King Corn’s attacks on Ted Cruz don’t seem to be gaining traction in Iowa

posted at 9:21 am on January 5, 2016 by Jazz Shaw

There are too many current poll results at this point to ignore the impression that the GOP nomination battle in the early states is currently coming down to two people: Donald Trump and Ted Cruz. The one place where Cruz may be in the lead is Iowa, and that’s something of a head scratcher for those who follow the conventional rules of political warfare. The Texas Senator has come out time and time again in opposition to the Renewable Fuel Standard and ethanol subsidies (well… all subsidies to be honest) and that’s generally considered to be the equivalent of signing your own death warrant in Iowa. Investors Business Daily takes note of that this week, describing Cruz’s campaign in the corn fields as a profile in courage.

Ethanol has long been the dead man’s pass of presidential politics: No one makes it through Iowa without paying homage to the corn-based fuel now a $5 billion state industry. But this year may be different.

Ted Cruz is leading the Republican polls in the Hawkeye State despite his opposition to the federal mandate requiring gasoline to be blended with 10% ethanol. He considers the mandate to be a form of corporate welfare — which it is…

Iowa produces nearly 30% of the nation’s ethanol. So it’s no surprise that the Renewable Fuels Association is running ads warning voters that Cruz is bad for Iowa farmers, and why pro-ethanol critics will trail him in an RV as he begins a six-day bus tour of the state this week.

As on other issues, Cruz’s position on ethanol contrasts with other politicians too willing to throw their free-market principles out the window when their buses pull into Cedar Rapids and Des Moines.

Reading through the entire piece I have to wonder if Cruz hasn’t taken a page out of Trump’s book this year and realized something which the rest of us have missed for a very long time now. We all know how politics is supposed to work, right? (Particularly at the national level.) There are rules one must follow or you are doomed to failure. It’s how the system works. But Trump seemed to have figured out that the rule book was largely a relic of the past before he even stepped in the ring. And at least in Iowa, Cruz is essentially the only one to have taken the same approach.

Everyone: “You can’t win Iowa without the support of the Renewable Fuels Association.”

Cruz: “Oh, really? Let’s put that theory to the test.”

Even if he takes first place in Iowa, Ted Cruz will face some tough sledding in the states that follow, but he will have shaken up the game permanently. If someone with a solid conservative record can come hit the trail there and tell people hard truths about government subsidies and still come out on top, the ethanol lobby is going to be left bleeding in the ditch alongside the political highway. That doesn’t mean that King Corn is going to go quietly into that good night, though. They have staked out the battle lines against Cruz and are dumping a ton of money into the effort to defeat him. (Bloomberg)

“Ted Cruz is dangerous to Iowa and thousands of Iowa jobs,” Eric Branstad, the group’s leader and the son of Iowa’s Republican governor, Terry Branstad, said in a statement. Referring to the Renewable Fuels Standard, a federal mandate on the amount of ethanol required in gasoline, the statement continued: “Our economy depends on a strong RFS, and Iowans count on $5 billion in wages thanks to it. Ted Cruz wants to kill their jobs, and we are going to make sure every Iowan knows that.”

Cruz was one of only two candidates rated “bad” by the group. The other was U.S. Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, who has said he considers federal support for biofuels a form of corporate welfare. A bad rating was given to candidates who “stood against Iowa farmers and the RFS.”

The ethanol lobby has been on the air with radio and television ads as well as direct mail campaigns trying to stop Cruz since he began his serious climb in the polls in early December. Despite all of that, Cruz is still sitting at either number one or number two in the Iowa polls, depending who you ask. So, the exit question for the morning follows: is this another place where what we thought we knew about politics was just wrong? Or, much like Trump, does Cruz have some sort of magic mojo that gives him a pass to do things which would still sink other candidates? Or to put it another way, has the game been changed entirely now or are Trump and Cruz simply the exceptions which prove the rule?

CruzPoints


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Fun season, amazing how many “rules” are being broken…

Rogue on January 5, 2016 at 9:28 AM

Please stop this ethanol nonsense, the price of steak is ridiculous.

