Because I don’t like their plans for a value-added tax, some people seem to think that I am politically opposed to Rand Paul and Ted Cruz.
That’s not true. Both Senators are generally strong proponents of free markets and limited government, so the fact that they have one bad policy position shouldn’t a disqualifying characteristic.
But since I’m a policy wonk (and because I work at a non-profit think tank), it’s not my role to tell people how to vote anyhow. Instead, my niche in life is to analyze policy proposals. And if that means I say something nice about a politician who is normally bad, or something critical of a politician who is normally good, so be it.
In other words, nothing I write is because I want readers to vote for or vote against particular candidates. I write to educate and inform.
With all those caveats out of the way, let’s look at the federal government’s odious handouts for the ethanol industry, a very important issue where Rand Paul and Ted Cruz unambiguously are on the side of the angels.
My colleague Doug Bandow summarizes the issue nicely in a column for Newsweek.
Senator Ted Cruz has broken ranks to criticize farmers’ welfare. …Senator Rand Paul also rejects the conventional wisdom…the Renewable Fuel Standard, which requires blending ethanol with gasoline, operates as a huge industry subsidy. Robert Bryce of the Manhattan Institute figured the requirement cost drivers more than $10 billion since 2007. …Ethanol has only about two-thirds of the energy content of gasoline. Given the energy necessary to produce ethanol—fuel tractors, make fertilizer and distill alcohol, for instance—ethanol actually may consume more in fossil fuels than the energy it yields. The ethanol lobby claims using this inferior fuel nevertheless promotes “energy independence.” However, …the price of this energy “insurance” is wildly excessive. …”By creating an artificial energy demand for corn—40 percent of the existing supply goes for ethanol—Uncle Sam also is raising food prices. This obviously makes it harder for poor people to feed themselves, and raises costs for those seeking to help them.” Nor does ethanol welfare yield an environmental benefit, as claimed. In fact, ethanol is bad for the planet. …Ethanol is a bad deal by any standard. Whomever Iowans support for president, King Ethanol deserves a bout of regicide.
Here’s some of the Wall Street Journal’s editorial on the topic.
Mr. Cruz does deserve support in Iowa for…his…lonely opposition to the renewable fuel standard that mandates ethanol use and enriches producers in the Hawkeye State. The Senator refused to bow before King Ethanol last year, and he’s mostly held fast even though Iowa is where anti-subsidy Republicans typically go to repent. …the Texan is right that ethanol is one of America’s worst corporate-welfare cases. The mandate flows in higher profits to a handful of ethanol producers and keeps the price of corn artificially high, all other demand being equal. This raises the price of food. Al Gore and the greens once supported ethanol but gave up on it when studies showed it did nothing for the environment because of the energy expended in its production. So for those of you keeping track of this outsider feud on your establishment scorecards, mark ethanol as one for Mr. Cruz. In this case he’s standing on principle.
Not only does it raise the price of food, Washington’s mandate for ethanol use (the “renewable fuels standard”) means higher prices for motorists.
Here are the key findings on the topic from the Congressional Budget Office.
While Senators Cruz and Paul are fighting on the right side, Donald Trump is cravenly bowing to the special interests that want continued ethanol handouts. Jillian Kay Melchior explains for National Review.
One of the most destructive environmental subsidies in the United States has found an enthusiastic supporter in Donald Trump. “The EPA should ensure that biofuel . . . blend levels match the statutory level set by Congress,” he said yesterday in Iowa, adding that he was “there with you 100 percent” on continuing federal support for ethanol. …federal support for ethanol is a bum deal for Americans. Under the 2007 Independence and Security Act, Congress mandated that the United States use 36 billion gallons of biofuels, including corn ethanol and cellulosic biofuel, by 2022. And the federal government not only requires the use of ethanol; it also subsides it. Tax credits between 1978 and 2012 cost the Treasury as much as $40 billion. Moreover, numerous other federal programs, spanning multiple agencies, allot billions of dollars to ethanol in the form of grants, loan guarantees, tax credits, and other subsidies. …Ethanol-intensive fuel blends can wreak havoc on car, lawnmower, and boat engines. In fact, many vehicle manufacturers will no longer offer warranties when ethanol comprises 10 percent or more of fuel; engine erosion simply becomes too common. …perhaps it’s not surprising that Trump likes federal support of ethanol. After all, the real-estate mogul’s business model has historically hinged on using tax abatements and other subsidies to make his building projects profitable. …Trump’s support for ethanol belies his populist Main Street rhetoric. In reality, he’s just another rich, East Coast politician who would prop up special interests at the expense of the taxpayer.
The bottom line is that ethanol handouts are one of the most notoriously corrupt subsidies that are dispensed by Washington.
They also violate my Bleeding-Heart Rule by imposing costs on lower- and middle-income people to reward politically connected fat cats with deep pockets.
Policy makers who oppose ethanol deserve praise, especially when they are willing to say and do the right thing in a state (like Iowa) that has a lot of recipients of this execrable form of corporate welfare.
P.S. I will get really excited if a candidate goes to Iowa and explains that we should get rid of the entire Department of Agriculture.
