On the Blog
The Legislature is preparing to embroil itself in a special session after the Kansas Supreme Court threatened to close public schools over a funding dispute amounting to less than 1 percent of the state’s education budget.
Gov. Sam Brownback and like-minded state lawmakers are considered by many in the media to be the enemy here, and that shouldn’t be a surprise. Have you ever heard of an elected official who is praised for cutting education spending?
For that matter, have you ever heard an education official say education spending at current levels is sufficient?
But has anyone paused to consider if the education system actually needs so much money and, if so, why?
The widely accepted belief that throwing money at schools will improve educational quality has been disproved time and time again, including during the federal takeover of the Kansas City, Mo., school district. In a 1981 study, researcher Eric A. Hanushek of Stanford University found that “there is no relationship between expenditures and the achievement of students.” The Kansas Policy Institute used data from the National Center for Economic Statistics to show in its April 2016report that “graduation rates have steadily increased, regardless of funding levels.”
If more money is not a cure for America’s failing schools, what’s to be done?
First, let’s stop automatically demonizing elected officials for cutting education spending. Ask education departments specifically what they are spending taxpayers’ money on and whether they can show, using empirical evidence, such a strategy will lead to an improvement in students’ educational outcomes. Schools need money, but school districts also need to be held accountable.
Legislatures also need to be open to school choice. Kansas currently has only one school choice program available to parents in the state – the Kansas Tax Credit for Low Income Students Scholarship Program – and just 73 students participated in the program during the 2015-16 school year. School choice programs save taxpayers money.
What does the state really need to improve educational quality? It’s likely, despite all of the rhetoric claiming the contrary, that money is not really the problem. It’s certainly not a surefire solution.
[Originally published at the Wichita Eagle]
The idea of a carbon dioxide tax fits in seamlessly with the romantic, often quixotic, worldview of the modern environmental movement. It’s a well-intentioned notion that’s untethered to reality, and which would produce few appreciable gains, while causing major damage.
Unfortunately, the idea is also gradually picking up momentum. While no state currently has a carbon dioxide tax on the books, voters in Washington State will decide whether they want to be the first to implement one when they go the polls in November. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District currently oversees a business carbon tax over a nine-county area in Northern California, and a county-wide tax is now in effect in Montgomery County, Maryland. In Canada, carbon dioxide tax legislation recently passed the Legislature of Alberta, making it the third province to enact one since 2007.
In response to this gradual mainstreaming, 237 members of Congress voted to pass a non-binding resolution on June 10, putting them on record in opposition to a federal carbon dioxide tax. The House members supporting the bill argue that such a tax would be “detrimental to American families and businesses” as well as to the economy as a whole. (The Heartland Institute, where I work as a policy analyst, was one of many organizations that co-signed a letter of support for the resolution.)
The purpose of the carbon tax is to decrease carbon dioxide emissions by levying a tax based on the amount of emissions produced. But the tax is a prime example of the recoil being more dangerous than the projectile.
The carbon dioxide tax is inherently regressive and disproportionally harms low-income families. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) found that a $28 per ton carbon dioxide tax would result in energy costs being 250 percent higher for the poorest one-fifth of households than the richest one-fifth of households.
The reason? According to the CBO:
A carbon tax would increase the prices of fossil fuels in direct proportion to their carbon content. Higher fuel prices, in turn, would raise production costs and ultimately drive up prices for goods and services throughout the economy…Low-income households spend a larger share of their income on goods and services whose prices would increase the most, such as electricity and transportation.
This is why most proposed carbon dioxide tax legislation comes with offsetting cuts to other taxes — known as “tax swaps” — or direct tax rebates to individuals and families. This is the case with the Washington ballot initiative — where even proponents of the carbon tax admit that it would increase gas prices by 25 cents per gallon statewide — as well as another proposed carbon dioxide tax introduced in the Rhode Island House of Representatives earlier this year.
Another problem with the federal carbon dioxide bill is that any environmental benefits that it might produce would be effectively meaningless without concomitant legislation enacted throughout the rest of the globe. As Manhattan Institute senior fellow Oren Cass puts it:
The effectiveness of a carbon tax…therefore depend[s] not only on how it would directly alter the trajectory of American emissions, but also on its ability to affect global emissions by driving globally applicable technological innovation or by influencing the behavior of foreign governments. On each of these dimensions, the carbon tax fails.
William F. Buckley was fond of saying that as idealism approaches reality, the costs become prohibitive. This is certainly the case with a carbon dioxide tax, which would make everything more expensive for working Americans, leaving them less to spend and save — and all for no guaranteed environmental benefit. There might be some room to absorb the damage of such rose-colored schemes in a healthy economy, but certainly not at a time when the economy is still limping along.
These congressmen should be applauded for taking a stand, however symbolic, against such an ill-conceived proposal. Let’s hope that, if and when the time comes, they remain resolute.
Although the May 23 New York Times article on hydraulic fracturing, “The Sand Mines That Ruin Farmland,” is an interesting read, it is by no means an accurate one. Author Nancy Loeb relies on unsubstantiated claims in order to push forth her own liberal agenda. Hydraulic fracturing is not the monster that Loeb makes it out to be.
Having grown up on the same farm where my grandfather was born in 1930, nothing makes my heart sink faster than seeing quality farmland disappear. It’s important, however, to understand the reality of the situation: Frac sand, oil, and natural gas must be harvested to meet the needs of our society, and these needs are being met in an environmentally responsible way.
Many critics of fracking seem to think the world can run on solar and wind power alone, and that oil and natural gas are unnecessary to fuel our cars (and farm equipment), keep the lights on at our schools, and power lifesaving equipment at our hospitals. Those notions are simply untrue. According to the Energy Information Administration, the United States generates just 0.4 percent of our total energy from solar power and 1.4 percent from wind energy. Together, these two forms of energy produce less energy than burning wood (2.2 percent).
Natural gas, by contrast, accounts for 28 percent of the nation’s total energy use, and oil accounts for another 35 percent. In order to produce oil and natural gas in the United States, we need to use hydraulic fracturing and, as a result, frac sand.
Hydraulic fracturing is used to extract 51 percent of the oil and 67 percentof the natural gas produced in the United States. Without this technology, it would be significantly more expensive to heat our homes, drive our cars, and power our hospitals. We would also be more dependent on foreign countries such as Saudi Arabia, Russia, and Venezuela. It makes more sense to put Americans to work developing these resources at home than to import them from abroad.
Unfortunately, Loeb makes claims about the alleged dangers of silica sand mining without providing proper supporting evidence. However, the Institute for Wisconsin’s Health conducted a health impact assessment of sand mining in Wisconsin and concluded that silica sand operations do not pose a threat to people living near these facilities. While it is true that small particles of silica dust are an occupational health hazard, there are already strict regulations in place to protect workers from ailments such as silicosis.
The facts on water consumption provide similarly good news. Statistics from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources show sand mines used only 0.09 percent of all the water consumed in the state in 2013. Agricultural irrigation used 55 times more water than silica sand mining. In addition, many industrial sand facilities recycle up to 90 percent of the water used.
The berms of topsoil Loeb refers to in passing are used to store the soil for later use so it can be reapplied to the land during the reclamation process when mining is complete, which she fails to mention. This practice helps restore the productivity of agricultural land while greatly reducing the potential impact of these mines on neighboring property values.
Those concerned about disappearing farmland would have better luck protesting the construction of strip malls, subdivisions, and superstores because these developments pose a far greater threat to farmland than sand mining. In fact, from 2007 to 2013, more than three million acres of U.S. farmland were converted into developments, and sand mining accounted for only a tiny fraction of this conversion. In addition, once farmland is paved over for housing, it is essentially gone for good, but sand mines can be reclaimed for other purposes after mining has been completed.
Finally, agriculture simply cannot be conducted without oil and natural gas. Tractors, combines, and the other heavy machinery used on farms run on gasoline and diesel fuel. The nitrogen-based fertilizer used to increase farm yields is made from natural gas. These sources of energy, and the people who work to produce them, are just as vital in ensuring we all have enough to eat as tractors and the farmers who drive them. Far from ruining the nation’s farms, fracking is a boon to agriculture.
Heartland Daily Podcast – Sean Parnell: A Shamelessly Uninsured Self-Pay Patient Saving Thousands on Health Care
Meet two self-pay patients who don’t have or want health insurance, don’t receive government assistance, and consistently score the best prices on health care money can buy.
The shamelessly uninsured: Michael Hamilton, host of the Health Care News Podcast and managing editor of Health Care News, and Sean Parnell, author of The Self-Pay Patient: Affordable Healthcare Choices in the Age of Obamacare and a former Health Care News managing editor.
Hamilton and Parnell extol the virtues of going uninsured in order to obtain the most cost-effective health care for oneself and one’s family.
Together they cover how to make sure self-pay patients get the best price from their doctors, how doing a little homework can save you thousands of dollars, and how to combine a savvy self-pay mentality with membership in a health care sharing ministry.
Most importantly, in contrast to some plans to repeal and replace Obamacare proposed at the federal level, Hamilton and Parnell help empower consumers to make free, informed about decisions about obtaining affordable, high-quality health care–as opposed to mere health insurance.
When government “helps” run something – that something is terrible. The bigger a hand government has in running it – the more terrible it is. If it is exclusively government-run – the terrible-ness is ingrained and inherent. And the longer government runs the show – the worse the terrible-ness becomes.
But one example: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is full-on government medicine – and has been since 1930. A government-only monopoly. And its delivery…is terrible – when it isn’t non-existent.
Untold numbers of veterans are dying waiting for care. We don’t know how many – because government is placing tens of thousands of veterans on secret waiting lists. And government is leaving completely of these lists tens of thousands more.
And there is zero accountability. After this abomination was identified in 2014 – the government actually kept growing the wait lists. No one – NO ONE – has been fired.
Executed in the face of this top-to-bottom terrible-ness was the #1 DC defense – “We aren’t spending enough money.” As is nigh always the case – that is another DC lie.
In 2002, President George W. Bush declared a War on Terror – and the VA budget (in current coin) was $53.5 billion. In 2012, President Obama had mostly ended our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan – and the VA budget was $125.3 billion. A roughly 250% increase over ten years.
