Iowa’s federally subsidized straw poll

Charlie Speight, blogging at The Garnet Spy in South Carolina, makes an
interesting observation: Soon-to-be Republican presidential aspirant
Ambassador Jon Huntsman has stated that he will not compete in the Iowa
caucuses, a stand that has one Hawkeye State official popping mad.

As the LA Times reported: “Huntsman, responding to a voter’s
question, said he is opposed to federal agricultural and ethanol
subsidies. Such financial support is a make-or-break issue in Iowa,
which grows nearly one-fifth of the nation’s corn and 15 percent of its
soybeans.

” ‘I’m not competing in Iowa for a reason. I don’t believe in subsidies that prop up corn, soybeans and ethanol,’ he said.”

The ex-governor of Utah and former U.S. ambassador to China said subsidies “distort the global marketplace and lead to food inflation.”

“We will be competing vigorously here, in South Carolina and Florida,” Huntsman told a small gathering of Republicans at the North Conway Grand Hotel. “I probably won’t be spending a lot of time in Iowa. I understand how the politics work there.”

This stance displeased Iowa Secretary of State Matt Schultz, who said Huntsman “is in need of a lesson in Iowa politics. Iowa is a bellwether state. We care about our families, our faith and our freedom. We are not single-issue voters. We just want to know how presidential candidates are going to make our country better.”

The last three winners of the Iowa contest, Mike Huckabee, George W. Bush and Bob Dole, were all pro-ethanol. They would have to be if they wanted to finish well in that state. The state has received more than $369 million in subsidies — including nearly $31 million in corn subsidies alone — from 1995 through 2009, according to the Environmental Working Group, which tracks that data. [Utah News]

In addition to his beliefs on the impact subsidies have on the marketplace, Huntsman has practical experience with the negative effects of ethanol. Under Huntsman’s tenure as Utah governor, the state fleet also transitioned to flex-fuel vehicles that can run on regular gasoline or E85 ethanol. The move actually increased the state’s fuel costs by some $200,000 a year because ethanol is more costly to produce and ship. [Utah News]