The Problem with Trade Restrictions in One Chart
Timothy Taylor, at the Conversable Economist, has an awesome graph and an excellent discussion of trade in the modern world.
We often picture some companies producing for export but using as inputs almost entirely domestically produced items. Wrong!
His post is titled "What If US Importers and Exporters are Largely the Same?" If you don't have time to read it, at least let this graph sink in.
The obvious implication: If the feds raise the tariff on imports, then the cost of producing many exports will rise. So, for example, if the feds impose a tariff on steel imports, the cost of producing cars will rise. (Although not as much as you might think because cars have way less steel in them than they used to--but the point remains.)
We've known this for a long time. There was a whole literature, to which my undergraduate International Trade professor at the University of Western Ontario, J. Clark Leith, contributed, on effective rates of protection. This literature dealt with this point. But the literature, if I recall correctly, wasn't so granular. Also, that was over 40 years ago, when trade and international supply chains weren't nearly so extensive. Here are an NBER study (gated, unfortunately) and a published article that are behind this graph.
Republished from EconLog.
David R. Henderson
David Henderson is a research fellow with the Hoover Institution and an economics professor at the Graduate School of Business and Public Policy, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California. He is editor of The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics (Liberty Fund) and blogs at econlib.org.
This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.
The Benefits Of Religion Are More Than Spiritual
Secular Benefits
Religions of every denomination add $418 billion annually to the American economy.
Religion annually contributes about $1.2 trillion dollars of socio-economic value to the United States economy, according to a 2016 study by the Religious Freedom & Business Foundation. That is equivalent to being the world’s 15th-largest national economy, outpacing nearly 180 other countries and territories. It’s more than the global annual revenues of the world’s top 10 tech companies, including Apple, Amazon and Google.
And it’s also more than 50 percent larger than the global annual revenues of America’s six largest oil and gas companies. You could say that’s a lot of spiritually inspired fuel being pumped into the US economy.
These contributions fall into three general categories: $418 billion from religious congregations; $303 billion from other religious institutions such as universities, charities and health systems; and $437 billion from faith-based, faith-related or faith-inspired businesses.
First, religious congregations – churches, synagogues, mosques, temples and chapels – of every denomination add $418 billion annually to the American economy. These local congregations number more than 344,000 and employ hundreds of thousands of staff and purchase billions worth of services in every corner and crossroads of the country’s urban and rural landscape.
These local congregations do much more than just provide places of worship.
Each year congregations spend $84 billion on their operations, ranging from paying hundreds of thousands of personnel, to paying for goods and service as diverse as flowers, sounds systems, maintenance and utilities. Almost all is spent right in the local community.
Schools attached to congregations employ 420,000 full-time teachers and train 4.5 million students each year. By comparison, this is the same number as the total population of Ireland or New Zealand.
The impact of faith-based schools in the US is significant. For instance, St. Benedict’s Catholic Prep readies 530 mostly poor, mostly minority boys for college and beyond. In an area where public schools are working hard just to keep young men from ending up in gangs, in jail or dead, St. Benedict’s sends 95 per cent of its graduates to college, including a sizeable number to Ivy League schools.
Some of this work runs counter to stereotypes about religious groups.
Graduates, such as Uriel Burwell, return to make an impact. Upon graduating from Drew University, Uriel returned to his childhood neighborhood to build 50 new affordable houses, rehabilitate more than 30 homes and attracted more than $3 million in funding to build additional affordable homes and apartments in the area.
Indeed, congregations are like magnets attracting economic activity ranging from weddings, as I’ve already mentioned and can give personal detail on, to lectures, congresses and even tourism. For instance, 120,000 congregations report that people visit them to view their art and architecture.
Finally, and most importantly, it’s what congregations do in their communities that makes the biggest socio-economic contribution. These programs impact individuals and families in a variety of important ways.
Good Works
For example, congregations provide 130,000 alcohol recovery programs such as the Saddleback Church “Celebrate Recovery” program that has helped more than 27,000 individuals over the past 25 years. Congregations also provide 120,000 programs to help the unemployed. For example, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has employment service centers in each of their stakes across the country (and across the world).
Some of this work runs counter to stereotypes some may have about religious groups. For instance, nearly 26,000 congregations are engaged in some form of active ministry to help people living with HIV-AIDS. That makes one HIV-AIDS ministry for every 46 people who are HIV positive. Just this past weekend on 9/11, under the sponsorship of Walgreen’s and the “First Ladies” (pastors’ wives) of Chicago, nearly 50 Chicago churches hosted free screening for HIV and other diseases.