The amount of money we give government – isn’t the problem. (We in fact now set new records every year in coin taken by the Feds.) Government’s incredibly incompetent and horrendously wasteful use of our money – is a huge problem.
Contrast this government VA track record of terrible-ness – with the World Wide Web.
The Web was born in the mid-1990s. At its inception, a bipartisan DC decision was made – to leave the Internet alone. As nigh always happens when the government leaves something alone – the Web exploded. Arguably nothing in human history has grown better, stronger, faster than has the Internet.
Flash forward two decades to 2014 – and the Internet is 6% of the entire U.S. economy. $966 billion in economic activity – and responsible for 3 million jobs.
That is an inconceivably huge growth path. An inconceivably huge private sector success story. So the question is – why on Earth would anyone mess with it? An even better (worse) question is – why on Earth would anyone want the Internet to look more like the VA?
The government will now apply to the Internet – 1934 monopoly landline telephone law. But if you apply law written for a monopoly, the regulations will strangle out competitors one by one – until you get down to a monopoly. (That’s from the Department of Duh.) And the proponents of this inanity – want that monopoly to be government:
“(T)he ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists in the phone and cable companies and to divest them from control.”
Well isn’t that special. Government as our sole Internet Service Provider (ISP).
Killed will be thousands of private providers – and untold tens of thousands of attending private companies. And the millions of jobs and trillions of dollars of investment and economic activity they provide.
Born will be a sister agency to the VA – the IA, the Internet Administration.
And we’ve all seen how that will go.
In today’s edition of The Heartland Daily Podcast, Julie Kelly, one of the leading, non-scientist, voices in the contentious debate over America’s food system, joins the show to talk about Genetically Modified Foods (GMOs).
Through her research to improve the cooking classes she was teaching, she became a staunch defender of American agriculture and biotechnology to improve the world’s food supply. According to Julie, GMOs are perfectly safe to consume – a stance that is supported by numerous scientific organizations. She also talks about the myths surrounding “organic” food, explaining there is no evidence to suggest organic food is more nutritious, good for you, are better for the environment.
The Heartland Institute is also hosting an event with Julie Kelly about GMOs tonight (June 29) at 6 p.m. CT which can be watched here.
The political and financial establishments of Europe and the United States were taken by almost total surprise and sent into apparent shock when 52 percent of the voters in the United Kingdom chose for their country to leave the European Union (EU). But it is not the end of the world as we know it, and can be a positive sign and example of opposition to unrepresentative and centralized bureaucratic control over people’s lives.
As the June 23, 2016 vote neared on the referendum as to whether or not the United Kingdom would retain its membership in the 28-nation European Union, public opinion polls suggested that the voting result would be very close but with an edge toward remaining within the EU. The financial and foreign exchange markets all were positive, and the political elites in both London and Brussels, the European Union headquarters, appeared to be taking a sigh of relief that the existing order of things would not be threatened by a major participating nation opting out.
Hysteria and bedlam are the only words to describe the initial reaction when the votes were being counted, with the clear outcome that a majority of the voters had, in fact, said, “No,” to staying under the rule of the Brussels bureaucracies.
What is the European Union, and how and why has it brought about such a reaction from not only the people of the British Isles, but sizeable numbers of people in other member countries from one end of the European continent to the other?The EU: from Free Trade to Political Plunder
The EU grew out of attempts that began in the 1950s to establish a free-trade zone among a number of Western European countries, both to improve their mutual prosperity and to reduce the potential for conflict after the experiences of the two world wars of the twentieth century.
It formally became the European Economic Community (EEC) with the Treaty of Rome in 1957. But soon the free-trade idea was superseded by various interventionist programs for intergovernmental planning of agriculture and industry, and for a welfare-state social safety net. The EEC was transformed into the European Union in 1992, with additional plans for a single currency, which finally came to fruition with the establishment of the Euro as a circulating currency in 2002, and which is now used in nineteen of the EU member countries.
In 2000 a conference was held in Nice, France, to plan the expansion of the EU to incorporate many new member states in Central and Eastern Europe in the wake of the fall of the Iron Curtain and the demise of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s.
Then in October 2004, at a conference in Rome, the EU member governments agreed to a draft constitution that was meant to lead to a more integrated political regime and eventually to a United States of Europe under which, many critics feared, the individual nations of Europe would be reduced to subservient provinces of a centralized political authority directing and controlling the fates of all the member citizens. But when referenda were taken in May 2005 in France and in June 2005 in Holland nearly 70 percent of the voters in France and over 60 percent of the voters in Holland rejected the threatened loss of national sovereignty.Recent EU Crises: Greek Debt and Mass Migration
The most recent disturbances and internal conflicts affecting the EU have been, first, the Greek financial crisis, and, second, the massive influx of Middle Eastern and North African refugees in the face of the wars in Iraq, Syria, and Libya.
The Greek government, having lived far beyond it financial means for decades to feed a bloated bureaucracy, an unsustainable welfare state, and a corrupt crony capitalist economy was faced with fiscal bankruptcy and default on a national debt it could not sustain. The financially more stable EU members were expected to cough up the money to cover the Greek government’s budget needs and revalue downwards the Greek bonds held by creditors. Fiscal band-aids and smoke and mirror Greek government budgetary reforms have taken Greece’s continuing financial difficulties off the front page.
Last year’s migration of more than one million refugees into the EU, under the initial openness of the German government, has brought about the most recent crisis among the member countries. Many of these nations have resisted acceptance of many, or any, of this multitude attempting to escape from war and find a better life for their families. The recent terrorist attacks, especially in France and Belgium, have made many among the EU countries fearful and paranoid of the arrival of a vast influx of Muslims within their midst.Some Valuable EU Pluses, But Far More Negatives
In assessing the European Union, it is certainly true that the EU has brought some desirable changes. Investments may be made relatively freely among the member nations, and this has made a more rational and efficient allocation of profitable use of capital within the member countries. And without a doubt, the establishment of virtual freedom of movement for member citizens within the administrative boundary of the European Union has been a great liberation. Though, of course, the latter liberty has been reduced due to the reestablishment of internal border restrictions in the face of the migration inflow in 2015.
But these advantages must be weighed against the fact that with EU membership comes a vast spider’s web of Brussels-imposed rules and regulations over practically every aspect and facet of manufacturing and market retail life, including labor markets and work conditions. Social regulations and rules impose increasingly one notion of “political correctness” and “social justice,” which member nations and their citizens have limited liberty to resist.
Furthermore, the European Union bureaucracy collects hundreds of billions of dollars worth of tax revenues through EU-wide import duties on goods entering any of the member nations from other parts of the world, and receives a portion of the value-added tax (VAT) collected by member nations within their respective national boundaries, as well as tax revenues representing a percentage of the each member nation’s gross national income.
The largest special interest benefactor from European Union spending of these tax revenues is the farming community. In 2014, about 40 percent of all EU expenditures were on the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). Inefficient, high-cost and wasteful farmers from one end of Europe to the other receive vast sums of money at the expense of non-farm business and manufacturing, as well as the EU consumers who pay for this financial transfer through their taxes and end up paying far higher prices for food than would be the case if there was a free market in farming.
The next largest spending category is called “regional support,” and comes to over 35 percent of the EU budgetary outlays. This is a catchall of infrastructure and crony capitalist spending to favored parts of the European Union defined as less developed or economically poorer, but ends up lining the pockets of huge networks of special interest groups working hand-in-hand with the EU bureaucracies.
A good part of the rest of the EU budget goes for the funding of the fads and fashions of political correctness in the arts and sciences, or wasteful and misdirected subsidized work and training programs for young people in the form of imaginary jobs to nowhere.
The European Union, in other words, is a huge and intrusive system of interventionist, redistributive, and corrupt bureaus, agencies and departments run by over 40,000 staff members and regulators. They impose regulations and controls over the social, economic, cultural, and political affairs of over 500 million people who reside within the European Union. And they are, seemingly, answerable to almost no one, and certainly not to the citizens and voters of the countries over which they impose their centralized authority of social engineering and economic planning and political correctness.British Voters Wanted Democratic Self-Determination
At the heart of most of the arguments for the United Kingdom’s exit from the European Union has been the desire to return self-determination to the people of Great Britain and out of the unrepresentative hands of the EU commissions and bureaucracies in Brussels. The people of Great Britain should hold their political, economic and cultural destiny in their own hands, it was declared.
This is why the supporters of Britain’s departure from the EU have been called it a triumph of “democracy.” Firstly, in the sense that the holding of the referendum meant that the people being ruled by a political authority should have the freedom to decide whether it wished to remain under the control of that authority. And, secondly, now that the vote has been taken, that the people, especially in England within the United Kingdom, have stated that they want that political decision-making returned fully to the government within the boundaries of their nation island.
The advocates of the UK remaining within the European Union are playing Chicken Little, warning that the United Kingdom, the European Union and maybe the rest of the world might be facing an economic sky falling in the form of banking and market collapses.
There is no basis in fact for such dire predictions. First of all, there are potentially up to two years of negotiations about the UK’s withdrawal and the political and economic ties and relationship that will replace the existing ones between Great Britain and the European Union. And, secondly, there is no reason why the new relationship cannot be similar with the ones that the EU has with a number of non-member countries now, which allow for a wide arena of relatively free trade and movement of capital and people between these partners.
This will be a matter of the ideological dogma and political spite that enter into the negotiations, especially on the part of the EU power structure in Brussels, wanting to set an “example” for any other nations that attempt to withdraw from their tentacles of suffocating control.The UK’s Future: Free Markets or Homegrown Control?
Will the United Kingdom come out of this departure, in the long run, politically and economically stronger or weaker? That depends upon what the citizens of the United Kingdom do with their reestablished democratic self-determination.
We need to remember that “democracy” is a political means and not an end. It is a way of removing those who hold political office and power without resort to revolutionary violence or destructive civil war. It is a way of changing those in government with the use of the peaceful ballot box rather than through applying the force of bullets.
But what democracy does not do, in and of itself, is determine what it is that those in high elected political office are expected to do, as a reflection of the “will” of the voters. That depends upon the general political and economic philosophy, and attitudes and ideas that govern and guide the thinking of a majority of the voting citizenry.
The real choice facing the people of the United Kingdom, once those tentacles of political, economic and cultural control emanating from Brussels are fully removed, is to decide what they want their own government to do. Will it be an underlying and implicit conception of human freedom, which sees government as the protector of citizens’ rights to life, liberty, and honestly acquired property, with human relationships based on freedom of association and voluntary exchange?
