Raising the cost of energy is a political loser. Chuck Devore writes:
If Paris streets burned over a proposed 30 cents per gallon climate change tax, imagine the global conflagration over a $49 per gallon tax.
That's what a United Nations special climate report calls for in 12 years, with a carbon tax of $5,500 per ton—equal to $49 per gallon of gasoline or diesel. That's about 100 times today's average state and federal motor fuels tax.
By 2100, the U.N. estimates that a carbon tax of $27,000 per ton is needed—$240 per gallon—to limit global warming to no more than 1.5 degrees Celsius. [...]
Keep in mind that the unrest in France was triggered by a looming 25-cent hike, which is a little less than 10 percent more in taxes than French drivers already pay. To meet the $49 per gallon tax hike recommended by the U.N., fuel taxes in France would have to go up 17-fold. [...]
So how do climate activists get their way? Some openly talk of imposing authoritarian governance to override democratic institutions. Former NASA climate researcher James Hansen suggested in 2007 that "the democratic process does not work." Other scientists have called the threat of global warming the equivalent of war while calling for the crushing of dissent and the jailing of "deniers."
[Chuck DeVore, "Paris Is Burning Over Climate Change Taxes—Is America Next?" Forbes, December 7]
Why populism is on the rise in Europe. Ted Bromund writes:
The fundamental problem is that for the EU, everything is political.
- The point of EU defense initiatives is not to improve Europe's defense: It is to reduce the defense sovereignty of the EU's nation states and to diminish NATO.
- The point of the euro is not to make Europe's economy work better: It is to be a political instrument for European unity.
- The point of having an EU foreign policy, or a border force, is not to do these things better: It is to elevate Brussels and subordinate the nation-states of Europe.
This strategy has been remarkably successful on its own terms, but it neglects one key point: Security, the economy, the border, and foreign policy—all are issues with realities of their own. By treating them merely as political instruments for the greatness of the EU, the EU shows it prefers a show of greatness to the reality of achievement.
At the level of national politics, the rise of "populism" is not surprising. If you are an established political party in a democratic political system that offers little meaningful choice, I would suggest that an approach that combines low growth, low levels of job creation, high levels of unskilled immigration, increasing levels of supranational control, a rejection of the assimilative force of national identity, and lashings of deeply felt guilt is unlikely to increase your vote share. If you want to provoke people into voting against you, on the other hand, this is an excellent strategy.
[Theodore Bromund, "A New Approach to Europe: U.S. Interests, Nationalist Movements, and the European Union," The Heritage Foundation, December 4]
President Bush led by example. Jonah Goldberg writes:
"No president, no government can teach us to remember what is best in what we are," Bush declared in his inaugural address. His job was to encourage Americans to be their best selves in service to each other, and to lead by example.
This is why Bush was so well-suited to being Reagan's successor. If the Gipper was the battering ram, Bush was the clean-up operation. He fixed the savings and loan crisis, signed the Clean Air Act, cleared Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait and put a bow on the dangerously messy aftermath of the Cold War.
On election night 1988, he was at a party in Houston, watching the returns. As Fox News's Brit Hume recounts, when the news arrived that Bush won, having recovered from a 17-point deficit, Bush's motorcade was waiting outside to take him to a victory celebration. The first thing Bush did? Help clean the dishes.
Bush lost his reelection bid for many reasons. But the most important factor was that the American people, liberated from the Cold War, had a hunger for transformation. Bill Clinton vowed sweeping change, even though he fell back into transitional mode when it suited his interests.
Our hunger for transformative presidents, for "outsiders" to save America, has only intensified. The sad irony is that if salvation is what we need, it will come only when Americans themselves take to heart the example of this good man.
[Jonah Goldberg, "Bush 41 Led by Example," National Review, December 5]
Dark money is good for democracy. David Harsanyi writes:
When Donald Trump named Matthew Whitaker as acting attorney general, for example, CNN warned its readers that the man had once headed a "conservative group funded by dark money." The nonprofit Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust, The Washington Post explained, had both "obscure roots"
and very rich "undisclosed funders."
While there might be plenty of good reasons to oppose Whitaker, the Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust sounds exactly like one of hundreds of groups that litter Washington. There is nothing unique about the existence of an organization funded by private donors who, as far as we know, filed all its proper paperwork with IRS and broke no laws.
Or put it this way: The Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust is funded by "dark money" in the same way that "Demand Justice," a group headed by former Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama aides—which dropped millions of dollars smearing Brett Kavanaugh during the Supreme Court confirmation fight—is funded by "dark money"; or in the same way that "The State Engagement Fund," a group associated with billionaire hedge fund manager Tom Steyer, is also funded by dark money. Whitaker was paid in the same "dark money" currency that John Podesta, or dozens of other Clinton or Obama advocates and appointees, had have been paid. [...]
t seems probable, too, that many of these wealthy Americans would avoid contributing to political causes if they had to deal with ugly public attacks on their businesses and families. That is the point, I imagine, of the hysterics over "dark money." Progressive groups have become quite adept at destroying the lives of those who back causes they dislike. The mob coming after Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich's job comes to mind, but he's not alone. The threat of such attacks is intimidating enough. [...]
Now, it's true that the massive amounts of money spent on campaigns and partisan advocacy reflects the unfortunate reality of a far-too powerful and pervasive government. So the last thing we need to do is expand its power to regulate more speech. The fact that groups of Americans are compelled to report to the IRS before engaging in political activity is bad enough. And those who argue that anonymous speech is an attack on "democracy" only aim to inhibit and control the political speech they don't like.
[David Harsanyi, "In Defense of 'Dark Money'," The Federalist, December 7]
Unions are defying the Supreme Court's Janus ruling on forced dues. Kevin Mooney reports:
Labor unions are collecting dues from public employees without their "affirmative consent" in defiance of a Supreme Court ruling that state laws requiring nonunion government workers to make such payments are
unconstitutional, a new lawsuit alleges.
The Freedom Foundation, a free market think tank based in Washington state, joined with the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation to sue on behalf of 10 government employees in Oregon who argue that union dues or fees should not be deducted from their paychecks after they officially resigned from their union. [...]
a The lawsuit, filed Nov. 20, names as defendants Local 503 of the Service Employees International Union and Council 75 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, as well as several government agencies.
[Kevin Mooney, "Unions Defy Supreme Court on Mandatory Dues, Suit Says," The Daily Signal, December 4]
-
Megyn Kelly -> Pete Hegseth responds to 2017 rape accusation. 🔥 vol. 3, issue 13 | December 6, 2024 Quick Hits All the news you need in...
No comments: