Pence Explains The Difference Between A Bad Mandate And A Good Mandate

The AP's Tom Lobianco challenged Mike Pence's position in support of a federal mandate that oil refineries blend ethanol with gasoline versus his opposition to most other federal mandates. It turns on whether the mandate is bad or good in the eyes of the beholder.

Republican gubernatorial candidate Mike Pence says the iron fist of the federal government, with its freedom-crushing mandates, has no place in Indiana, except for when the government is ordering drivers to put Hoosier corn in their cars.

Pence told a crowd of energy leaders last week that his energy plan for Indiana includes a vigorous fight against new regulations on coal-fired power plants. He has answered questions about how he would implement the new health care law by saying he would fight the federal mandate.

And, if elected in November, Pence said he would restructure the office Gov. Mitch Daniels used to lobby for federal tax dollars into one dedicated to fighting government mandates.

Unless, of course, that mandate is the one requiring 36 billion gallons of ethanol to be blended into gasoline each year.

Pence said the difference between a "good" mandate and a "bad" one depends on whether it supports Indiana businesses.

"Obviously, we go on an issue-by-issue basis," he said after his talk at the Indiana Chamber of Commerce's annual energy conference. "My view is always going to bring a bias toward what's in the best interest of Hoosiers, what's in the best interest for Hoosier prosperity. My perspective is ethanol adds to our local economies.... If we can open up more access to consumers for biofuels and ethanol, that would be a positive."

Lobianco notes that Richard Mourdock has taken the opposite view. He opposes the federal ethanol mandate. Pence's opponent, John Gregg, supports ethanol mandates. With corn prices now in the $8 a bushel price range, blending ethanol with gasoline increases the price of gas paid by consumers at the pump and is putting more upward pressure on food prices paid by consumers by artificially increasing demand for corn.