He’s willing to tell Iowans that we must end not only ethanol subsidies, but farming subsidies in general.
[Update a few minutes later]
That’s not all:
“Later this week, I’m going to New York City, to tell Wall Street that if I’m elected, the era of bailouts, handouts, and carve outs will be over,” Pawlenty said. “No more subsidies, no more special treatment. No more Fannie and Freddie, no more TARP, and no more ‘too big to fail.’”
He’s also planning to go to Florida tomorrow and tell affluent seniors that “we will means test Social Security’s annual cost-of-living adjustment.”
“Conventional wisdom says you can’t talk about ethanol in Iowa or Social Security in Florida or financial reform on Wall Street,” Pawlenty said. “But someone has to say it. Someone has to finally stand up and level with the American people. Someone has to lead.”
I just hope this goes over better than Fritz Mondale’s promise to raise our taxes in 1984. I think, though, that if he can survive Iowa with the ethanol stand, these positions will stand him up well with the Tea Party.
Good luck with that.
I’ve always thought that scaling back the heroin like government subsides is something that’s going to have to come slowly – and somewhat stealthily. The same way it was put in place by the vote buying pushers who were responsible for it in the first place.
Any politician who isn’t saying those things is a fraud and a liar. Any politician who does say those things is unlikely to get elected. Too many people want to believe the lies instead of face the harsh truth – America is broke and can no longer afford the luxury of all this deficit spending to buy votes.
Whether he wins or fails with that message, Americans will get the America they deserve.
Romney has a reputation of telling people what they want to hear. And Romney is Pawlenty’s biggest obstacle to the nomination. So it’s no surprise that Pawlenty would try to position himself as a teller of hard truths.
Jim, you’re an Obama voter, so don’t drive-by like you know everything. TTM was much better-off while you were gone.
I think Romney has no chance whatsoever of winning the nomination.
I don’t know much about him, but Pawlenty might be the dark horse that I have been hoping for. A few of the clowns have thankfully already dropped out of the race, Huckabee and Trump. Sadly, a few remain, since Gingrich and Romney are still in. And Palin hasn’t committed one way or the other yet.
Ron Paul isn’t a clown, but he can’t win either (and I still have deep concerns about his foreign policy and monetary policy).
Intrade currently has Romney at 27%, Pawlenty at 24%, and Huntsman at 15%.
Whether he wins or fails with that message, Americans will get the America they deserve.
As a California resident, my comment to that is “Bummer, dude”.
Also, the front-runners are not popular with the Tea Partiers. Wait ’till the VP picks.
I dunno, I’m a little underwhelmed with that speech in particular. He said gradually, after all, like the President plans on gradually getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan — and maybe Libya, too — and probably gradually closing Gitmo, too. TPaw may or may not mean it that way, but voters are used to politicians saying “gradually” and hearing “by the time the Sun burns out.” Nor is it a really hard sell when corn prices are anyways at all-time highs.
See, I don’t think the problem is government picking the wrong winners (to subsidize) and losers (to tax). It’s that government does any picking of winners and loser at all. It should not have that power. But where will we find a politician who wants to reduce the power of politicians? A lawyer who thinks there ought to be fewer laws? Maybe you need someone like Reagan, or Palin for that matter, someone who had a whole other life and got into politics through some sense of urgency, a wish to right the sinking boat.
That was the attraction of the Governator, after all, and perhaps his heart was in the right place, but his balls were on holiday. (I guess now we know where, and I wonder a tad whether Shriver actually had the goods on him long ago and this accounts in part for his sad surprising surrender to the Democrats after the 2005 special election; maybe it was the quid for her quo. I would adduce the Times as co-conspirators, except that I don’t think they’re disciplined enough to sit on it for 6 long years.)
Holy shit — Carl’s back: the sun came out today.
If T-Paw could keep the DFL in check in MN, he has some ability.
I’m encouraged a bit, but I’m still pushing for Gary Johnson. A couple of good articles on him over the weekend at Volokh…
Makes sense. Why subsidize it when it’s easier to just pass a law mandating a 20 percent ethanol mix in all gasoline sold as he did in Minnesota. Then their is no ceiling to the profits the Iowa farmers make.