Or will it be a view of government as bestower of favors, privileges, subsidies, and anti-competitive protections from domestic and foreign market rivals, and which is also expected to redistribute wealth and establish societal constraints in the form of homegrown political correctness? In other words, will the UK’s democratically elected political leaders and domestic bureaucrats be expected to merely continue with most of the same type of policies that the political elite and bureaucrats in Brussels currently impose through the European Union structures of control and regulation, and which their own Labor and Conservative Party governments have been doing all along since the end of the Second World War, anyway?
There are friends of liberty in Great Britain who have participated in and even led the movement to leave the European Union. They want to return control of these political, economic and culture matters to direct British jurisdiction because they hope that will result in a more open and freer market society than the one currently lived under through the EU. If they are able to influence British politics in a more classical liberal, free market direction, with less regulation, lower taxes and reduced monetary and fiscal manipulation, the future can offer greater liberty and more prosperity for the British people.
But the fact is that the collectivist and interventionist mindset that dominates the European Union elites and power structures in Brussels have their long-established counterparts in the United Kingdom. The UK has plenty of its own domestic social engineers, crony capitalist special interest groups, and ideologically driven collectivists.
Which of these two intellectual and institutional alternatives – a more competitive capitalist system or more interventionist control and command – will determine the future of the British people. Exiting the European Union, therefore, is the beginning, and not the end.
If they chose the road leading to greater personal freedom, more free market competition, and less intrusive and taxing government, the British people will not only have redeemed themselves, but set an example for the rest of Europe and the world. History waits to see what happens.
No matter how many courts have rejected their pleadings, enemies of school choice appear committed to a 100-year-long judicial war in quest of some ultimate edict that will keep American students forever captive in government schools.
Consider that blunderbuss of a lawsuit in Florida that began in 2009 with an effort by activists led by the Southern Legal Counsel to persuade the state judiciary to declare the Sunshine State’s school system in violation of a state constitutional requirement “to make adequate provision for the education of all children residing within its borders.” (Citizens for Strong Schools v. Florida State Board of Education.)
In 2014, as if to throw every possible allegation against the wall with the hope something would stick, the “adequacy” litigants added the Florida Tax Credit Scholarship and the McKay Scholarship for Pupils with Disabilities to their challenge, along with charter schools, teacher evaluation and even testing. Specifically, they sought to demonize the parental-choice programs as drains on The One True System: failing, traditional public education.
On May 24, Leon County Circuit Court Judge George Reynolds rejected all charges in a 29-page opinion supplemented by 200 pages of documentation. The judge found private-choice innovations — far from being a fiscal diversion — have been an integral part of Florida’s educational progress in recent years.
Undeterred, lawyers for the litigants immediately vowed to appeal. Kathleen Oropeza of Fund Education Now termed courtroom advocacy of governmental supremacy “a marathon, not a sprint” — in other words, a century-long war.
Does it seem odd the very litigants who deem Florida’s public schools “inadequate” would kill scholarship programs currently enabling more than 100,000 poor and/or disabled students to find workable alternatives — and thereby force them back into substandard institutions? Sure, their logic may be screwy, but bear in mind that to socialists and statists, “adequacy” means sucking all money possible out of productive society and funneling it directly into a monolithic, all-controlling system.
Ultimately, the blunderbuss may be less significant than a more precisely targeted second lawsuit the Florida Education Association, the state’s largest teacher union, filed in 2014 against the state’s tax-credit scholarship.
Enacted in 2001, the Florida Tax Credit awards corporations a dollar-for-dollar tax credit for donations going toward scholarships enabling needy children to transfer to private schools.
The amount of good done the first 15 years has been impressive: The number of aided children has steadily risen to 78,120 students who were enrolled in 1,594 private schools during the 2015-2016 school year. Scholarships are limited to $5,886 per student or the cost of tuition, whichever is less. A little more than two-thirds of recipients are black or Hispanic. The average annual income of aided families is a modest $25,557. Several studies have documented that a majority of scholarship students had been struggling in their assigned public schools but are now doing better in their chosen private schools.
In McCall v. Scott, the Florida Education Association, in alliance with public-education interest groups and the state NAACP), complains this charitable money from the private sector rightfully should be taxed instead and funneled exclusively to the government schools.
A great many courts have shot down the preposterous argument private money never reaching the public treasury nevertheless belongs to Big Education interests such as the teachers unions masquerading as champions of the taxpayer. The list stretches from several states’ judiciaries to the U.S. Supreme Court, which held in 2011 in Winn v. Arizona tax-credit scholarships are funded entirely and legitimately by voluntary private donations, not state appropriations.
A local judge in Tallahassee rejected FEA’s case in 2015, and an appellate court now has it under review. If the union loses yet again, FEA president Joanne McCall, the lead plaintiff, is on record saying the fight will continue to the Florida Supreme Court.
If a judicial deathblow ever should befall this program, it is hard to see anything good happening to students — or to the public-school system for that matter. Nearly 80,000 pupils will stream back into public schools that already are overcrowded. The sudden added expense likely will result in a reduction of per-pupil spending. Worst of all, many underprivileged youngsters will be kicked out of schools that were working for them and be shipped back to schools that were not.
That last outcome has prompted many longtime supporters of the NAACP to plead with the Florida chapter to terminate its partnership with the education establishment and return to its historic mission of liberating black children from oppressive systems that call all the shots as to where and how students will be educated.
The journal Addiction published a study in late June, finding the use of electronic cigarettes and vaporized nicotine products (VNPs) have helped 15 million smokers quit smoking tobacco cigarettes and/or cut back, in the European Union (E.U.). Using data from the 2014 Eurobarometer survey, which recorded responses of 27,460 participants, the study concluded that 48.5 million E.U. citizens had tried e-cigarettes and 7.5 million were currently vapers. Of the group reporting regular e-cigarette usage, “35 percent reported that e-cigarettes helped them quit smoking, while 32 percent said they were smoking less thanks to e-cigarettes.”
This research comes on the heels of a study published by the British Medical Journal earlier in June, that measured the “effectiveness and safety of electronic cigarettes at 24 months” using data from respondents that used e-cigarettes and VNPs to quit smoking and those that remained on traditional tobacco cigarettes. The study concluded that 61 percent of respondents had remained “abstinent from tobacco” and that only 23.1 percent of tobacco users reported abstinence.
The study by Addiction is only the latest bit of research concerning the health implications of electronic cigarettes and VNPs. After U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced in May to regulate electronic cigarettes as tobacco products, more studies have been finding greater evidence that e-cigarettes and VNPs may actually save more lives than endanger, and help ease the health burdens that are associated with tobacco.
Prior to the FDA’s ruling, there had been scant evidence, but there was evidence that indicated health benefits. Public Health England published a study in 2015 that found e-cigarettes being “95% less harmful … than normal cigarettes”. In April 2016, the Tobacco Advisory Group of the Royal College of Physicians published Nicotine without Smoke: Tobacco Harm Reduction and concluded that e-cigarettes produced a “relatively high quit rate” and furthered the health risks of e-cigarettes as “unlikely to exceed 5% of those associated with smoke tobacco products.”
It is now time that the FDA reconsider the position to regulate e-cigarettes and VNPs as tobacco products. This new industry could save Medicaid billions according the advocacy group State Budget Solutions. The FDA needs to reign in their influence, as they are doing a disservice to their mission statement by not speeding up “innovations that make medicines more effective, safer, and more affordable,” but hindering it, in the area of tobacco harm reduction.
Check out our E-cigarettes ideas page for more information.
Lately, education scholars at Washington, D.C.-based, nominally conservative think tanks have spun themselves into a tizzy about the education reform movement’s splintering into quarreling factions.
Who knew such a monolithic movement existed? Even among strong advocates of parental choice, lively arguments have raged for decades over vouchers versus tax-credit scholarships, with each side arguing its proposal is the most powerful and/or practical way to empower families. Debate is healthy in a democracy, is it not?
Thinking in terms of a single, cohesive agenda is perhaps more common in Washington, where think-tankers attend each other’s seminars and flock to government briefings. Why should any of this matter to the folks back in Grapevine or Grand Forks? Because advocacy from think-alike think tanks may influence policy in their school districts.
Within these inner sanctums, there is concern about contrary ideologies intruding. In a May 25 essay, Thomas B. Fordham Institute Fellow Robert Pondiscio controversially observed, “Like the proverbial frog in a pot, education reformers on the political right find themselves coming to a slow boil in the cauldron of social justice activism.”
As an example, Pondiscio reported conservative reformers “feeling unwelcome, uncomfortable, and cowed into silence” at a recent meeting of the New Schools Venture Fund in San Francisco. He fretted about leftists aggressively promoting a new orthodoxy on issues of race, class, and gender within the context of education reform while excluding conservative ideas. But what is wrong with having the gumption to debate the reform newcomers instead of acting as though your side owns this turf?
Speaking of taking ownership, the long-time CEO of the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Education Reform, Jeanne Allen, issued a 22-page “manifesto” on June 15 — under her byline — seeking to reframe choice-based reform in terms of “innovation and opportunity,” as though those objectives are new. “This is a clarion call,” she announced in the opening sentence.
Much of the manifesto deals in great detail with the level of tolerance for semi-autonomous charter schools within government-controlled school systems over the years. There is nothing about the tremendous promise of the next-generation voucher, the education savings account, and there is little about a steady increase in states adopting private-choice programs and the phenomenal growth of homeschooling.
Allen’s manifesto expresses frustration that “our efforts to drive change have hit a wall. The reality is that more was accomplished in the first nine years of the education reform movement than in the past 16.”
That reference is to the pace of states adopting strong charter-school authorization laws since 1991. Some states and localities now seek to drag charters back under a regulatory umbrella, and that legitimately concerns advocates. (Of course, charter schools are far from constituting the entirety of the education reform movement.)
Charters have helped thousands of families find a tuition-free alternative to conventional public schools, and that is a good thing. However, because charter schools operate within the governmental system, the nature of the larger, controlling agenda becomes relevant.