1 in 6 people US hospitals visits are in a Catholic facility.
In fact, the data show that congregations overwhelmingly include a society-building, outward community focus, with over 320,000 congregations helping to recruit volunteers for programs outside their walls, to non-religious groups, ranging from Big Brothers and Big Sisters to the United Way and the American Red Cross.
If we extend our view beyond what happens at local congregations and schools, we can find tens of thousands of other religiously affiliated charities, healthcare facilities, and institutions of higher learning also doing these sorts of good works every day. These add another $303 billion of socio-economic impact to the US economy each year.
These include charities such as the Knights of Columbus, whose 1.5 million members respond to disasters and other human needs. One in six people visiting a hospital in the US is cared for in a Catholic facility. And it’s not just Catholics. Healthcare services, such as provided by the Adventist Health Systems, employ as many as 78,000 people in 46 hospitals.
Institutions of higher education, such as Jewish-affiliated Brandeis University, is one of thousands of religiously based colleges throughout the country. And even small religious charities can have strategic impact. Islamic Relief USA, for instance, responded to the water crisis in Flint, Michigan, by hiring 20 local staff and distributing 135,000 gallons of water during the height of the water crisis.
Impact on Industry
Religion-related businesses add another $438 billion to the US economy each year. These include faith-based enterprises, ranging from Halal and Kosher food industries to religious media such as EWTN and the Christian Broadcast Network.
The largest group within this sector are not religious companies, per se, but faith-inspired or religion-friendly companies. Tyson’s Foods, for example, employs a large force of chaplains for their multi-religious workforce.
Across the country there are associations of CEOs who seek to put the moral and ethical teachings of their faith to practice in their business. One such association is C12, with over 2,500 members, some of whom have businesses worth billions of dollars.
And the religion that inspires many businesses in the US also has a way of spilling across borders. One American CEO, Don Larson, motivated by his faith, has started a company in Mozambique that not only stocks the shelves of America’s major food stores – from Giant and Wegmans to Whole Foods – but empowers tens of thousands of people. His innovative business model is based on what he calls a “reverse tithe” – where 90 per cent of profits go back into the local community. That means many American consumers are participating in a faith endeavor, perhaps unaware.
Reprinted from CapX
Brian J. Grim
Brian J. Grim is President of the Religious Freedom & Business Foundation.
This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.
GOP in a quandary: Presidential approval and mid-term election performance
Looking ahead to 2018, here's a comparison of Gallup's presidential approval ratings and his party's performance in the mid-term elections.
Trump is currently at 37 percent approval in Fox News polling.
Trump is currently at 37 percent approval in Fox News polling.
 |
Stop Elon Musk's Tax Money Gravy Train
From Enron to Bernie Madoff, at the end of every great American financial scandal, the totality of the perpetrators’ greed seems to be matched only by the public’s incredulity at how such a thing could be allowed to happen.
And thanks to Elon Musk, there’s a good chance we may all be asking this question again soon.
The Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee have launched a probe into tax incentives paid to solar companies, according to the Wall Street Journal. The committee probes, led by their respective Republican chairmen, Rep. Kevin Brady of Texas and Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, have found an appropriate and disturbing target to begin this work.
SolarCity, a solar installation company set to be purchased by Tesla Motors Inc., is one of the seven companies named in the initial investigation.
Renewable Crony Capitalism
Already grossly subsidized, Musk’s SolarCity has become an albatross of waste, fraud, and abuse of taxpayer dollars. As legitimate earnings and cash become even scarcer for SolarCity, its entanglement in the Tesla empire suggests that a drastic reckoning is not only imminent but emboldening Musk to become more outlandish and reckless.SolarCity has been doubling down on the failed model of taxpayer support.