Younggod on January 5, 2016 at 9:28 AM

These Big Corn Republicans sure act like Democrats when government cuts them off…

TMOverbeck on January 5, 2016 at 9:29 AM

Good. Renewable fuels need to sink or swim in a free market.

wifarmboy on January 5, 2016 at 9:29 AM

…it’s not Corn…it’s P-O-R-K…

Pelosi Schmelosi on January 5, 2016 at 9:34 AM

Big AG destroyed farmer power of the vote in Iowa. Even in Iowa, corn farming is not a major employer any more.

Constitutionalist on January 5, 2016 at 9:37 AM

…it’s not Corn…it’s P-O-R-K…

I really should have used that.

Jazz Shaw on January 5, 2016 at 9:38 AM

Why do Republicans care about one of the least populous states in the country whose votes don’t matter more than the other purple states?

LoganSix on January 5, 2016 at 9:38 AM

…it’s not Corn…it’s P-O-R-K…

Pelosi Schmelosi on January 5, 2016 at 9:34 AM

Pork is what corn is supposed to turn into, not fuel.

Rix on January 5, 2016 at 9:38 AM

An interesting take:

How Cruz Wins New Hampshire, and the Nomination

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/01/how_cruz_wins_new_hampshire_and_the_nomination.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

“For if he wins Iowa, he will have defeated the ethanol lobby. And beating Big Corn on its home turf is what can propel him to a win in New Hampshire.”

Pork-Chop on January 5, 2016 at 9:39 AM

The conventional rules have been written by politicians and lobbyists and have not been written by the public.

Conventional wisdom does not apply to populist positions because the candidates reach straight to the voters.

In Iowa a politician is dead if they oppose ethanol subsidies because the ethanol lobby will attack them or support another candidate.

The ethanol lobby and ethanol industry does not make up a majority of Iowa. They just have money and media access to push their side.

When faced with a candidate who can reach directly to voters and circumvent their media and financial monopoly, that candidate can win.

Again, It isn’t a majority of Iowa voters who support ethanol subsidies. It is the ethanol industry and politicians backed by the ethanol industry who tell us that a majority of Iowa voters support ethanol subsidies.

Reality is different than what lobbyists, politicians backed by those lobbyists, and the media who act as the mouthpieces for these politicians and lobbyists tell us. Go figure.

Reality trumps fabricated conventional wisdom.

airupthere on January 5, 2016 at 9:44 AM

Pork-Chop on January 5, 2016 at 9:39 AM

Has to win Iowa first.
But he is my guy, I think he can do it. But Trump has a way of bamboozling people, and is just now starting his ad campaign.
Time will tell. At least we can be 97% certain that it will be Cruz (65%) or Trump (32%) that win’s Iowa.

Constitutionalist on January 5, 2016 at 9:44 AM

…it’s not Corn…it’s P-O-R-K…

I really should have used that.

Jazz Shaw on January 5, 2016 at 9:38 AM

that is gold….

Rogue on January 5, 2016 at 9:46 AM

There are too many current poll results at this point to ignore the impression that the GOP nomination battle in the early states is currently coming down to two people: Donald Trump and Ted Cruz
=====================================================

Politics
Jan 5 2016, 5:59 am ET
Poll: Donald Trump Still Leads the GOP Field
**********************************************

by John Lapinski, Hannah Hartig and Stephanie Psyllos

With the presidential primaries in full swing, Donald Trump maintains his sizable lead over the rest of the Republican field. Among Republican or Republican-leaning registered voters, Trump has 35% support compared to 18% for Ted Cruz and 13% for Marco Rubio, according to results from the latest NBC News|SurveyMonkey Weekly Election Tracking Poll for the week of December 28, 2015 through January 3, 2016. The poll was conducted online among a national sample of 3,700 adults aged 18 and over.
================

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/poll-donald-trump-still-leads-gop-field-n490116

canopfor on January 5, 2016 at 7:46 AM

canopfor on January 5, 2016 at 9:46 AM

The last poll of Iowa showed Cruz tied 31-31 with Trump and that was way back on December 21. And the last few polls before that showed a Trump lead, so I would not count the chickens before they hatch Jazz.