In that connection, the manifesto actually laments the demise of the federal No Child Left Behind law because it helped set the bar for student proficiency and defined the terms of accountability. The manifesto goes further and hammers the debate over Common Core as a “distraction” that “has drained our collective energies and focus on students.”
Actually, the parents across the nation who have stood up against nationalized standards being imposed on their schools are entirely focused on students — their children and their neighbors’ children. And they see clearly that Common Core uniformity and true choice in education are incompatible. The manifesto is likely to deepen their suspicion that choice becomes problematic when linked to an agenda imposed from the top down.
So, what is the clear call for action, the clarion call? Its name is the New Opportunity Agenda, the tenets of which are to be “innovation, flexibility, opportunity, and transparency.” The ideas discussed include drawing on new educational technologies, starting new schools, allowing public funds to follow children to schools of choice, and reporting test data in ways that can show how schools and districts are performing.
The prospect of yet another agenda being developed by Washington insiders and passed down to the people may excite some who call themselves “education reformers,” but a different kind of reformer will argue for families having the freedom to pursue their own agendas for their children — with their individual decisions contributing to a vibrant marketplace that reshapes the face of U.S. education.
Even though there is not a single education reform movement, there are ideas on which agenda-driven and liberty-loving advocates may agree. They should be able to talk with each other — and even welcome social-justice warriors to the conversation.
“American taxpayers spent an average of $39 billion a year over the past five years financing grants, subsidizing tax credits, guaranteeing loans, bailing out failed solar energy boondoggles and otherwise underwriting every idea under the sun to make solar energy cheaper and more popular. But none of it has worked.”
In the United States, by mid-2016, the Big Three politically correct renewable energy sources wind power surpassed 75 Gigawatts, solar power surpassed 27 Gigawatts, and biofuels surpassed 16 billion gallons per year (mostly ethanol from corn).
In the article “Obama Legacy Will Be Power Blackouts” June 6, 2016, Professor Larry Bell wrote:
If you have heard some really exciting news that the Obama administration has already doubled the amount of total U.S. energy derived from ‘renewable alternative’ sources (solar, wind and biofuels), that would be true. Thanks largely to $150 billion in generous federal subsidies, combined total renewables grew from supplying slightly more than 2 percent of our ‘primary fuel’ (including electricity) to a whopping 4 percent today.
Solar Energy: Subsidies Required
There are many disadvantages to solar energy because it is unavailable most of the day—availability is expressed as capacity factor defined as the fraction of total annual solar energy produced compared to a facility operating 24-hours daily, 365 days per year. Capacity factors of solar plants in Southwest desert areas are 0.19 compared to capacity factors of 0.9 or greater for nuclear and fossil-fueled electricity plants.
Other disadvantages are solar plants require vast land areas when used for utility-scale power generation (6 acres per Megawatt) and have limited useful plant lifespans of about 25 years. Nuclear and fossil-fueled power plants have small land requirements (less than one square mile for 1000 Megawatts) and lifespans of 60 years or more.
Solar electricity is more expensive than conventional electricity from fossil fuels of coal and natural gas. Subsidies are required to promote its use in the form of payments or tax credits for construction of solar systems, rapid depreciation of solar systems, forcing power companies to pay above market prices for excessive electricity production called feed-in-tariffs, mandates for use of solar energy without regard to cost, and a host of other subsidies.
The vast array of subsidies is provided by the U. S. government, state governments, and municipalities.
Subsidies for individual states and municipalities are given by aDepartment of Energy website operated by North Carolina State University “Database of State Incentives for Renewables & Efficiency”.
A report from The Taxpayers Protection Alliance “Filling the Solar Sinkhole” said, “American taxpayers spent an average of $39 billion a year over the past 5 years financing grants, subsidizing tax credits, guaranteeing loans, bailing out failed solar energy boondoggles and otherwise underwriting every idea under the sun to make solar energy cheaper and more popular. But none of it has worked.”
‘Secret Dirty War’ to Stop Solar?
In spite of all the subsidies, promoters of solar energy complain they are treated unfairly in what they claim to be a competitive electricity production market. Author, radio broadcaster, and liberal jack-of-all-trades communicator Thom Hartmann produced two YouTube shows on solar energy carried on RT television. RT television, originally Russia Today, has been accused “of broadcasting ‘materially misleading’ content’”.
The first of the six-minute videos called “The Secret Dirty War To Stop Solar Power” is an interview between Thom Hartmann and Brendan Fischer, General Counsel, Center for Media and Democracy. They claimed the Koch brothers, Walton family, and American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is trying to stop implementation of roof-top solar for residences. ALEC is a nonprofit organization of conservativestate legislators and private sector representatives that drafts and shares model state-level legislation.
The Koch brother’s opposition to solar energy is supposedly due to their owning oil interests. But oil is used for transportation and chemicals and less than 1 percent of the nation’s electricity is generated with oil—principally in Hawaii.
Further disparaging remarks about the Koch brothers are given by New York Times writer Paul Krugman, “Meanwhile, buying politicians is a pretty good business for fossil-fuel magnates like the Koch brothers.” It would be interesting to compare philanthropic activities of the Koch brothers with their liberal critics.
The Walton family is said to oppose roof-top solar because it competes with utility-scale solar energy. The Walton family owns First Solar, which makes solar panels for utility solar facilities and builds commercial solar facilities.
ALEC is claimed to oppose roof-top solar because it helps state legislators or Public Service Commission’s craft rules to insure fairness for electricity customers. ALEC opposes net metering—the feed-in-tariff that forces utilities to reimburse solar electricity producers the full utility-produced retail price for solar electricity returned to the grid.
A summation of the six-minute video is its total baloney. Net metering is having utilities pay solar customers the full retail price for excess solar electricity returned to the grid. Yet this price, a huge subsidy that the utility (really other customers) must pay to the generally more affluent solar early adopters.
The U.S. average residential price for electricity is about 12 cents per kilowatt-hour. However, it costs utilities about 4–5 cents per kilowatt-hour to produce electricity at their power stations. The rest of consumer’s costs are profit (maybe one cent per kilowatt-hour), cost of billing, and cost of constructing and maintaining distribution systems (transmission lines).
Utilities pay the costs of restoring power when wind, ice, and snow storms knock down utility lines. These costs are more than 5 cents per kilowatt-hour.
Roof-top solar generates most of its electricity from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.with a maximum output around noon. These are times when residential use is smaller because residential occupants are at work or school. Thus the amount of solar electricity returned to the grid for net metering is large. In addition, utilities lose all the income from electricity produced by roof-top solar systems.
Therefore, net metering and residential solar use takes away needed operating income from utilities and forces non-solar customers to make up that loss through higher electric bills.
An analogy would be for states to reimburse bicycle riders with gas tax money used to build and maintain road structures for every mile they use their bicycles. Riding bicycles replaces driving cars that damage road surfaces. Due to loss of gas tax revenue given bicycle riders, states have to raise gas taxes for auto owners to make up lost revenue.
Net metering is totally unfair to electricity users. This is one of many subsidies by governments paying residential users of solar energy. Another subsidy is a 30 percent federal tax credit for the cost of building solar systems. The annual loss of income for the federal government is many billions per year. This is for a government going into debt at the rate of $1.5 billion per day.
Other subsidies are paid out by some states in the form of tax credits. Georgia used to have a pay back of 35 percent. Additional subsidies may be in the form of depreciation deductions on state and federal taxes. Another form of subsidy is mandates from states a certain fraction of electricity generation has to come from solar energy.
Solar Battle Royale
“The Solar Power Battle Now Being Fought” features a discussion of solar power in Hawaii between Thom Hartmann and Adam Browning, Co-founder and Executive Director of Vote Solar. Hawaii has the highest solar electricity penetration in the U. S. with 12 percent of their residences having roof-top solar. The U. S. Energy Information Administration reports Hawaii produced 4.84 percent of their electricity from solar for March 2016; the highest in the nation.
Hawaii has the highest priced electricity in the U. S. with a residential rate for March 2016 of 27.35 cents per kilowatt-hour. This makes residential roof-top solar very attractive from an economic point of view; especially with net metering.
Note: Along with the highest electricity prices in the U. S.,Hawaii has high gasoline prices with Honolulu averaging $2.54 a gallon June 13, 2016 versus the national average of $2.38. These high prices are due to oil being Hawaii’s main source of energy. Natural gas can be substituted for oil in both electricity production and transportation with considerable savings in prices. Liquefied natural gas (LNG) is shipped to Hawaii as a substitute for oil. Compressed natural gas (CNG) used for vehicles has an energy density about one-third gasoline which limits vehicle range to under 190 miles. For the small distances traveled in Hawaii, CNG poses no problem. Energy savings using LNG in Hawaii also apply to near bankrupt Puerto Rico.
Adam Browning claimed utilities in Hawaii are discouraging additional residential use of roof-top solar. Hawaii has net metering. Thom Hartmann responded high penetration of solar energy has taken place in Germany with no problems. (He forgot to mention Germany has residential electricity rates close to triple that in the U. S. and on occasion Germany has to unload excess electricity production on its neighboring countries.)
Hartmann then mentioned half the electricity in the U. S. is produced by for-profit utilities and the other half by non-profit municipal co-ops or electric membership corporations (EMC). Electricity in Hawaii is produced by for-profit utilities. He speculated non-profit utilities would be delighted to have additional roof-top solar implemented by the residential sector. Adam Browning thought this was a great idea and heartily agreed with him. They thought cities in Hawaii should form co-ops.
Neither speaker was astute enough to recognize net metering, as well as solar electricity used, takes away income for utility operating expenses that has to be produced in some fashion. The only way out of this problem is to increase electricity rates for all users. Once again non-solar users pay higher electricity rates to subsidize roof-top solar producers.
Solar energy exists only because of the multitude of subsidies produced by federal and state governments. It is essentially a new 21st century electricity source. The lifetime of solar panels is about 25 years and they become junk that will require disposal of toxic materials. This will be a future loss for tax payers.
James H. Rust, professor of nuclear engineering and policy advisor to The Heartland Institute. Since 1992, Prof. Rust has endowed over 50 scholarships for students studying engineering
“California’s largest utility and environmental groups announced a deal Tuesday [June 21] to shutter the last nuclear power plant in the state.” This statement from the Associated Press reporting about the announced closure of the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant should startle you. The news about shutting down California’s last operating nuclear power plant, especially after Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (PG&E) had sought a 20-year extension of the operating licenses for the two reactors, is disappointing—not startling. What should pique your ire is that the “negotiated proposal,” as the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) called it, is between the utility company and environmental groups—with no mention of the regulators elected to insure that consumers have efficient, effective and economical electricity.