Thomas Matula Says:
May 23rd, 2011 at 11:10 pm
“The ethanol industry provides jobs for more than 5,300 Minnesotans and pumps $1.3 billion dollars into Minnesota’s economy. There are 14 ethanol plants in Minnesota that produce more than 450 million gallons of ethanol every year, with two more plants currently under construction. Minnesota ranks 4th in the nation in production of fuel-grade ethanol, after Iowa, Illinois and Nebraska. Minnesota corn growers send approximately 15% of their crop to ethanol plants.”
I’d say it wasn’t Iowa farmers he was thinking about. Given there was a push for 30%, I have a feeling this was a compromise.
Rand hopes:
“I just hope this goes over better than Fritz Mondale’s promise to raise our taxes in 1984. ”
I think it *can* go over better than Mondale’s promise. But TPaw has to give more reasons than just “We’re broke”.
Actually corn ethanol subsidies is a fine example of everything that’s wrong with big government. You can articulate a myriad of conservative principles with this one example. As Carl says, the government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers. In addition, he should say that subsidies:
Distort prices and price information, and government ought not do that.
Because it opens the door to corruption.
He should show how it exacerbates the problem it’s trying to solve.
Not all that great for the environment.
and so on.
A conservative can be for the environment just not for lefty environmental solutions.
I’ve always said that the most effective Conservative will be the one who articulates the Conservative proposition over and over using modern day examples everyone can relate to.
But just saying, “Well we can’t afford it.” is a pretty pathetic rationale, in that it’s true but astonishingly limited.
I’m kind of liking the fact there’s no GOP front runner. That allows guys like this to consider a run:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/55546_Page3.html
There’s also rumors that Giuliani is thinking about trying again. Bad fizzle last time. I don’t know what would be different with him this time.
Very kind of you, T.
Bill Maron,
[[[I’d say it wasn’t Iowa farmers he was thinking about. Given there was a push for 30%, I have a feeling this was a compromise.]]]
I though Tea Party candidates are not suppose to compromise? And that they supported free markets, not government mandates like 20% Ethanol requirements.
But as this article from 2005 shows it wasn’t a compromise and you didn’t do your research before trying to spin it that way.
http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/2005/09/26_mccalluml_ethanol/
[[[Governor Pawlenty is challenging other states to boost their ethanol consumption. He told a meeting of the Governors’ Ethanol Coalition that the corn-based fuel will reduce the nation’s dependence on foreign oil. The group consists of 31 states and five countries that support ethanol. But unlike Minnesota, few of them mandate ethanol use. ]]]
[[[This year, Pawlenty pushed for doubling Minnesota’s ethanol mandate to 20-percent by the year 2013.
So no, he was not dragged kicking and screaming into a compromise, he was for it 110% and fought against those legislators who believed in free market solutions.
Yes, the Iowa farmers will vote for 20% Pawlenty, given how rich he will make them by extending his MN law nationally. And no they won’t need federal subsidies then, not when ALL American drivers are FORCED by the government to buy ethanol for their cars.
“I though Tea Party candidates are not suppose to compromise?”
Strawman #1
“So no, he was not dragged kicking and screaming into a compromise…’
Strawman #2
After the MSU Mankato study was issued the RFA, an ethanol group, was lobbying for higher ethanol use. The article I want is behind a paywall. It’s moot anyway as the sunset provision of the law kicked in as the EPA didn’t grant a waiver in time.
“…ALL American drivers are FORCED by the government to buy ethanol for their cars.”
They are already. Keep up.
Bill,
You don’t read what you link to do you?
[[[The RFS mandate in EISA 2007 is not an E10 mandate. E10 is never mentioned in the act. The fact that all of the gasoline in the country is being taken E10 is an unintended consequence of the mandatory ethanol production quotas.]]]
Its different then the E20 Pawlenty mandated for Minnesota. The gasoline producers are going to E10 because no one wants E85 and so they don’t know what else to do with the Ethanol production quota.
Plus lets not forget his other motive for it, stopping climate change.
http://www.nawindpower.com/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.810
[[[Pawlenty first introduced his Next Generation Energy Initiative in December 2006 to provide more renewable energy, more energy conservation and less carbon emissions for the state. The act establishes statewide GHG reduction goals of 15% by 2015, 30% by 2025 and 80% by 2050. In addition, the bill endorses Pawlenty’s Minnesota Climate Change Advisory Group as the entity to develop a comprehensive GHG emission reduction plan to meet those goals, the governor’s office says. ]]]