NWConservative on January 5, 2016 at 9:48 AM

Why are we burning our food?

Galtian on January 5, 2016 at 9:49 AM

Or, much like Trump, does Cruz have some sort of magic mojo that gives him a pass to do things which would still sink other candidates?
==================

He is ahem, Half Canadian/American.

canopfor on January 5, 2016 at 9:49 AM

Has to win Iowa first.
But he is my guy, I think he can do it. But Trump has a way of bamboozling people, and is just now starting his ad campaign.
Time will tell. At least we can be 97% certain that it will be Cruz (65%) or Trump (32%) that win’s Iowa.

Constitutionalist on January 5, 2016 at 9:44 AM

Where did you get these statistics this time? Is it one of those where you just pulled it out of nowhere?

NWConservative on January 5, 2016 at 9:50 AM

I have never and will never understand WHY we would take one of the world’s most important food crops and turn it into a wasteful, corrosive and polluting additive which lessens fuel efficiency and is blown out’n the tailpipes of automobiles. Oh, follow the money. Never mind.

vnvet on January 5, 2016 at 9:51 AM

I have never and will never understand WHY we would take one of the world’s most important food crops and turn it into a wasteful, corrosive and polluting additive which lessens fuel efficiency and is blown out’n the tailpipes of automobiles. Oh, follow the money. Never mind.

vnvet on January 5, 2016 at 9:51 AM

For the same reason our far ancestors burned sacrifices on their pagan gods’ altars. Gaia and her high priest Manbearpig must be appeased.

Rix on January 5, 2016 at 9:56 AM

Isn’t Trump pro ethanol?

butch on January 5, 2016 at 9:59 AM

For the same reason our far ancestors burned sacrifices on their pagan gods’ altars. Gaia and her high priest Manbearpig must be appeased.

Rix on January 5, 2016 at 9:56 AM

Manbearpig has been replace by He that will stop the rising seas.

wifarmboy on January 5, 2016 at 10:02 AM

Isn’t Trump pro ethanol?

butch on January 5, 2016 at 9:59 AM

Yes, he’s a typical politician. Even bashed Cruz on his ethanol stance.

Jeffreyvdb on January 5, 2016 at 10:03 AM

Ethanol

Damages your engine and fuel lines.
Increases the cost of your gas/diesel
Increases the cost of corn
Increases the cost of meat from animals that eat corn
Increases the cost of transporting food and goods

What isn’t to like?

clement on January 5, 2016 at 10:12 AM

Where did you get these statistics this time? Is it one of those where you just pulled it out of nowhere?

NWConservative on January 5, 2016 at 9:50 AM

Where all statistics come from. Statistics show that only 10.45% of all statistics have any meaning and the other 254% are worth even less.

Constitutionalist on January 5, 2016 at 10:15 AM

What isn’t to like?

clement on January 5, 2016 at 10:12 AM

You missed that it damages emissions systems as well, creates more ozone and I think other toxic gases if I am not mistaken.

Constitutionalist on January 5, 2016 at 10:17 AM

The GOPe wants Cruz to win Iowa not because they like Cruz, but because they want to use him to hurt Trump.

They are not afraid of Cruz and don’t think that he will win the big delegate states, although they were probably less afraid of Carson.

Redstone on January 5, 2016 at 10:18 AM

God bless Senator Cruz for taking on this sacred cow, so to speak.

I am looking forward to lower prices for steak and hamburger when he is president. Mmmm … makes me want to go fire up the grill now. I use it in the dead of winter no matter how cold …

Oh, by the way, increased demand for beef?

I think that’s good for farmers.

Lower price for corn means lower prices for many, many agricultural and food products that incorporate core (corn syrup, anyone?).