Who put the environmental groups in charge? Not the California voters. But unelected environmental groups—and their bureaucratic friends in various government agencies—have been dictating energy policy for the most of the past decade. Regarding the “negotiated proposal,” WSJ points out: “The agreement wades deeply into intricate energy procurement, environmental and rate-setting matters that are normally the exclusive jurisdiction of state agencies.”
California has a goal of generating half of its electricity from renewable sources by 2030 and environmental groups are calling for the state officials to replace Diablo’s generating capacity with “renewable power sources.” Realize that this one nuclear power plant provides twice as much electricity as all of California’s solar panels combined.
Bloomberg Intelligence analysts’ research concluded that PG&E “would need 10,500 megawatts of new solar installations to replace all of Diablo Canyon’s output” and that, without including potential costs of new transmission lines or back-up resources for solar, will cost $15 billion—with totals, including decommissioning, estimated at $20 billion.
The Bloomberg report states: “PG&E will ask that customers make up any shortfall.”
Actual costs, Bloomberg says: “could be lower because the company expects to compensate for lower demand and replace only part of the production.” Why will there be lower demand? The WSJ explains: “the plan calls for new power sources to furnish only a portion of the electricity that Diablo Canyon generates, assuming that greater energy efficiency in the future will also curb some power demand.”
All of this is announced while California is experiencing, and expecting more, blackouts due to “a record demand for energy” and because “there just aren’t enough gas pipelines for what’s needed,” according to CNN Money. “Southern California,” reports WSJ, “is vulnerable to energy disruptions because it relies on a complex web of electric transmission lines, gas pipelines and gas storage facilities—all running like clockwork—to get enough electricity. If any piece is disabled, it can mean electricity shortages. Gas is the state’s chief fuel for power generation, not coal. But the pipelines can only bring in about 3 billion cubic feet of working gas a day into Southern California, below the daily demand, which gets as high as 5.7 billion cubic feet.”
California’s Independent System Operator, which runs the state’s power grid, therefore, has warned of “significant risk” that there may not be enough natural gas which could result in “outages for as many as 14 summer days.” CNN Money reports: “Natural gas has played a bigger role for California as the state has tried to phase out coal and nuclear power”—environmental groups oppose the use of all of these three power sources.
It is expected that Diablo Canyon’s generating capacity will, in part, be replaced with more natural gas—which is good news for fracking. Eric Schmitt, vice president of operations for the California Independent System Operator, said: “California needs more flexibility in how it generates power so it can balance fluctuating output from wind and solar projects. Gas plants can be turned off and on quickly.”
As coal-fueled electricity has been outlawed in California, and environmental groups have pushed to close nuclear power plants, and routinely block any new proposed natural gas pipelines, black outs will become frequent. California’s energy demand doesn’t match solar power’s production.
This dilemma makes “energy efficiency” a key component of the environmental groups’ decrees—which parallels the European Union’s (EU) policies that were a part of Britain’s “exit” decision (known as “Brexit”).
When the EU’s energy efficiency standards for small appliances were first proposed, then German EU energy commissioner, Gunther Oettinger, according to the Telegraph, said: “All EU countries agree energy efficiency is the most effective method to reduce energy consumption and dependence on imports and to improve the climate. Therefore there needs to be mandatory consumption limits for small electrical appliances.” In 2014, the EU, in the name of energy efficiency, sparked public outcry in Britain when it banned powerful vacuum cleaners with motors above 1600 watts. It then proposed to “ban high powered kettles and toasters” as part of the “Eco-design Directive” aimed at reducing the energy consumption of products.
The EU’s Eco-design Directive’s specific requirements are to be published as “Implementing Measures”—which, according to Conformance.co.uk, are made “as European Law Commission Regulations.” It explains that this process allows the directives to “enter into force in all the member states without requiring a transcription process in their National Law. Thus they can be issued much more quickly than the usual Directive Process.”
When the EU’s high-powered toaster/tea-kettle ban was announced, it became “a lightning rod for public anger at perceived meddling by Brussels”—which was seen as “intruding too much into citizens’ daily lives.” When the ban was announced, retailers reported a spike, as high as 95 percent, in toaster and electric tea-kettle sales. The European overreach became such ammunition in Britain’s Brexit referendum, that Brussels stalled the ban until after the election and engaged in a now-failed public relations exercise with “green campaigners” to speak out in favor of the toaster and tea-kettle regulations that were believed to have “considerable energy saving potential.”
The Brits didn’t buy it. It is reported that top of the list for “leave” voters were “EU Rules and Regulations.” Matthew Elliot, chief executive of the Vote Leave campaign said: “If we vote remain we will be powerless to prevent an avalanche of EU regulations that Brussels is delaying until after the referendum.”
Brussels’ toaster and tea-kettle ban, which were perceived as an assault on the British staples, has been called “bonkers” and “too barmy to be true.” Specifically addressing the ban, Elliot said: “The EU now interferes with so many aspects of our lives, from our breakfast to our borders.” David Coburn, a UK Independence party MEP from Scotland, who recently bought a new toaster and tea kettle grumbled: “I think I must have bought a euro-toaster, I have to put bread in it five times and it’s still pale and pasty. Perhaps it’s powered by windmills. And the kettle? Watching a kettle boil has never been so boring.”
While energy efficiency directives banning Keurig coffee makers would be more likely to draw similar ridicule from Californians, there is a lesson to be learned from the Brexit decision: too much regulation results in referendums to overturn them. It is widely believed that, with Brexit and new leadership, many of the EU’s environmental regulations, including the Paris Climate Agreement, will be adjusted or abandoned.
More and more Americans are reaching the same conclusion as our British cousins about the overreach of rules and regulations. As Coburn concluded: “What we want is to let the free market reign, not this diktat by bureaucrat.”
The author of Energy Freedom, Marita Noon serves as the executive director for Energy Makes America Great Inc., and the companion educational organization, the Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Energy (CARE). She hosts a weekly radio program: America’s Voice for Energy—which expands on the content of her weekly column. Follow her @EnergyRabbit.
In today’s edition of The Heartland Daily Podcast, Michael Bowe, a partner with the New York law firm Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman, joins the show to talk about the interesting legal case involving the environmental terrorist organization, Greenpeace.
Greenpeace is being sued by Resolute Forest Products under federal and state racketeering laws for trademark violations, defamation and tortious interference claims under Georgia law.
First Lady Michelle Obama touted the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 as a way to make school meals more nutritious and accessible to reduce childhood obesity rates. But after more than five years, the program has few positive results: a recent study shows childhood obesity levels haven’t declined (and in some demographics, have increased), food waste at schools is way up, and kids from families that don’t need subsidized meals still get them, courtesy of federal taxpayers.
This month, Democratic leaders staged a rally on Capitol Hill to protest the Improving Child Nutrition and Education Act after the House Committee on Education and the Workforce passed it in May to address many problems with school-based meal programs. The bill targets the Community Eligibility Provision (CEP) which allows entire school districts rather than individual families to qualify for taxpayer-subsidized meals at school. The idea behind CEP was to eliminate the stigma of receiving free lunch and reduce “the burden of collecting funds and maintaining accounts for the students who pay for school meals.”If Some People Need Others to Buy Their Food, Everyone Does
Here’s how CEP really works: School districts in which 40 percent of the students are directly certified because they are homeless, in foster care, or receive public aid like SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or food stamps) can receive federal funding to help pay for every child in the district to get a taxpayer-provided breakfast and lunch each day. The 40 percent threshold is then boosted by a “claiming factor” which assumes another 60 percent of the kids in the district qualify for the meals but are unaware of the benefit or too ashamed to apply.
So instead of giving “free” food to kids who need it, under CEP, 100 percent of the students get a taxpayer-funded breakfast and lunch, including many kids who don’t qualify or need the meals. Remember, too, that their families are already eligible for food stamps, and probably receiving them given that one in seven Americans still is. This sloppy approach created a massive federal entitlement program that many in Congress now want to correct. “Community eligibility allows federal dollars to subsidize students who are not otherwise eligible for assistance. When that happens, we have fewer resources for those who truly need help,” said committee chairman John Kline (R-MN).
So House Republicans propose raising the minimum threshold from 40 percent to 60 percent starting in 2017. This immediately triggered howls of protest from Democrats and special interest groups claiming the change would toss needy kids out of the program. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi accused Republicans of wanting “to give tax credits to their rich friends and then say, ‘We have to balance the budget, so let’s take food out of the mouths of babies to do it.’ It’s just plain wrong.”
Lobbying groups also came out against the proposal. “This bill would result in countless low-income children no longer having access to the nutritious meals they need for their health and learning,” said the Food Research and Action Center, an anti-hunger group in Washington DC that lists major food companies as benefactors. A spokesman for the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the agency that administers child nutrition services, questioned any cost savings from the threshold increase, telling reporters that “kicking children out of the program is the only way to achieve this magnitude of savings.We’re Only Trimming Middle-Class Welfare, People
Of course it never hurts to make Republicans look like they want kids to starve — especially during a presidential election year — but none of the desperate claims is true: “Every child who is eligible to receive assistance today will still be eligible for assistance under our child nutrition bill. The legislation simply enables us to more effectively use taxpayer dollars and provide more help to those who need it most,” said Todd Rokita (R-IN), chairman of the subcommittee responsible for child nutrition programs. Families would just have to apply the old-fashioned way to document eligibility.
Republicans are right to rein in this inefficient and costly program while there’s still time. The USDA concedes that CEP is the “main driver for the expected participation increase in school meals.” But the scheme doesn’t ensure increased participation comes from those it was meant for—the needy. CEP has led to a 9 percent increase in the school breakfast program and a 5 percent increase in the school lunch program in its first two years. The cost of these programs has jumped nearly 10 percent from 2015, with a projected budget of more than $23 billion in 2017.
Since the USDA acknowledges that only about 60 percent of eligible districts now participate in CEP, the program can continue to quickly grow in the coming years. You can be sure the administration in its final days will continue to push the program to increase participation among those who don’t need it. Even after the Obamas leave the White House, their allies on Capitol Hill will keep demanding that the federal government play a larger role in feeding everyone and having taxpayers pay for it.