Notably, SolarCity is run by Musk’s cousins, Lyndon and Peter Rive. During his chairmanship at SolarCity, Musk’s family enterprise has taken in billions of taxpayer dollars in subsidies from both the federal and local governments. But the subsidies and sweetheart deals were not enough, as losses and missed projections continued to mount. Ultimately, rather than endure the embarrassment of collapse and further damage to the public image of Musk and Tesla, the cousins conspired to have Tesla simply purchase SolarCity this year. The conditions of the deal screamed foul play. To say nothing of what sense it might make for an automaker to purchase a solar installation company, Tesla stockholders were being forced to absorb a failing, cash-burning company and pay top dollar to do so. While cost-cutting and corporate restructuring should have been the priority for a company swimming in debt and burning through available cash, SolarCity, in fact, has been doubling down on the failed model of taxpayer support. The desperate thirst for handouts has manifested itself in some of the murkiest political waters imaginable. Thanks to Musk’s cozy relationship with New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat, the state has granted at least $750 million of its taxpayers’ money to SolarCity, building the company a factory and charging it only $1 per year in rent. It would be hard to imagine such an operation would not be lucrative for its shareholders. And yet, somehow, SolarCity has never made a profit. How Extensive Is This Problem? It’s not just in New York. In this year’s race for Arizona Corporation Commission, the state’s public utilities overseers, only one outside group funneled cash into the contest. SolarCity has never been able to survive without serious help from government subsidies and grants.
All of the $3 million donated by that group, Energy Choice for America, came from SolarCity. The beneficiaries are candidates who have signaled their willingness to be part of the “green machine” that greases the skids for lucrative government subsidies. Burning through taxpayer dollars, buying elections, and expanding a network of crony capitalism has become so inherent to the SolarCity model that $3 million to a public commissioner’s race, brazen though it may be, is only a drop in the bucket for Musk and SolarCity. In 2013 alone, SolarCity received $127.4 million in federal grants. The following year, in which it received only $342,000 from the same stimulus package, total revenue was just $176 million and the company posted a net loss of $375 million. Despite an expansion of operations and claims to be the leader in the industry, SolarCity has never been able to survive without serious help from government subsidies and grants. The failure to responsibly turn taxpayer dollars into a profitable renewable energy provider has led to SolarCity’s collapse into the welcoming arms of Tesla. And with Tesla, SolarCity, in fact, will be right at home, compounding a disastrous shell game that Elon Musk is playing with government resources. You're Paying to Keep Musk's Lights On It has been widely reported that among SolarCity, Tesla, and the rocket company SpaceX, Elon Musk’s confederacy of interests has gotten at least $4.9 billion in taxpayer support over the past 10 years. This is almost half of Musk’s supposed net worth – taken from the pockets of American citizens and put into companies that can survive only by cannibalizing each other, spending without end, and promising that success is always just beyond the horizon and yet never arrives. The American people are being taken on a ride by SolarCity, Tesla, and Musk. The ride is fueled by a cult of personality in Musk. And it costs billions of taxpayer dollars as he promises us not only the moon but to harness the power of the sun and send us all to Mars. In the cases of Enron and Bernie Madoff, in the end, the cheated victims wished to have woken up sooner to the hubris that enabled such a downfall – or at least that regulators had pulled their heads out of the sand before the full impact of the collapse was realized. We’ve seen this story before and we know how it ends. The congressional investigations underway are not only necessary but a signal that more must be done, and soon. We may not be able to help Elon Musk stop himself from failing again, but we certainly shouldn’t be the ones to pay for it. It’s past time for the American people to stand up to Musk and demand that our legislators and other elected officials bring him back to earth before spending one more dollar of our money. He’s wasted enough of it already. Republished from The Daily Signal This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.
David Williams
Ayn Rand Predicted an American Slide toward Fascism
In a letter written on March 19, 1944, Ayn Rand remarked: “Fascism, Nazism, Communism and Socialism are only superficial variations of the same monstrous theme—collectivism.” Rand would later expand on this insight in various articles, most notably in two of her lectures at the Ford Hall Forum in Boston: “The Fascist New Frontier” (Dec. 16, 1962, published as a booklet by the Nathaniel Branden Institute in 1963); and “The New Fascism: Rule by Consensus” (April 18, 1965, published as Chapter 20 in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal [CUI] by New American Library in 1967).
