In the ethanol debate, it’s the “Mandate”
by Sen. Tom Reynolds

I find words to be telling. The formal definition of a word often reveals the true intent behind a statement. Take “ethanol mandate” as an example. Rather than pass legislation to encourage the use of ethanol by reducing the state tax on gasoline sold with a 10 percent blend of ethanol, the pro-ethanol lobby wants a state “mandate” that forces Wisconsinites to but their product.
According to the definition from Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary, a “mandate” is “an authoritative command; especially: a formal order from a superior court or official to an inferior one”.
In holding to that definition, a mandate for ethanol-blended gas is an authoritative command from a superior court — the legislature, to an inferior one — the motorists of Wisconsin.
We can debate the merits of ethanol as an additive in gasoline ‘til the cows come home — and we will. But there is very little discourse going on in the legislature on the encroachment mandates have on the freedom of Wisconsinites.
In Wisconsin, the members of the legislature believe that they are superior in knowing what’s best for their constituents. As an example, some members of the legislature believe you aren’t smart enough to responsibly decide on wearing a seat belt, a motorcycle helmet, or a life jacket in a boat (a recently passed mandate).
If the legislature approves the ethanol mandate, then what is next? Are they going to force you to buy only Harley-Davidson motorcycles? Could they dictate that Miller beer is the only malt beverage sold in Wisconsin? Sound ridiculous? Welcome to the ethanol mandate debate.
Face the facts; the lobbyists in Madison have more clout than the nearly 3 million voters in Wisconsin. They have the money, they have the access, and we get the mandates.