The Improving Child Nutrition and Education Act is just one example of how Congress will likely continue to tinker at the margins of the president’s most intrusive and expensive food policies. After eight years of mandatory calorie counting and food-shaming, there is little proof Americans are fitter or healthier. We do have meddlesome programs trying to force-feed kids food they don’t want—and in many cases don’t need—while taxpayers pick up the tab. Republicans should not cave to the special interests and self-proclaimed do-gooders who are using school meals as a way to expand government.
Julie Kelly is a food policy writer in Orland Park, Illinois. Jeff Stier is a senior fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research
Terrible news from Friday morning. Mike Flynn, the founding editor of Breitbart Media’s Big Government site, suddenly passed away. Like the man who hand-picked him for the job, Andrew Breitbart, he was taken far too soon. He was 49.
Mike was a warrior for liberty. He was instrumental in exposing the ACORN scandal in 2009 that got Breitbart’s Big Government from zero-to-600 in no time flat. The man’s instincts and contacts were gold, and his influence is still being felt in today’s politics. Just ask ACORN, or Anthony Weiner, for starters.
I only met Mike in person once in DC several years ago, but corresponded with him via email from time to time. I wished I lived in Illinois’ 18th Congressional District where he ran for Congress in the primary against Darin LaHood. I would have never cast a vote with more pride and pleasure.
Mike’s friends have started a GoFundMe drive to assist in the educational expenses of his children. Please consider going there to help reach the goal of $50,000. The text at that GoFundMe page says a lot about a great champion of liberty, which you can read below.
R.I.P., Mike Flynn.
American Patriot Mike Flynn passed away June 23rd unexpectedly from a heart attack, leaving behind a wife and four children. Please consider a contribution to assist with education expenses for the children.
Flynn was one of the original merry band of warriors and generals recruited and empowered by the late Andrew Breitbart back in 2009.
Flynn was the man who spear-headed Breitbart’s roll-out of the Acorn video series when Big Government first launched in 2009. As Breitbart’s sole employee in Washington DC in those early days, Flynn was the pivot person for every story and strategy focused on the federal government and national politics.
To his friends, Flynn was fiercely loyal, quick witted, intelligent and relentless in his defense of America’s founding ideals and the notion that individuals should have the right to live their lives without intrusion of the federal government. To his political adversaries he was tenacious and formidable yet quick with a joke at the end of a long, hard-fought battle.
Flynn’s laugh was infectious and boisterous and his ability to find a political ally in almost every district in the country when a story popped up was legendary. There were many times when a tip would come in to the Breitbart editorial team and Flynn would jump on to a conference call to dazzle all of us with his knowledge of exactly what the local, state and national ramifications would be on how the potential story would play out. He almost always “knew a guy” who could get a grass-roots video to turn a story into a blockbuster.
His efforts with Big Government were instrumental in many seats flipping from Democrat to Republican in 2010 and he was a frequent guest on talk radio and cable news on behalf of the Breitbart media empire.
Mike Flynn was a warrior who measured his effectiveness not just with the political scalps he obtained through exposing corruption at the highest levels of government but with the friends and allies he racked up through his tenacious efforts for a common cause. He loved this country and could speak eloquently and at length on the courage, foresight and brilliance of the founding fathers, but also of the unnamed patriots who did the actual fighting in the trenches during our nation’s founding.
During political debates Flynn would also say something like “I’m pretty sure those boys at Valley Forge didn’t freeze their toes off fighting for our independence just so this congressman can get a boondoggle project paid for on the tax-payer’s dime.” It was that kind of passion and wit that made Flynn one of a kind and he will be sorely missed.
While Mike had a successful career in politics, the most important thing to Mike was his wife, four children, parents and siblings.
Rest in peace, American patriot and happy warrior Michael Flynn.
This series of essays explores intersections of liberty, ecology, and prosperity. Where and why do they thrive together? Responsible liberty, sustainable ecology, and modest prosperity don’t always or easily go together. I discuss circumstances where these values are complementary not conflicting.
This is radically different from the conventional “Green” perspective. In that view, these three values are inherently and necessarily in opposition. The environmental culture really can be sunnier.
Much of my happy perspective comes from living and working on a Gallatin Gateway, Montana ranch. My wife Ramona and I placed all but 30 acres of it in a conservation easement with the Gallatin Valley Land Trust. Since the great majority of the land is reserved for agriculture and wildlife habitat, we aren’t bothered or tempted by developers. We are blessed by our contribution to this program of private sector conservation.
Most of today’s Greens believe political bureaucracies are ecologically and economically superior to private sector managers. Greens discount or reject the contributions of property rights, entrepreneurship, and the market process to ecological sustainability. Until recent decades most intelligent and alert individuals instinctively agreed. Now few such people have faith in government agencies. Alas, few understand or yet appreciate constructive alternatives to conservation and ecological sustainability.
The alternative approach has a name, the New Resource Economics, NRE for short. The paradigm originated in Bozeman, Montana in the early 1970s. My colleagues and I developed it at Montana State University, then a small “cow college” in the most remote of the contiguous 48 states.
That unusual location helps explain success: We lived amongst and hence witnessed the bureaucratic pathologies of forest, range, and water management. Fortunately, we didn’t work for university departments dependent on the largess of the agencies managing those resources. We were free to choose research topics. Initially our results rarely threatened funding or our home in the university.
The NRE offers an alternative to the authoritarian, bureaucratic management scheme of America’s Progressive Era. The elite of that period created federal agencies such as the U. S. Forest Service, Bureau of Reclamation, Park Service and state counterparts.
I love and focus on the “romantic” sector of environmental and natural resource policy: parks, wilderness, wildlands, range, wildlife, and water. While toxic intrusions into our shared environment are indeed important, I avoid them.
My wife Ramona and I grew up in families earning their living from agriculture and practicing conservation. We taught at Montana State University and ranched between Bozeman and Yellowstone Park. As I wrote this Sandhill Cranes whooped and a herd of elk was on our south hayfield. We love living here, enjoying and sharing our liberty, ecology and prosperity.
I am an economic anthropologist by inclination and training. This is not a field I recommend as a career but it has worked very well for me. I’ve taught a course with that title only once, in the Honors Program at Indiana University. Nevertheless, the mix of economics and anthropology provides powerful into environmental policy and its reform. Anthropology stresses culture while economics explains how people in that culture respond to opportunities, incentives, and constraints. These are the core ingredients of environmental policy.
I began working on environmental policy as a National Science Foundation post-doc at Indiana University. But how did I come to Bozeman? It was not an accident but rather results of a careful search. It led to finding and helping to found the New Resource Economics.
Democrats ripped Republicans on Monday evening, June 20, after lawmakers rejected gun control proposals approximately a week after the worst mass shooting in U.S. history. None of the four bills in introduced in the U.S. Senate in wake of the Orlando shooting received enough votes to provide for cloture (that requires 60 affirmative votes to move the debate forward for a vote on the actually legislation). You can see votes HERE.
As Thomas Sowell questioned in his article posted on Tuesday, June 21, The Gun Control Farce, “Do tighter gun control laws reduce the murder rate?
The NRA’s success in helping to defeat these measures is not money but common sense. Gun control arising from the Orlando tragedy was manufactured by Obama with no clear solution to any problem. The gunman was fully vetted to pass the NICS background check to purchase firearms, as were all of the active shooters under Obama’s (Bush’s, Clinton’s, etc) watch. None of the proposed measures would have had any effect, other than restrict the rights of honest citizens.
The Republican counter proposals, developed jointly with the NRA, would prohibit those on the no fly list from buying firearms if a federal judge could be persuaded of probable cause within 3 days. The Democrats rejected these two amendments because, in the words of Dick Durbin, “due process takes too long.” In other words, Democrats reject due process unless it suits their political needs (e.g., delaying Hillary’s indictment). The issue is moot, because current law already notifies the FBI, BATF and other agencies if someone on the list goes up for a background check.
Common sense would dictate that it is far more effective to remove criminals from guns than guns from criminals (a millions of law-abiding citizens in the process). Federal law already prescribes stiff sentences for gun violations.
- Falsifying government documents (misdemeanor), like the 4473 gun form.
- Possession along with illegal drugs.
- Possession by a convicted felon.
- Possession by a known gang member.
- Possession by a minor (21 for handguns).
- Gun trafficking.
- Shadow purchasing (by a lawful buyer, on behalf of a prohibited person).
Despite the huge number of guns confiscated in Chicago alone, only one person was convicted for trafficking (52 known illegal guns), and sentenced to time served (3 months awaiting trial). Half of the “non-violent” drug offenders, whose sentences were commuted by Obama this spring, were also guilty of illegal gun possession. On the other hand, an ex-LEO purchased a handgun for his father (LEO discount) in Pennsylvania and made the transfer through a licensed dealer, complete with a background check. He was convicted of perjury for stating he was the intended owner on form 4473 and sentenced to several years in prison. Why? Because his father gave him a check before the actual purchase. The US Supreme Court upheld the conviction.
You would think the opportunity to get gun criminals off the street for 10 years or more would send a message. However, Democrats are consumed by the “control” aspects of gun control and avoid any actions which would solve or mitigate the problems. In fact, “problems” are things which can be for political advantage, and like smoking and drinking, are given only lip service.
If you don’t visit Somewhat Reasonable and the Heartlander digital magazine every day, you’re missing out on some of the best news and commentary on liberty and free markets you can find. But worry not, freedom lovers! The Heartland Weekly Email is here for you every Friday with a highlight show. Subscribe to the email today, and read this week’s edition below.