The world conflict of today is the conflict of the individual against the state. Rand knew better than to accept the traditional left-right dichotomy between socialism (or communism) and fascism, according to which socialism is the extreme version of left-ideology and fascism is the extreme version of right-ideology (i.e., capitalism). Indeed, in The Ayn Rand Letter (Nov. 8, 1971) she characterized fascism as “socialism for big business.” Both are variants of statism, in contrast to a free country based on individual rights and laissez-faire capitalism. As Rand put it in “Conservativism: An Obituary” (CUI, Chapter 19): The world conflict of today is the conflict of the individual against the state, the same conflict that has been fought throughout mankind’s history. The names change, but the essence—and the results—remain the same, whether it is the individual against feudalism, or against absolute monarchy, or against communism or fascism or Nazism or socialism or the welfare state. The placement of socialism and fascism at opposite ends of a political spectrum serves a nefarious purpose, according to Rand. It serves to buttress the case that we must avoid “extremism” and choose the sensible middle course of a “mixed economy.” Quoting from “‘Extremism,’ Or The Art of Smearing” (CUI, Chapter 17): If it were true that dictatorship is inevitable and that fascism and communism are the two “extremes” at the opposite ends of our course, then what is the safest place to choose? Why, the middle of the road. The safely undefined, indeterminate, mixed-economy, “moderate” middle—with a “moderate” amount of government favors and special privileges to the rich and a “moderate” amount of government handouts to the poor—with a “moderate” respect for rights and a “moderate” degree of brute force—with a “moderate” amount of freedom and a “moderate” amount of slavery—with a “moderate” degree of justice and a “moderate” degree of injustice—with a “moderate” amount of security and a “moderate” amount of terror—and with a moderate degree of tolerance for all, except those “extremists” who uphold principles, consistency, objectivity, morality and who refuse to compromise. In both of her major articles on fascism (cited above) Rand distinguished between fascism and socialism by noting a rather technical (and ultimately inconsequential) difference in their approaches to private property. Here is the relevant passage from “The New Fascism: Rule by Consensus”: Observe that both “socialism” and “fascism” involve the issue of property rights. The right to property is the right of use and disposal. Observe the difference in those two theories: socialism negates private property rights altogether, and advocates “the vesting of ownership and control” in the community as a whole, i.e., in the state; fascism leaves ownership in the hands of private individuals, but transfers control of the property to the government. Ownership without control is a contradiction in terms: it means “property,” without the right to use it or to dispose of it. It means that the citizens retain the responsibility of holding property, without any of its advantages, while the government acquires all the advantages without any of the responsibility. In this respect, socialism is the more honest of the two theories. I say “more honest,” not “better”—because, in practice, there is no difference between them: both come from the same collectivist-statist principle, both negate individual rights and subordinate the individual to the collective, both deliver the livelihood and the lives of the citizens into the power of an omnipotent government —and the differences between them are only a matter of time, degree, and superficial detail, such as the choice of slogans by which the rulers delude their enslaved subjects. Contrary to many conservative commentators during the 1960s, Rand maintained that America was drifting toward fascism, not socialism, and that this descent was virtually inevitable in a mixed economy. “A mixed economy is an explosive, untenable mixture of two opposite elements,” freedom and statism, “which cannot remain stable, but must ultimately go one way or the other” (“‘Extremism,’ or The Art of Smearing”). Economic controls generate their own problems, and with these problems come demands for additional controls—so either those controls must be abolished or a mixed economy will eventually degenerate into a form of economic dictatorship. Rand conceded that most American advocates of the welfare state “are not socialists, that they never advocated or intended the socialization of private property.” These welfare-statists “want to ‘preserve’ private property” while calling for greater government control over such property. “But that is the fundamental characteristic of fascism.” A mixed economy is ruled by pressure groups. It is an amoral, institutionalized civil war of special interests and lobbies.
Rand gave us some of the finest analyses of a mixed economy—its premises, implications, and long-range consequences—ever penned by a free-market advocate. In “The New Fascism,” for example, she compared a mixed economy to a system that operates by the law of the jungle, a system in which “no one’s interests are safe, everyone’s interests are on a public auction block, and anything goes for anyone who can get away with it.” A mixed economy divides a country “into an ever-growing number of enemy camps, into economic groups fighting one another for self preservation in an indeterminate mixture of defense and offense.” Although Rand did not invoke Thomas Hobbes in this context, it is safe to say that the economic “chaos” of a mixed economy resembles the Hobbesian war of all against all in a state of nature, a system in which interest groups feel the need to screw others before they get screwed themselves. A mixed economy is ruled by pressure groups. It is an amoral, institutionalized civil war of special interests and lobbies, all fighting to seize a momentary control of the legislative machinery, to extort some special privilege at one another’s expense by an act of government—i.e., by force. Of course, Rand never claimed that America had degenerated into full-blown fascism (she held that freedom of speech was a bright line in this respect), but she did believe that the fundamental premise of the “altruist-collectivist” morality—the foundation of all collectivist regimes, including fascism—was accepted and preached by modern liberals and conservatives alike. (Those who mistakenly dub Rand a “conservative” should read “Conservatism: An Obituary” [CUI, Chapter 19], a scathing critique in which she accused conservative leaders of “moral treason.” In some respects Rand detested modern conservatives more than she did modern liberals. She was especially contemptuous of those conservatives who attempted to justify capitalism by appealing to religion or to tradition.) Rand illustrated her point in “The Fascist New Frontier,” a polemical tour de force aimed at President Kennedy and his administration. There is no such thing as ‘the public interest’ except as the sum of the interests of individual men.