I think that’s good for farmers.

I think Ted Cruz is good for farmers, good for America, but bad to corporate crony lobbyists.

Amen.

PrincetonAl on January 5, 2016 at 10:25 AM

I see the Trump supporters are silent…I wonder why?

Because the big government, feds will solve everything candidate is of course all in on ethanol.

Tip of the iceberg…

right2bright on January 5, 2016 at 10:39 AM

If all Cruz manages to do with his campaign is deal a death blow to King Corn, I will be content.

Occams Stubble on January 5, 2016 at 10:41 AM

I see the Trump supporters are silent…I wonder why?

Because the big government, feds will solve everything candidate is of course all in on ethanol.

Tip of the iceberg…

right2bright on January 5, 2016 at 10:39 AM

Why take a positive thread that can give Cruz lots of singular attention and invite in the High Priests and Acolytes of the Trump? Now that you already spoke up, they will likely come in and shit all over this thread.

Constitutionalist on January 5, 2016 at 10:41 AM

The GOPe wants Cruz to win Iowa not because they like Cruz, but because they want to use him to hurt Trump.

They are not afraid of Cruz and don’t think that he will win the big delegate states, although they were probably less afraid of Carson.

Redstone on January 5, 2016 at 10:18 AM

Yes, so the “GOPe” who have supported ethanol all of these years, decide not to? They will sacrifice their golden cow, one that they have never wavered on, on a gamble?

But Trump, who is on the side of the GOPe, who supports ethanol, they want to hurt him with this issue…but agreeing with him?

You guys, you logic is like a pretzel…I can’t imagine anyone, I can’t even follow the logic.

They love ethanol, so they support a candidate that doesn’t so it can hurt the candidate that does…or something.

Ever think…Trump is on the wrong side of this issue? Right?

Can we at least agree, Trump is dead wrong…or do you have some fantasy plot that he is for it, but really against it…

Trump is wrong…Cruz is right…votes or not Iowa support or not, Cruz took the right stand, Trump the pandering stand.

Right?

right2bright on January 5, 2016 at 10:45 AM

Why take a positive thread that can give Cruz lots of singular attention and invite in the High Priests and Acolytes of the Trump? Now that you already spoke up, they will likely come in and shit all over this thread.

Constitutionalist on January 5, 2016 at 10:41 AM

My apologies…of course you are correct.

But I am amazed by the mental gymnastics that the Trump supporters create to justify his actions…it’s like a drug.

I can’t get enough of the foolishness…I am simply caught by surprise every time, the lengths they go to, to justify.

Look, already a supporter said Cruz is against it because the GOPe is for it, but wants to hurt Trump.

You can’t think that stuff up, at least I can’t…the twisted logic is addictive to read.

right2bright on January 5, 2016 at 10:50 AM

The GOPe wants Cruz to win Iowa not because they like Cruz, but because they want to use him to hurt Trump.

They are not afraid of Cruz and don’t think that he will win the big delegate states, although they were probably less afraid of Carson.

Redstone on January 5, 2016 at 10:18 AM

Maybe, but they might not realize that Cruz fresh from an Iowa win might actually win NH, because of the moderate divide, if Cruz wins IA & NH i don’t see him losing SC or NV and then its off to March 1 where he is pretty solid

If Trump wins IA & NH i think he will be the nominee as well

OrthodoxJew on January 5, 2016 at 10:50 AM

The one place where Cruz may be in the lead is Iowa, and that’s something of a head scratcher for those who follow the conventional rules of political warfare.

A head scratcher because he leads in IA or because there is just one place where he leads?

MJBrutus on January 5, 2016 at 10:51 AM

right2bright on January 5, 2016 at 10:50 AM

Anyways. Trump is an OK guy if we do not get Cruz. I do not see any reason to tear either down. Just defend Cruz from them. Because Trump might be the guy we have to live with in the end. No point doing Hillary’s work for her here.
On the other hand, I am willing to salt the earth of Jeb, Rubio and gang. Particularly Huckabee and Kasich. Those two are the worst!