[…] the Export-Import Bank, the National Endowment for the Arts, bailouts for student loan deadbeats, ethanol subsidies, […]
[…] Republican who is bad on this issue. Indeed, the GOPers who support free markets – such as Rand Paul and Ted Cruz – may be in the minority of the […]
[…] of the specific handouts – such as those for milk, corn, sugar, and even cranberries – are unbelievably […]
[…] some depressing research about the growing prevalence of cronyism in the United States (ethanol handouts, the Export-Import Bank, protectionism, tax favoritism, bailouts, subsidies, and green energy […]
[…] come across depressing examples of counterproductive tax provisions (health benefits exclusion, ethanol credits) and spending programs (the entire HUD budget, OECD […]
[…] It’s a rat’s nest of special interest favors. I’ve previously written about inane intervention to enrich Big Dairy, Big Sugar, and Big Corn. […]
[…] come across depressing examples of counterproductive tax provisions (health benefits exclusion, ethanol credits) and spending programs (the entire HUD budget, OECD […]
[…] Let’s focus on the third item. I don’t like special preferences in the tax code because it’s bad for growth when the tax code lures people into misallocating their labor and capital. Ethanol, for instance, shows how irrational decisions are subsidized by the IRS. […]
[…] do conservatives oppose ethanol subsidies? Because the economy grows faster when markets rather than politicians determine where labor and […]
[…] that tilt the playing field in favor of connected companies. The purpose of policies such as ethanol handouts, the Export-Import Bank, protectionism, tax favoritism, bailouts, subsidies, and green energy is to […]
[…] this humorous image reminds me that ethanol handouts also may be the most counterproductive and wasteful agriculture […]
[…] obviously pleased that the folks at Koch are on the right side of the ethanol and BAT issues, but that’s a secondary matter. What’s praiseworthy is that the company […]
[…] But it’s hard to imagine a bigger reason than getting rid of handouts for Big Sugar. Maybe ultra-corrupt ethanol handouts are even worse, but that’s a judgement […]
[…] the disgusting nature of ethanol subsidies, I wonder whether Mark’s headline can possibly be […]
[…] fringe benefits exclusion and the exemption for municipal bond interest. And there are many other corrupt favors sprinkled through a metastasizing tax […]
[…] fringe benefits exclusion and the exemption for municipal bond interest. And there are many other corrupt favors sprinkled through a metastasizing tax […]
[…] that they can get in bed with big government in order to obtain unearned wealth with bailouts, subsidies, protectionism, and other examples of […]
[…] this humorous image reminds me that ethanol handouts also may be the most counterproductive and wasteful agriculture […]
[…] But the lesson we should learn is that cronyism is a bad idea, period. Cronyism is also bad in agriculture. It’s bad in finance. It’s bad in the tax code. It’s bad in energy. It’s […]
[…] bailouts cronyism? Yes, but it’s more than that. Are subsidies cronyism? Yes, but it’s more than that. Are favors in the tax code cronyism? Yes, but it’s more […]
[…] bailouts cronyism? Yes, but it’s more than that. Are subsidies cronyism? Yes, but it’s more than that. Are favors in the tax code cronyism? Yes, but […]
[…] Building on these concepts, Professor Ben Powell uses the example of farm subsidies to explain how we get bad policy (think ethanol). […]
[…] This is amazing. A subsidy is when government officials use coercion to force taxpayers (or consumers) to pay more in order to line the pockets of a company or industry. The Export-Import Bank would be an example of this odious practice, as would ethanol handouts. […]
[…] possible, however, because the tax code is a huge mess of deductions and credits (some legit and some less so) for individuals and corporations. What we need to do is have a simple and fair flat tax (read […]
[…] are unjustified and distortionary loopholes that result in zero tax on some types of […]
[…] my anti-tax resolve sometimes gets a bit wobbly when I think about unsavory tax breaks such as the ethanol credit, the state and local tax deduction, and the healthcare exclusion. I have to remind myself that […]
[…] include those excerpts (while Cruz, even while he has some views I don’t like, seems to be a sincere and principled advocate of economic […]
[…] include those excerpts (while Cruz, even while he has some views I don’t like, seems to be a sincere and principled advocate of economic […]
[…] include those excerpts (while Cruz, even while he has some views I don’t like, seems to be a sincere and principled advocate of economic […]
[…] confess that their arguments were somewhat seductive. After all, corrupt ethanol handouts and the cronyist Export-Import Bank only exist because politicians easily can raise tens of […]
[…] confess that their arguments were somewhat seductive. After all, corrupt ethanol handouts and the cronyist Export-Import Bank only exist because politicians easily can raise tens of […]
if we wanted ethanol… we can buy it cheaper from brazil than we can produce it domestically… the ethanol subsidy is a hand-out to corporate farm interests.. more crony capitalism,,, courtesy of democrat and republican politicians… of course it should be ended… and the and the USDA abolished… the question is do we have the leadership… and the political will to fight for our future and the future of our Nation…
stay tuned…..
For those who want to keep the ethanol subsidy, don’t complain about the bailout of NYC banks. It’s only a subsidy.
[…] Ted Cruz and Rand Paul Deserve Praise for their Admirable and Principled Opposition to Corrupt Ethan… […]
While Iowa is a special case, in that it is the first voting state and its subsidy is one of the largest; the argument against any subsidies should go as follows:
“If I can be pushed to vote for your state’s subsidy, I can also be pushed to vote for the other 49 states’ subsidies. Through your voting, you encourage your representatives to engage in crony-subsidy deals or you do not. It is up to you to decide whether you want the federal government inferring with markets. If your vote is to preserve the subsidy for a select few in your community, the benefits of that subsidy that accrue directly to you as an individual will probably be overwhelmed by subsidies for many others. Remember that the direct beneficiaries of these subsidies will do very well, and the average voter pays the price.”