Reasons to Oppose a Carbon Tax H. Sterling Burnett, Climate Change Weekly Earlier this month, the U.S. House of Representatives passed an anti-carbon-tax resolution – expressing concerns that a tax on carbon, applied to 85 percent of our nation’s energy, would be detrimental to the economy. Reports by the Congressional Budget Office and the National Association of Manufacturers reveals a carbon tax could eliminate 21 million jobs over the next 40 years. Additionally, CBO notes the tax would be highly regressive, harming the poorest American households the most. READ MORE
David Shestokas Comes to Heartland to Discuss the Constitution In the age of short tweets and even shorter attention spans, stressing the importance of preserving our Constitution often falls on deaf ears. On Wednesday, author and attorney David Shestokas came to The Heartland Institute’s Andrew Breitbart Freedom Center to talk about “Constitutional Soundbites,” his multi-media effort to engender respect and love for the Constitution in the twenty-first century. If you missed the live-stream, you can watch the presentation at Heartland’s YouTube page. READ MORE
Heartland President Joseph Bast Explains the Value of Great Books Jane Shaw, National Review Conservative scholar and former Philadelphia Society trustee Jane S. Shaw is impressed by Heartland President Joseph Bast’s description of our new Michael Parry Mazur Library and the enduring importance of books. In a post atNational Review Online, she writes: “Bast observed that the Internet can be manipulated by ‘governments and their allies.’ George Orwell warned in 1949 that ‘totalitarian regimes could exercise control over their citizens by making news of past events and articles about forbidden ideas disappear ‘down the memory hole.’” READ MORE
Featured Podcast: U.S. Rep. Pete Roskam (R-IL) on Preventing IRS Abuse and Protecting Free Speech Recent government audits reveal IRS has refused to take steps to protect taxpayer data from hackers – which comes on top of the agency’s propensity to abuse its powers to threaten and intimidate conservative organizations. U.S. Rep. Pete Roskam (R-IL) joins The Heartland Daily Podcast to talk about the Preventing IRS Abuse and Protecting Free Speech Act. Roskam explains how his bill guards against the abuse of government power and the threat of data breaches, by acknowledging that collecting the identities of donors to private organizations does not promote IRS’ primary function of revenue collection. LISTEN TO MORE
Coming Next Week: A Discussion on Genetically Modified Foods (GMOs) On Wednesday, June 29, food policy and agriculture writer Julie Kelly will be at The Heartland Institute’s Andrew Breitbart Freedom Center in Arlington Heights, Illinois to discuss how GMOs have helped feed a growing world population and protect the environment. OnThursday, July 7, Cedrick Keith will be here to talk about his 4,000-plus-mile walk through the wilds of the East to help preserve the eastern brook trout. We hope to see you here in Arlington Heights, but if you are unable to attend in person, the events will be live-streamed and archived on Heartland’s YouTube page. SEE UPCOMING EVENTS HERE
Playing Both ‘Cops and Robbers’ on Asset Forfeiture Jesse Hathaway, Orange County Register A new digital system unveiled by Oklahoma government police is just the latest example of civil asset forfeiture laws encouraging cops to become the robbers they’re supposed to be catching. ERADs, or Electronic Recovery and Access to Data systems, allow highway patrolmen to use asset forfeiture laws to seize individuals’ assets stored in bank accounts or on prepaid debit cards at the press of a button. No conviction required. This outrageous and corrupt violation of our civil liberties by government law enforcement agencies needs to stop now. READ MORE
Education Reform: One-Size-Does-Not-Fit-All Robert Holland, American Spectator Education reformers on the right are too often fighting with each other about what they insist are the best paths. Some even lament that the fight against Common Core is a “distraction.” This is not helpful. We must be open to all ideas that can achieve one vital goal: Empowering parents and students and breaking the monopoly of the government school system that is failing on nearly every level. READ MORE
Massachusetts Considers Imposing Statewide Single-Payer Health Care System Ben Johnson, The Heartlander Learning nothing from the failed single-payer health care system proposed in Vermont, Massachusetts lawmakers are considering two bills that would institute a statewide universal health care system. Opponents of the proposition are already trying to warn citizens of the consequences of such a program – saying it would drive up health care costs, raise taxes, and reduce quality and access to health care. READ MORE
Bonus Podcast: In The Tank (ep43): Rhode Island Center, Natural Gas, and Unconditional Basic Income John and Donny continue their exploration of think tanks across the country in Episode #43 of the In The Tank Podcast. Mike Stenhouse, CEO of the Rhode Island Center for Freedom and Prosperity, joins the show to talk about their work on The Jobs and Opportunity Index – an alternative economic measure to the unemployment rate. We also talk about the possibility of an unconditional basic income (UBI), or reverse income tax – a plan that was once endorsed by economist Milton Friedman. UBI would grant to poor citizens a yearly stipend that would replace the complicated maze of welfare bureaucracies we have today. LISTEN HERE
Here’s What The New York Times Completely Missed In Its Criticism of Fracking Isaac Orr, Independent Journal Review Heartland Research Fellow Isaac Orr, “The Fracking Guy,” corrects a series of errors he says appears in a recent article in The New York Times titled “The Sand Mines That Ruin Farmland.” Orr writes, “Having grown up on the same farm where my grandfather was born in 1930, nothing makes my heart sink faster than seeing quality farmland disappear. It’s important, however, to understand the reality of the situation: Frac sand, oil, and natural gas must be harvested to meet the needs of our society, and these needs are being met in an environmentally responsible way.” READ MORE
Help Us Stop Wikipedia’s Lies! Joseph L. Bast, Somewhat Reasonable Many people rely on our profile on Wikipedia to provide an objective description of our mission, programs, and accomplishments. Alas, the profile they find there is a fake, filled with lies and libel about our funding, tactics, and the positions we take on controversial issues. Wikipedia refuses to make the changes we request. It even deletes and reverses all the changes made by others who know the profile is unreliable. We need your help! READ MORE
Invest in the Future of Freedom! Are you considering 2016 gifts to your favorite charities? We hope The Heartland Institute is on your list. Preserving and expanding individual freedom is the surest way to advance many good and noble objectives, from feeding and clothing the poor to encouraging excellence and great achievement. Making charitable gifts to nonprofit organizations dedicated to individual freedom is the most highly leveraged investment a philanthropist can make. Click here to make a contribution online, or mail your gift to The Heartland Institute, One South Wacker Drive, Suite 2740, Chicago, IL 60606. To request a FREE wills guide or to get more information to plan your future please visit My Gift Legacy http://legacy.heartland.org/ or contact Gwen Carver at 312/377-4000 or by email at firstname.lastname@example.org.
In The Tank Podcast (ep44): The Brexit, Failing State Pensions, Bad Clean Power Plan Math, and School Funding
John and Donny continue their exploration of think tanks in episode #44 of the In The Tank Podcast. This weekly podcast features (as always) interviews, debates, and roundtable discussions that explore the work of think tanks across the country. The show is available for download as part of the Heartland Daily Podcast every Friday. Today’s podcast features work from the Institute of Economic Affairs, the Empire Center for Public Policy, the Manhattan Institute, and the Texas Public Policy Foundation.
Featured Work of the Week
With news breaking about the UK’s vote to leave the European Union and stock markets responding negatively Donny and John thought it necessary to feature work from the UK’s premiere free-market think tank – the Institute of Economic Affairs. In a press release, and report titled “Making the Pieces Fit: Reforming Britain’s relationship with the EU,” the IEA explains that the move grants great opportunity for the UK. Donny and John discuss the potential benefits and costs of the move.
In the World of Think Tankery
In this week’s “think tankery” segment, Donny and John talk about public pensions. The Empire Center for Public Policy published a paper illustrating the increasingly desperate pension situation in the state of New York. This, as well as additional papers from different states, reveals how dire the pension situation really is. According to one expert, featured on a recent edition of The Heartland Daily podcast, estimates that 1 in 6 government pension systems will fail even while incorporating optimistic outlooks.
The next item discussed in this episode comes from the Manhattan Institute in the form of a policy study titled “Missing Benefits, Hidden Costs: The Cloudy Numbers in the EPA’s Proposed Clean Power Plan.” This comprehensive report dissects the EPA’s cost-benefit analysis about the Clean Power Plan, exposing the flaws in the “study,” revealing wishful thinking of CPP advocates. The report explains how the costs of the plan will be much larger than stated, and the benefits will be much smaller than suggested.
The last item comes from the Texas Public Policy Foundation. The policy brief titled “How Education Choice Affects State and District Budgets,” helps explain why expanding school choice won’t necessarily divert education money away from the public school system.
- Manhattan Institute (Monday, June 27) – The Death of Cancer: After Fifty Years On The Front Lines Of Medicine, A Pioneering Oncologist Reveals Why The War On Cancer Is Winnable – And How We Can Get There @ The Manhattan Institute in New York
- The Heartland Institute (Wednesday, June 29) – A Discussion on Genetically Modified Foods with National Review Contributor Julie Kelly @ The Heartland Institute in Arlington Heights, Illinois.
- The Cato Institute (Wednesday, June 29) – Reforming the U.S. Postal Service @ The Cato Institute in Washington D.C.
heartland daily podcast, hdpodcast, podcast, in the tank, itt, donald kendal, donny kendal, john nothdurft, institute for economic affairs, empire center, public policy, manhattan institute, texas, foundation, brexit, education, funding, pension, uk, european union, clean power plan, cpp,
Commentators from the political “left” as well as the “right” have attempted to analyze and dissect the rise and appeal of Donald Trump. The reality is, I would suggest, is that he represents the essence of the modern interventionist state, with its regulated economy and redistributive politics.
Those on the “left” see Trump as the epitome of an undercurrent of American racism, sexism, homophobia and xenophobia. Trump represents an appeal to those voters, they believe, who are fearful of foreigners, and who are sexual traditionalists and prudes, as well as subjugators of women and discriminators against those of African or Hispanic descent. And there are, no doubt, some in American society who may wish to practice such prejudices.
For “progressives” and modern American liberals, Trump also depicts their conception of the worst of what they consider to be capitalist society. The brash, arrogant, greedy businessman, who will use any and all means to “make the deal” that gets him ahead, regardless of the honesty, ethics, or legality of how he gets to the top of wealth and power. The media and the movie industry regularly present an imagery of such people as being around nearly every corner.Trump an Embarrassing Reflection of Some GOP Policies
On the political “right,” on the other hand, Trump is the huckster conman who is not “really” a conservative, who has high-jacked the Republican label to foster a “cult of personality” by playing to a variety of populist emotions and themes among a segment of Republican voters. His promise to build a wall on the Mexican border, to preserve essential programs of the redistributive “social safety net,” to keep out of America all people practicing a particular religious faith, while cutting taxes, building up the military, as well as badgering American businesses to stay in or return to the U.S., seem like a bad dream to mainstream Republican moderates and conservatives, who see their election future going down the drain.