Constitutionalist on January 5, 2016 at 10:53 AM

Where did you get these statistics this time? Is it one of those where you just pulled it out of nowhere?

NWConservative on January 5, 2016 at 9:50 AM

Betting websites (predictit etc..) Doesn’t mean anything but its a statistic i guess

OrthodoxJew on January 5, 2016 at 10:54 AM

Constitutionalist on January 5, 2016 at 10:53 AM

The irony of one with your handle saying that tRump is OK is not lost on me.

MJBrutus on January 5, 2016 at 10:56 AM

Cruz has a great new ad out today:

‘INVASION’ … https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-SC1uUiT9s

Pork-Chop on January 5, 2016 at 10:56 AM

A couple of surprises in the internals of new poll:

Perhaps surprisingly, Trump also has the highest support among white evangelical voters—33%. Although Ben Carson did fairly well among white evangelicals (12%), the group heavily favored Trump. Cruz also did well with white evangelicals, with 2 in 10 supporting him. Rubio’s support among this group was 1 in 10. Republican-leaned voters who describe their political views as “very conservative” are most likely to support Trump (35%) and Cruz (30%) with the other candidates at least 20 points behind.

Interesting.

Meremortal on January 5, 2016 at 10:59 AM

Why are we burning our food?

Galtian on January 5, 2016 at 9:49 AM

To save the planet /sarc

MJBrutus on January 5, 2016 at 11:00 AM

Is it a mandate or a subsidy?

I shouldn’t say too much, but in central Oklahoma 100 percent gasoline is easy to find.

The ethanol blend, which I don’t use, is 20 cents a gallon cheaper.

goatweed on January 5, 2016 at 11:03 AM

In other news, Trumpty Dumpty has announced his intention to invade IA and steal all their ethanol.

MJBrutus on January 5, 2016 at 11:04 AM

The irony of one with your handle saying that tRump is OK is not lost on me.

MJBrutus on January 5, 2016 at 10:56 AM

He has done the nation a great service by being bold, if not believing his own statements. He has moved the discussion to the right on several important existential policies. For that, he deserves to be given the respect he EARNED in doing so.
He has not earned my full trust. I argue for me that he is about 40% there, with 51% being the tipping point of giving him my vote. Cruz is at 90%. The rest of the pack is less than 10% cumulative in my eyes.
It is not lost on me that Trump is not going to be a big follower of the constitution. But his service deserves respect.

Constitutionalist on January 5, 2016 at 11:09 AM

It does keep gas prices down, since it directly competes with gasoline as part of the fuel market. I realize Cruz gets money from the oil industry but the rest of us should think it through objectively.

cimbri on January 5, 2016 at 11:09 AM

Is it a mandate or a subsidy?

I shouldn’t say too much, but in central Oklahoma 100 percent gasoline is easy to find.

The ethanol blend, which I don’t use, is 20 cents a gallon cheaper.

goatweed on January 5, 2016 at 11:03 AM

It is both.
The mandate forces drivers to buy the fuel and the subsidy makes it profitable to the ethanol manufacturers.
The 0% ethanol gasoline is meant for people who cannot use any ethanol in their machinery. Ethanol destroys small engines pretty well and the very old vehicles gas lines and seals deteriorate with it. So it remains on the market, but otherwise the government mandates that it is added to a set amount of gasoline per year.

Constitutionalist on January 5, 2016 at 11:13 AM

It does keep gas prices down, since it directly competes with gasoline as part of the fuel market. I realize Cruz gets money from the oil industry but the rest of us should think it through objectively.

cimbri on January 5, 2016 at 11:09 AM

If that’s true then no mandate is needed. Ethanol will compete and win in the market. Consumers will have a choice and will choose ethanol. So, if the mandate is lifted nothing will change.

If what you say is true.

jaime on January 5, 2016 at 11:18 AM

It is not lost on me that Trump is not going to be a big follower of the constitution. But his service deserves respect.