Rand began this 1962 lecture by quoting passages from the 1920 political platform of the German Nazi Party, including demands for “an end to the power of the financial interests,” “profit sharing in big business,” “a broad extension of care for the aged,” the “improvement of public health” by government, “an all-around enlargement of our entire system of public education,” and so forth. All such welfare-state measures, this platform concluded, “can only proceed from within on the foundation of “The Common Good Before the Individual Good.” Rand had no problem quoting similar proposals and sentiments from President Kennedy and members of his administration, such as Kennedy’s celebrated remark, “And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what America will do for you—ask what you can do for your country.” The particulars of Rand’s speech will come as no surprise to those familiar with her ideas, but I wish to call attention to her final remarks about the meaning of “the public interest.” As used by Kennedy and other politicians, both Democratic and Republican, this fuzzy phrase has little if any meaning, except to indicate that individuals have a duty to sacrifice their interests for the sake of a greater, undefined good, as determined by those who wield the brute force of political power. Rand then stated what she regarded as the only coherent meaning of “the public interest.” [T]here is no such thing as ‘the public interest’ except as the sum of the interests of individual men. And the basic, common interest of all men—all rational men—is freedom. Freedom is the first requirement of “the public interest”—not what men do when they are free, but that they are free. All their achievements rest on that foundation—and cannot exist without them. The principles of a free, non-coercive social system are the only form of “the public interest.” I shall conclude this essay on a personal note. Before I began preparing for this essay, I had not read some of the articles quoted above for many, many years. In fact, I had not read some of the material since my college days 45 years ago. I therefore approached my new readings with a certain amount of trepidation. I liked the articles when I first read them, but would they stand the test of time? Would Rand’s insights and arguments appear commonplace, even hackneyed, with the passage of so much time? Well, I was pleasantly surprised. Rand was exactly on point on many issues. Indeed, if we substitute “President Obama,” for “President Kennedy” or “President Johnson” many of her points would be even more pertinent today than they were during the 1960s. Unfortunately, the ideological sewer of American politics has become even more foul today than it was in Rand’s day, but Rand did what she could to reverse the trend, and one person can only do so much. And no one can say that she didn’t warn us. Republished from Libertarianism.org. This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.
George Smith
Scott Pruitt Provides an Opportunity to Rein in a Rogue EPA
Protesters with megaphones are making a lot of noise over the confirmation of Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt to lead the Environmental Protection Agency.
But Pruitt and others concerned about an agency that has grossly exceeded its statutory authority and threatened individual liberty are giving a bigger megaphone to voices all over the country that need to be heard.
They’re providing a voice to the family the EPA fined $75,000 per day for placing gravel on virtually dry land. They’re standing up for the farmers (like this cranberry farmer), ranchers, and homebuilders worried about the authority seized by the EPA in the Waters of the United States rule, which could destroy their way of life.
And they’re aiming to protect the small businesses and families across the country facing higher energy bills as a result of global warming regulations on the country’s power fleet.
Unfortunately, there are plenty of stories to pull from.
Now, environmental activists want you to believe those are necessary to prevent higher asthma rates, more smog, and allowing big businesses to willingly pollute. The left has bought into the notion that a strict choice exists between economic activity and the environment.
But that’s a false choice.
Many times during Pruitt’s confirmation hearing, senators presented this false choice and took issues completely out of context. Two issues constantly brought up during the confirmation hearing illustrate these points: mercury emissions and climate change.
Several senators attacked Pruitt on mercury, claiming he should be more concerned about mercury emission reductions, largely because of his opposition to the Obama EPA’s mercury air and toxics regulation on power plants.
But let’s put this opposition into context.
By its own estimation, the EPA said the mercury regulation for power plants could cost $9.6 billion annually. But the agency justified that cost saying the health benefits would range from $37 billion to $90 billion per year.