What is disconcerting for Republican Party conservatives is that there is little in the Trump message that has not been part and parcel of their own rhetoric for many years. They have been promising to stem the tide of illegal immigrants along the Mexican border; they have called for reining in entitlement programs while not calling for the repeal of Social Security or Medicare; they, too, have wanted to beef up the American military, while proposing tax cuts; and they have expressed concerns about the arrival of Muslim refugees and others who may bring terrorism to the U.S.
Trump has articulated these conservative political messages and taken them to some of their logical and distasteful conclusions, but has wrapped them in a speaking style and personality type that exaggerates the embarrassment of seeing some of their own policy perspectives reflected back at them through the Trump mirror.
For the political left, Donald Trump reinforces and confirms every belief and prejudice they have held about American conservatism, businessmen, and capitalism as bankrupt, corrupt and evil. For the political right, Trump represents some twisted and distorted view of the conservative vision that is not what they “really meant” or wanted the voting public to believe about them.
But, in fact, Donald Trump as a personality and policy proposer captures the essence of what both modern American liberals and conservatives have been selling to the American citizenry for decades.Progressives Laid the Groundwork for Trump
For more than a century, now, modern American liberals have insisted that political traditions and constitutional restraints should not stand in the way or bar the door to “progressive” legislation meant to implement a centralizing governmental paternalism of regulation and redistribution in the hands of those knowing what is “right” and “good” for the people of the United States.
Strong presidential leaders with “enlightened” ideas, whether this be Franklin Roosevelt unconstitutionally edging America into war in the early 1940s or Barack Obama using executive orders and federal government arm-twisting to bend state and local governments to adhere to the latest trends and demands of “political correctness” and the special interest groups covered by and under it, must move the country in that direction where “the best and the brightest” know it should go in the name of “good causes.”
Why should they be surprised by a presidential candidate who says he will simply order the military to use torture methods against those considered to be the “enemy” in a war against terrorism? Or implement his own executive orders to impose his will on the country, again, for its own good?
At the same time, has it not been the modern American liberals and progressives who have insisted that an individual’s identity is linked to his or her national or ethic or religious origin? Have they not undermined the traditional American ideal of looking at people as individuals and not inescapable members of tribal groups or cultural collectives? Has not the political left insisted on using government to bestow favors and privilege as well as penalties, based on people’s tribal and collective classification by the government?
Why should they be surprised when a presidential candidate say, yes, we must look at various collective groups as friends or foes, to be let into the country or to be kept out, merely because of their identification as belonging to a particular religious following?
Has it not been American liberals and progressives who have insisted that the actions and intentions of private enterprise should always be looked at with suspicion, and must be regulated and controlled for a greater national good and social welfare?
Why should they be surprised when a candidate comes along and says that where an American enterprise does business is in the “national interest,” and such businesses that try to set up their factories in foreign countries will be compelled to come back or to stay in the U.S.A? Have not the progressives and Democratic Party politicians been among the vocal opponents of “corporative inversions” and moving “American” jobs to other countries?
Trump has merely taken these ideas and policies prescriptions and packed them in “reality show” rhetoric and hype that panders to the lowest common denominator of tribal anger, envy and entitlement. Then those on the “left” are shocked, confused and fearful when they see how these ideas and policy proposals gain traction with seemingly large segments of the U.S. population.Trumps Unprincipled Deal-Making and American Politics
Furthermore, Trump hails the fact that he has learned the “art of the deal” partly from working with many in the Democratic Party who are now determined to prevent his ascendency to the White House. Yet, they, with many of their Republican Party colleagues, have insisted that there are no invariant principles or restraints on what and for whom government may do things.
Politicians buy votes in exchange for favors, privileges, subsidies, anti-competitive regulations and welfare-statist redistributions of wealth that are given to those who supply the campaign contributions and the votes on election day. Many of Trump’s personal business ventures and successes have been made possible with the active and willing participation of those in or desiring political office at the expense of other citizens whose rights to their income and property have been ignored and violated.
They have made and operate the political system that crony capitalists like Donald Trump have mastered the use of for their own benefit. Why should they be surprised when one of their partners in crony capitalism declares that now when he is running for office he will be as unprincipled and unscrupulous if he becomes president as when he has been their business partner in fleecing parts of the American public?GOP Hypocrisy and Voter Populism
What about the Republicans? The party establishment was afraid that Trump might run as an independent or third party candidate and steal their chance to regain the White House. So they persuaded him to make the pledge that if he did not win the Republican nomination for the presidency, he would not run as a third alternative, confident that Trump had no chance to gain the required convention delegates.
So they got what they wished for. Trump ran as a Republican candidate and is not a third-party threat. Only he has seemingly won the minimum number of delegates to win the nomination on the first ballot. The ruminations as to why Republican voters turned to Donald Trump in sufficient numbers to hand him the needed delegate votes have been unending. But, two reasons stand out most, in my opinion.
First, many conservatives and mainstream Republicans have become disgusted with and contemptuous of the party establishment. For all of their lifetime, the Republican Party has wrapped itself in the rhetoric of individual liberty, free enterprise, and limited government. Republican candidates were elected and reelected on the basis of the promise that a change would in the country’s direction toward more freedom and less political paternalism.
And . . . nothing changed, other than in the direction of more and bigger government, and very often with the Republicans in Congress or in the White House supporting or even initiating the expansion of more regulation, redistribution, and increased intrusion into people’s private lives and social interactions.
However much Donald Trump may not represent the ideas or ideals of individual liberty, free markets, or constitutionally limited government, he has seemed to some as someone who unabashedly says the emperor has no cloths; that all of Washington, D.C. – Republicans and Democrats – are corrupt, compromised, and contemptible, only wanting to gain and retain political power with no regard for the voters who place them in office.
Second, there is an element in the conservative movement that is thuggish in their expectation that government should protect their jobs from foreign competition; secure their own favored entitlement programs while wanting push back on entitlement programs for others they view as not as deserving for a variety of unattractive reasons best left unmentioned; and who want a “strong leader” to set things right, even if it means ignoring the rule of law and a constitution that they have implicitly concluded has lost its value and legitimacy after decades of being undermined, anyway, by the progressive left for its own purposes.Trump as an End Product of Corrupted Politics
Donald Trump is, in a sense, the end product of the abandonment and betrayal of the American idea and ideal of individual rights, private property, free markets, impartial rule of law, and constitutionally limited and restrained government.
Unprincipled, manipulative, power lusting, and ruthless in his pursuit of his own gain, with no respect for or recognition of the rights of others, is the imagery of Donald Trump in many people’s minds. But in what way are those not the distinguishing characteristics of the entire political system of government at all levels – federal, state and local?
Whether in the halls of Congress in Washington, D.C., or in the legislatures of the fifty states, politics is nothing more than the pragmatic and expedient “art of the deal,” of selling favors and buying votes; the technique of forming coalitions of special interest groups that will get one politician elected and reelected, rather than a candidate of the competing political party.
Do voters and citizens feel taken advantage of, traded away in terms of tax dollars transferred and redistributed from them to others with more pull and influence? Yes. Many understand that they are treated like suckers promised one thing before an election and screwed over once the election is over and the next session of the Congress or the legislature is in session.
Tired of getting the short end of the stick, they have looked for a champion who says he knows how the system works better than most because he has been in it for decades. He has bought politicians, used them for his own financial gain at the expense of other citizens, and even made some of those politicians come and dance at his children’s weddings.
However, Trump does not promise to end the pandering, plunder and pull. No, he says to those who find him appealing: Elect me president and I will use the same mechanisms and devices of government power to benefit you in place of the “fat cats” in both the Democratic and Republican parties who have made you pay for all their past and present political privileges and benefits.Trump the Progressive’s Ideas Turned into Their Nightmare
The Democrats stand aghast and horrified at Trump’s rhetoric and policy promises. But they created the intellectual environment and institutional setting in which a Donald Trump could rise to the surface of the political landscape.
They are the one’s who have insisted that the notion of individual rights to life, liberty and property were out of date; that the constitution has to be a “living document” reflecting the changing times and the needs of collective groups defined by race, ethnicity and gender. They argued that a more centralized government had to replace old-fashioned federalism with a strong executive who has wide power to do good things, “socially just” things for selected and favored groups in society.
So here comes along Donald Trump who says: Yes, we must discard looking at people as individuals with rights that government must respect. Instead, we must look at and judge all people from Mexico who may want to come to the United States as murders, rapists, and drug dealers. We must think about and suspect every individual from the Middle East who may practice the Muslim faith as a terrorist and impose a blanket, collective judgment that all of them must be kept out of the United States, since anyone of them might be a potential and plotting mass murderer.
The progressives said that group identity and characteristics were to be a leading classificatory benchmark for evaluating applicability for benefits from the government, and imposed privileged or unprivileged status within the United States. Trump is doing exactly that, but to the progressive’s horror his classifications and judgments for benefit or penalty is radically different than their “politically correct” categories and normative estimations. Yet, they are the ones that have molded and imposed the political template of collective “rights” and status that Trump is using and arranging, but in a different design and arrangement from the one’s the progressives want to impose on American society.
Even Trump’s bulling rhetoric that he will use all executive authority at his disposal as president to get what he wants that frightens those on the political left is merely the crude and guttural formulation, the “impolite” version of their own use of federal government taxing and regulatory power to arm-twist state and local governments to bend to Washington’s will, invariably at the expense not only of state and local government decision-making but at the cost of further lost rights and freedom of action by the citizens in those jurisdictions.
Donald Trump is the dark side of the America that the modern American liberals and the progressive left have made the United States into, and which far too many conservatives and Republicans have been willing to play along with because it offered them, too, power, privilege and plunder potential for their own corrupted purposes.
Having concluded that “big government” was here to stay and political suicide to attempt to reverse, the Republican establishment decided that the best course of action was to continue to peddle the same pro-freedom campaign rhetoric before elections, but play the same interventionist and redistributive games as the Democrats in the everyday affairs of Washington politics.
And so, the Democrats and the Republicans, the progressives on the “left” and the go-along to get-along conservatives on the “right, are the ones who made Donald Trump, the presidential candidate who may end up in the White House in January 2017. He is one of the practical and perverse results of the American interventionist-welfare state. The Democrats and Republicans have no one to blame but themselves.