Yes, that is likely true. Where I think it makes sense is when the government establishes a program or desired outcome, like more alternative energy, which meets national goals, and then incents businesses to participate in it. However, this had ridiculous effect on our ethanol program. First, corn was the chosen ingredient, even though corn is a subpar resource to convert to ethanol. This did, however, drive up the price of corn, causing corn itself to become hugely more expensive (I recall getting 10-12 ears for a dollar in season, now it is 4, at best, sometimes 2), but also had a very large impact on meat prices, as corn is a major in ingredient in livestock feed. So, this really had a negative impact on the economy, all while not really spurring ethanol use much, as that could have been accomplished using sugar cane or some more advantageous source.
This thread, article and report are from 2012. And, not really very relevant today. Don't know why @BigDog63 wanted to bump it. The Trump tax cut is relying on corporate tax rate reductions to drive growth, not personal income tax rate cuts (even though some came along to please Trump's masters).