Sounds like a no-brainer. But upon closer inspection, the monetary benefits from the mercury reduction are a paltry $4 million to $6 million per year.
The EPA exaggerates the environmental benefits by including estimated benefits from reducing particulates (co-benefits) already covered by existing regulations. Those co-benefits account for 99.99 percent of the agency’s estimated benefits.
Exploitation of co-benefits allows the EPA to justify rules when costs greatly exceed benefits. We should welcome an end to such regulatory abuse.
And in fact, the Supreme Court agreed.
In June 2015, the Supreme Court struck down the EPA’s Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) to regulate mercury emissions from coal and oil-fired power plants. The court said the agency improperly ignored the costs when promulgating the regulation.
The problem, however, is that the court’s decision was symbolic because states had already gone down the irreversible, costly path that closed power plants and destroyed jobs.
The regulation was not a choice of environment at the expense of jobs. It was just a jobs killer with nothing in return.
Consider the second example: climate change.
Pruitt’s opponents painted him as a climate denier, despite the fact he’s never actually denied the science behind man-made warming. The reality is climatologists have a wide range of theories as to the magnitude of warming, the causes, man-made emissions’ impact on warming, and the rate of future warming and reliability of climate models to predict centuries into the future.
Despite claims from senators that the planet is experiencing more frequent and intense natural disasters, the data show no trends for extreme weather events. And despite fearmongering about sea level increases that would flood coastal cities, the current rate of sea level rise lies far beneath alarmist projections.
Pruitt led the opposition to the EPA’s climate change regulations because they would impose significant economic costs while making no significant impact on global temperature change. And as attorney general, he sued the agency because the EPA’s expansion of authority went well beyond its statutory limits.
Yet, somehow that makes him a denier.
Unsurprisingly, the critics of Pruitt questioned his ability to lead an agency he has sued as a state attorney general. But as attorney general, that’s exactly what he is supposed to do: protect his state from overreach when the EPA does not comply with the law.
And he wasn’t the only one. Twenty-seven states sued the Obama administration over the Clean Power Plan global warming regulations, and similarly, 27 states sued over the EPA’s Waters of the United States regulation that is a massive threat to private property rights.
When over half the country is suing you, it might be a sign something’s not right.
If you’ve heard anything from the activists protesting Pruitt’s nomination, you’d think he’s going to lead the United States on a path to the air and water quality of China. But the truth is that Pruitt has an opportunity to lead a responsible EPA, not an overzealous one like it is today.
An EPA that respects the rule of law, protects private property rights, and shifts environmental responsibility from the federal government to the states to better customize policies for local interests will yield greater economic and environmental results. There’s no denying that.
Commentary by The Daily Signal's Nicolas Loris. Originally published at The Daily Signal.
But Pruitt and others concerned about an agency that has grossly exceeded its statutory authority and threatened individual liberty are giving a bigger megaphone to voices all over the country that need to be heard.
They’re providing a voice to the family the EPA fined $75,000 per day for placing gravel on virtually dry land. They’re standing up for the farmers (like this cranberry farmer), ranchers, and homebuilders worried about the authority seized by the EPA in the Waters of the United States rule, which could destroy their way of life.
And they’re aiming to protect the small businesses and families across the country facing higher energy bills as a result of global warming regulations on the country’s power fleet.
Unfortunately, there are plenty of stories to pull from.
Now, environmental activists want you to believe those are necessary to prevent higher asthma rates, more smog, and allowing big businesses to willingly pollute. The left has bought into the notion that a strict choice exists between economic activity and the environment.
But that’s a false choice.
Many times during Pruitt’s confirmation hearing, senators presented this false choice and took issues completely out of context. Two issues constantly brought up during the confirmation hearing illustrate these points: mercury emissions and climate change.
Several senators attacked Pruitt on mercury, claiming he should be more concerned about mercury emission reductions, largely because of his opposition to the Obama EPA’s mercury air and toxics regulation on power plants.
But let’s put this opposition into context.
By its own estimation, the EPA said the mercury regulation for power plants could cost $9.6 billion annually. But the agency justified that cost saying the health benefits would range from $37 billion to $90 billion per year.
Sounds like a no-brainer. But upon closer inspection, the monetary benefits from the mercury reduction are a paltry $4 million to $6 million per year.
The EPA exaggerates the environmental benefits by including estimated benefits from reducing particulates (co-benefits) already covered by existing regulations. Those co-benefits account for 99.99 percent of the agency’s estimated benefits.
