In His Defense Of Ethanol Mandate Flip-Flop, Scott Walker Rejects Constitutional Government

I recently listed 12 reasons why conservatives should reject Scott Walker.

We can now add to that list. And no, I am not referring to his hiring-then-firing of Liz Mair.

In Walker’s attempt to deny the flip-flop on the ethanol mandate he committed in front of Iowa corn farmers, he made a serious error of even larger implications.

First, on the flip-flop itself via Politico:

Walker said he opposes the Renewable Fuel Standard philosophically and would like to phase it out “long-term” but that he would keep it in place indefinitely to help out farmers.

In other words, he is against it because it is bad but also for it because it is good.

And here is where he reveals that he didn’t really flip-flop at all (it is then pointed out that he did):

“From our standpoint, our position is consistent,” Walker replied. “I talked about not wanting a mandate in Wisconsin as governor. We do not have one. I do not support one. I have not enacted it. I’ve kept it out of the state of Wisconsin. What I said in Iowa was … I think we need to phase it out, but I don’t approve of putting in new mandates.”

In fact, among other things, Walker ran radio ads back in 2006 that decried “mandates from the state or federal government.”

Here is the damning part:

The governor explained Monday that he is now okay with continuing the federal mandates, which require a certain amount of corn-based ethanol to be mixed into gasoline, to guarantee that there is “market access,” so that “individual consumers can have the choice about whether they want to consume gasoline with or without ethanol.”

Can Gov. Walker please explain to the American people where in the Constitution the federal government is authorized to implement fuel mandates?

Does not Gov. Walker not understand the purpose of the general welfare clause? It was added to emphasize that the laws of the nation should apply to all citizens equally-in general. But he is advocating redistributing tax dollars for the benefit of wealthy farmers and corporations.

If Scott Walker is willing to reject the Constitution in this area, in which other areas is he willing to reject it?

If Scott Walker rejects the concept of constitutionally limited government, he does not deserve to be nominated as the Republican president candidate.

If Scott Walker supports corporate welfare and he is nominated, he should preemptively concede the general election. Americans are fed up with fake supporters of the free market. But out of political expediency, so far he seems willing to make true the caricature that the GOP is the party of corporate welfare for the rich.

Conservatives must learn the truth about Scott Walker before it is too late. This is going to be the most important and consequential election of our lifetimes.