there ever was utility to them):
Impacts of ethanol policy on corn prices: A review and meta-analysis of recent evidence
(late 2014 article concluding that production expansion does lead to corn price increases and by inference pressure on food prices overall)
Modeling, Dynamics, Optimization and Bioeconomics
Despite Record Production, Ethanol Mandate Continues to Cost Public
It’s Final — Corn Ethanol Is Of No Use
These articles are critiques of the RFS by affected industries
Is the ethanol mandate the most broken policy in America?
Consortium comments (list)
To be sure Big (corn) Ethanol insists that its efficiencies are increasing and challenge aspects of these critiques, but we go back to the basic physical and economic issue, if the BTU’s input to produce ethanol (normally reflected in costs) and its resultant energy, was less than needed to produce gasoline and its resultant energy, and both made available at the pump, then there is no need for subsidy or mandate as people would flock to “gasohol” because of the natural price advantage. Instead gasohol must be taxed favorably or mandated in order to be chosen at the pump.
The environmental effect of corn ethanol production is also an important issue and on that score we also do not understand why the emphasis on corn as opposed to other more BTU efficient, alternative less prime-land usage cellulosic crops (grasses).
These two articles are from a bona fide “green” publication, albeit one that prefers wind and solar subsidies to ethanol:
Buh-Bye, Corn Ethanol: Joule Makes The Same Thing From Recycled CO2
Then you have the refrain from Big Ethanol that they deserve subsidies because Big Oil gets them. A petroleum industry publication published a response to similar cries from wind and solar interests about such alleged subsidies. The nature and cost benefit has some bearing.
Vox and Oil Change International Misconstrue Subsidy Landscape
A number of links to ethanol vs petro controversy are available in these pages provided by the American Petroleum Institute.
But we choose not to leave on a sour note as regards Grassley because we do greatly appreciate that:
This Senator Is Putting an End to Democrat Stonewalling on Judicial Picks
Even if Grassley supports the filibuster, which we find on balance inextricably subject to abuse and should be ended, you can’t beat his worth as head of the all important Senate Judiciary Committee as regards moving Trump’s judicial appointments along (although we do not doubt Cruz would do as well). The filibuster in traditional form as Grassley advocates would delay or stop Trump’s nominations, it is good its gone for this.**
R Mall
* input “‘ethanol” and “cruz ethanol” in our veritaspac.com search window for more information.
** updated 2022 – having overstated our support for ending the filibuster in all cases we have reconsidered and we support the concept especially as regards mega-bills. To the extent it can be obstructionist Republicans should look to holding fast on their policies and make those who invoke it cavalierly pay the political consequences.