Constitutionalist on January 5, 2016 at 11:09 AM

Now there’s an understatement!

He has set the agenda for the race. If his motivations were anything but a self-aggrandizing lust for power I could grudgingly give him some respect too. But no, his insane ideas and shabby motives leave me with a low grade loathing and even fear at the possibility that he could win.

MJBrutus on January 5, 2016 at 11:19 AM

Eric Branstad, the group’s leader and the son of Iowa’s Republican governor, Terry Branstad,

So says a “man” with an actual body count in his past, due to his drinking and drugging. What a piece of garbage to be casting aspersions.

MNHawk on January 5, 2016 at 11:19 AM

cimbri on January 5, 2016 at 11:09 AM

No it doesn’t. Ethanol yields fewer MPG and the price it sells for is only possible because it is subsidized. So we pay for it via taxation rather than at the pump.

MJBrutus on January 5, 2016 at 11:20 AM

If what you say is true.

jaime on January 5, 2016 at 11:18 AM

The subsidies make it cheaper. But it also has less energy per volume than gasoline. People do not like it, and if given the choice and it nominally being a $0.10 price per gallon difference, most people choose regular gasoline. The mandates are there to tell crony capitalists that there will be a captive market for the ethanol so long as they build the plants to produce it. It is a guaranteed market. Guaranteed profits.

Constitutionalist on January 5, 2016 at 11:23 AM

If that’s true then no mandate is needed. Ethanol will compete and win in the market. Consumers will have a choice and will choose ethanol. So, if the mandate is lifted nothing will change.

If what you say is true.

jaime on January 5, 2016 at 11:18 AM

I’m not for the subsidy programs; that includes the ACA, farm price supports, food stamps, student loans, ethanol, etc. They’re all worthy in theory. I wish we could just cut each program 20% and go from there. That way, you don’t get a total crash in displacement in one particular industry.

cimbri on January 5, 2016 at 11:42 AM

“… is this another place where what we thought we knew about politics was just wrong?”

It is indeed. People want leaders who have principles. We’re tired of people lying to us and angling for positions to please subgroups. We want the government to protect our rights and ensure a level playing field not for it to build markets and favor certain groups at the expense of everyone else. Is this so hard to understand? Quit listening to the beltway sludge.

livefreeordie76 on January 5, 2016 at 11:48 AM

He has set the agenda for the race. If his motivations were anything but a self-aggrandizing lust for power I could grudgingly give him some respect too. But no, his insane ideas and shabby motives leave me with a low grade loathing and even fear at the possibility that he could win.

MJBrutus on January 5, 2016 at 11:19 AM

At this point it is either Cruz or Trump, and people who leave themselves only a single choice, leaving the good for the desire of the perfect, are setting themselves up for failure.
It is your support to give or withhold. I am just pointing out where I personally stand.
At the very least, Trump will have a hard time, not impossible, distancing himself from his stances now. And with his ego as big as it is, he very well might do some serious good for the nation.
Hillary could not possibly help the nation under any circumstances.

Constitutionalist on January 5, 2016 at 11:58 AM

He has set the agenda for the race. If his motivations were anything but a self-aggrandizing lust for power I could grudgingly give him some respect too. But no, his insane ideas and shabby motives leave me with a low grade loathing and even fear at the possibility that he could win.

MJBrutus on January 5, 2016 at 11:19 AM

Cruz has no way to reach 270 electoral college votes. Please be realistic.

cimbri on January 5, 2016 at 12:00 PM

The subsidies make it cheaper.

Constitutionalist on January 5, 2016 at 11:23 AM

There are no ethanol subsidies, and there have never been ethanol subsidies.

There have been tax breaks/credits in the past, but those ended in 2011.

There is a government mandate that artificially inflates demand, thus artificially inflating the price.

A subsidy is a direct payment. A tax break/credit, or a mandate, is not a subsidy.

It is Leftists who have historically tried to conflate subsidies and tax breaks/credits, in an effort to denigrate the latter. In fact, a tax break merely allows one to keep more of what one already has.

