The great rethink of ethanol

For the first time in years, there is an emerging consensus that the biggest racket in national politics deserves to end.

Earlier this month, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and 10 other Republican senators held a luncheon summit at the White House with President Trump with the goal of drastically reforming the Renewable Fuel Standard, the federal mandate that annually funnels $13.5 billion from the wallets of American fuel and food consumers into the coffers of agribusiness giants.

Before the national nightmare of Obamacare, there was the RFS, the most sweeping and intrusive federal intervention in the American economy undertaken in modern history. Enacted under President George W. Bush in 2005 and expanded in 2007, the RFS requires that biofuels, mainly ethanol, be increasingly mixed with gasoline in greater proportions each year until 2022.

Every November, the EPA is required to announce that it is mandating even higher levels of ethanol in our fuel supply. Recently, the Trump Administration and EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt bravely defied cronyism by freezing the current RFS levels for 2018 — a first step in relieving Americans of this Washington-built burden.

What was the thinking behind this monumental government directive, this freakish experiment in state-planning that arbitrarily picked winners and losers? Its proponents — namely Big Corn and hard-line environmentalists — argued that using more ethanol rather than gasoline would benefit the environment, boost the economy, and bolster national security by reducing our reliance upon foreign oil.