• Cruz’s position is about protecting the family pocketbook, sustainable energy independence, for the greater good – protecting one industry from doing a number on another
• Cruz’s position more in tune with Iowa Republican platform – see planks
• Shouldn’t the RPI letter (see below) be to Trump et al to meet with Cruz so at least someone can represent the RPI platform as opposed to the Central Committee’s ethanol shadow platform (and then we can all move on)
• Grassley should call for an end to indefinite “holds” for all — or is it that Senatorial privilege is more important than the peoples’ business
• More people including Iowans (as reflected in the RPI Platform) object to the pinch of ethanol mandates and Renewable Fuel Standard (RFI), the real issue
Here is the latest as to what is going on. See our previous post for more background. The Chairman of the RPI – Jeff Kaufmann – issued the following statement yesterday in conjunction with a letter from the RPI State Central Committee (CC). The actual vote on the measure is unknown at this writing although we would not be surprised if it were unanimous due to pressure. We will be happy to list exceptions. That letter is embedded below. The RPI website has also emblazoned on its home page a petition to #FreeNorthey!
For the record, Bill Northey may have deserved a quicker confirmation vote . But who is more to blame than those opposed to a sit-down to look for an RFS compromise when the existing policy harms other industry (and people)? If Cruz did not release a hold subsequent to that, then complain. We might as well.
The Kaufmann statement threat:
“Senator Cruz has entertained this political position for too far long, and it’s becoming increasingly harmful to both Iowans and our agricultural industry at large,” said Iowa GOP Chairman Jeff Kaufmann. “Iowa is lucky to have received Secretary Northey’s leadership, but the nation’s agriculture industry is ready to benefit from his vision. I highly encourage Senator Cruz to get back to doing what he does best – promoting the conservative agenda – particularly if he is to remain in good standing with Iowa conservatives should he return here in future endeavors.”
The Central Committee letter (as viewed on Quad City Times website)
Here are some earlier news reports providing more objectivity than the RPI- CC can muster. They fall short of mentioning that Cruz’s objection to mandates is better in tune with the Iowa Republican Platform. For more extensive information see our post. We note that Cruz’s wining of the Iowa Caucuses with a position opposing mandates is not mentioned in the RPI letter. All below are Cedar Rapids Gazette stories:
Ted Cruz confirms his hold on Northey nomination
Texas senator confirms hold on Northey nomination to federal ag post
Northey federal nomination caught between oil, ethanol interests
Parts of the RPI /Kaufmann letter are just offensive. Referring to Cruz’s position as personal or political when the letter he signed is in support of a particular person with particular political position is pathetic. Cruz feels inflexible RFS mandates are harmful to what is good for the energy industry, (isn’t the ethanol industry now advocated as part of the energy industry?) and more sustainable energy independence (corn ethanol is not). This statement by Chairman Kaufmann“I highly encourage Senator Cruz to get back to doing what he does best – promoting the conservative agenda – to be honest should read, except when it comes to ethanol mandates and the RFS.
The Republican Party of Iowa platform on relevant matters is as follows. Reading it we find that Cruz by all implications is more in tune with conservatives everywhere and Iowa Republican thought. Bold emphasis ours.
Property
We support legislation requiring all regulations by all government agencies (e.g. EPA, Dept. of Ag, Dept. of Interior, etc.) relating to private property and the public good receive congressional authorization prior to their implementation.
National Sovereignty & Defense
8 We oppose the United Nations’ Agenda 21 plan, which restricts or destroys the property rights of Americans under the guise of environmentalist initiatives. (ed. note: property rights presumably includes the pocketbook)
Commerce
1 We oppose government distortion of the free market through subsidies and bailouts.
2 We believe energy independence must be the goal of our public policy at both the National and State level.
3 We oppose all mandates associated with alleged global warming, or climate control.
Government
4 We support lowering taxes and reducing the size, scope and scale of government – toward this end, we advocate a Balanced Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. We also support a systematic reduction of the national debt.
14 We support the elimination of the following abusive and unconstitutional federal agencies: the IRS, the EPA, the ATF, the TSA, the BLM, the Department of Labor, and the Department of Education.
R Mall
The vote was unanimous. I was there and can say there is no one on the RPI CC that was “pressured” . Anyone with any knowledge of the current SCC would know this group has been sharply divided on some issues this past year and I know of none that could or would feel pressured.
Your points are weak attempt to cover the obvious reasons that Northey has hold on his nomination by one Senator that represents the oil industry. He is the one holding up good nominee and made it personal by doing so .
We were also informed that not every member was in attendance and that the matter was not circulated beforehand. Apparently we were too subtle as you don’t see the “weakness” of your own view. A personage who pretty much represents the ethanol industry is to be preferred no matter what as if that is unbiased? We do not oppose Bill Northey but we also see no fault in seeking a better good for the nations’ consumers, including Iowans or in recognizing that larding up bureaucracies with disguised or undisguised ethanol mandate proponents does not bode well for ever getting a handle on that boondoggle that hurts another industry (supposedly the same industry). We do see fault in a Republican state central committee letter that is not a little more circumspect about what it says given that Cruz’s position is more in keeping with the Iowa Republican platform, current and previous iterations. The pressure I mentioned might have been better specified as the presumption to protect the shadow platform — all things ethanol — even when it does not align with the platform of the grassroots Republicans. Growing corn to be used as a mandated component of gasoline, reducing mileage by the way, is just stupid. If science and economics is on the side of corn-based ethanol why don’t proponents rise to the challenge of removing mandates if it is so efficient and useful? The market will then say yes, give me that gasohol, my car misses it and it is cheaper. Is Northey being victimized? No more than taxpayers and consumers and the environment by reliance on corn-based ethanol to meet RFS standards, — “standards” that are not warranted now if they ever could be. All Cruz has asked for is more flexibility.