We can criticize the ethanol mandate (I oppose it), but let’s use the proper, non-Leftist terminology.

And before I get attacked, I am aware that there may be some tax breaks/credits that still apply to parts of the ethanol industry. But the major one expired in 2011, and they pale next to the tax breaks given the oil industry. I am not, in principle, opposed to tax breaks, credits, abatements, etc., as they merely allow a business or individual to retain more of their own money.

Joseph K on January 5, 2016 at 12:03 PM

I want to reiterate: a tax break/credit lets one keep more of one’s own; a subsidy takes money from one entity and gives it to another, favored entity. This is abhorrent, and utterly reprehensible. Tax breaks/credit, while capable of abuse, are legitimate, as they do not involve theft.

Joseph K on January 5, 2016 at 12:05 PM

Constitutionalist on January 5, 2016 at 11:58 AM

I’m with you on compromising when we must. Cruz is my compromise as there is much for me to find fault with.

And yes, in a race between Pantsuit Satan and Trumpasaurus Wreck I would have no choice but the latter. And I fear for what will happen after that, whichever of those would win. My aim right now is to do what I can to see that this will not be our choice. A choice between death being burned at the stake vs death by stoning leaves little room for optimism.

MJBrutus on January 5, 2016 at 12:07 PM

MJBrutus on January 5, 2016 at 12:07 PM

Works for me.

Constitutionalist on January 5, 2016 at 12:14 PM

I want to reiterate: a tax break/credit lets one keep more of one’s own; a subsidy takes money from one entity and gives it to another, favored entity. This is abhorrent, and utterly reprehensible. Tax breaks/credit, while capable of abuse, are legitimate, as they do not involve theft.

Joseph K on January 5, 2016 at 12:05 PM

Tax credits do not let you keep more of your own. Credits are refundable. Just like the earned income tax credit.
Otherwise, I stand corrected, they did phase out that subsidy.
Honestly, companies should not pay taxes anyways. Only their customers pay the taxes. It makes American businesses less competitive in the global markets.

Constitutionalist on January 5, 2016 at 12:20 PM

Honestly, companies should not pay taxes anyways. Only their customers pay the taxes. It makes American businesses less competitive in the global markets.

Constitutionalist on January 5, 2016 at 12:20 PM

Agreed, tax credits are an odd hybrid, and often amount to a direct payment i.e. refundable tax credits, such as the EIC you mention.

I agree that businesses should not pay tax, as I oppose double taxation. Income should be taxed as income, once, when it is taxed at all.

My only issue with eliminating direct business taxes is that it creates a disincentive to disperse profits to the owners/stockholders. If you retain profits you don’t get taxed, but then management has money to waste on unprofitable schemes, bloated salaries, etc. Maybe if we get rid of taxes on dividends and capital gains, tax business profits like ordinary income at the corporate level, like a universal S-Corp type of situation. This would take power from management and put it back in the hands of owners/stockholders.

Just thinking aloud, as it were.

Joseph K on January 5, 2016 at 12:43 PM

At this point it is either Cruz or Trump, and people who leave themselves only a single choice, leaving the good for the desire of the perfect, are setting themselves up for failure.

Constitutionalist on January 5, 2016 at 11:58 AM

In the end we are going to have both of them. Cruz wouldn’t be where he is if Trump had not blasted a way through. I have believed since the beginning they are working together. I could see a Trump/Cruz co-presidency Trump with the vision and Cruz dealing with the nuts and bolts. As big an ego Trump has he didn’t get to where he is without taking advice from good people.

wifarmboy on January 5, 2016 at 1:33 PM

that moment when conservative voters realize that they’ve been the moochers all along…

everdiso on January 5, 2016 at 1:38 PM

I know if a I fill up on non ethanol gas in Abilene I will get over 20mpg in my F150 going back to the coast where I HAVE to buy ethanol gas that can’t do that.

DanMan on January 5, 2016 at 5:19 PM