Exploitation of co-benefits allows the EPA to justify rules when costs greatly exceed benefits. We should welcome an end to such regulatory abuse.
And in fact, the Supreme Court agreed.
In June 2015, the Supreme Court struck down the EPA’s Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) to regulate mercury emissions from coal and oil-fired power plants. The court said the agency improperly ignored the costs when promulgating the regulation.
The problem, however, is that the court’s decision was symbolic because states had already gone down the irreversible, costly path that closed power plants and destroyed jobs.
The regulation was not a choice of environment at the expense of jobs. It was just a jobs killer with nothing in return.
Consider the second example: climate change.
Pruitt’s opponents painted him as a climate denier, despite the fact he’s never actually denied the science behind man-made warming. The reality is climatologists have a wide range of theories as to the magnitude of warming, the causes, man-made emissions’ impact on warming, and the rate of future warming and reliability of climate models to predict centuries into the future.
Despite claims from senators that the planet is experiencing more frequent and intense natural disasters, the data show no trends for extreme weather events. And despite fearmongering about sea level increases that would flood coastal cities, the current rate of sea level rise lies far beneath alarmist projections.
Pruitt led the opposition to the EPA’s climate change regulations because they would impose significant economic costs while making no significant impact on global temperature change. And as attorney general, he sued the agency because the EPA’s expansion of authority went well beyond its statutory limits.
Yet, somehow that makes him a denier.
Unsurprisingly, the critics of Pruitt questioned his ability to lead an agency he has sued as a state attorney general. But as attorney general, that’s exactly what he is supposed to do: protect his state from overreach when the EPA does not comply with the law.
And he wasn’t the only one. Twenty-seven states sued the Obama administration over the Clean Power Plan global warming regulations, and similarly, 27 states sued over the EPA’s Waters of the United States regulation that is a massive threat to private property rights.
When over half the country is suing you, it might be a sign something’s not right.
If you’ve heard anything from the activists protesting Pruitt’s nomination, you’d think he’s going to lead the United States on a path to the air and water quality of China. But the truth is that Pruitt has an opportunity to lead a responsible EPA, not an overzealous one like it is today.
An EPA that respects the rule of law, protects private property rights, and shifts environmental responsibility from the federal government to the states to better customize policies for local interests will yield greater economic and environmental results. There’s no denying that.
Commentary by The Daily Signal's Nicolas Loris. Originally published at The Daily Signal.
Why One-Size-Fits-All Infrastructure Spending Doesn't Work
America’s infrastructure needs are not nearly as serious as Trump thinks.
President Obama had proposed to fix infrastructure with an infrastructure bank, though just where the bank would get its money was never clear (actually, it was perfectly clear: the taxpayers). Trump’s alternative plan is for the private sector, not taxpayers, to spend the money, and to encourage them he proposes to offer tax credits for infrastructure projects. He says this would be “revenue neutral” because the taxes paid by people working on the infrastructure would offset the tax breaks. In short, Trump is proposing tax credits in lieu of an infrastructure bank as a form of economic stimulus.
America’s infrastructure needs are not nearly as serious as Trump thinks. Throwing a trillion dollars at infrastructure, no matter how it is funded, guarantees that a lot will be spent on unnecessary things.
As Harvard economist Edward Glaeser recently pointed out in an article that should be required reading for Trump’s transition team, just calling something “infrastructure” doesn’t mean it is worth doing or that it will stimulate economic growth.
Three Kinds of Infrastructure
Infrastructure more or less falls into three categories, and Trump’s one-size-fits-all plan doesn’t work very well for any of them. First is infrastructure that pays for itself, such as the electrical grid. Private companies and public agencies are already taking care of this kind, so if Trump’s plan applied to them, they would get tax credits for spending money they would have spent anyway. That’s not revenue neutral.
The second kind of infrastructure doesn’t pay for itself. Rail transit is a good example, and this tends to be the infrastructure that is in the worst shape. It won’t suddenly become profitable just because someone gets a tax credit, so under Trump’s plan it will continue to crumble.
The third kind of infrastructure consists of facilities that could pay for themselves but don’t because they are government owned and politicians are too afraid of asking users to pay. Local roads fit into this category. Simply creating tax credits doesn’t solve that problem either.
Politicians are more likely to ask taxpayers to pay for new projects than maintenance of existing projects.
Trump may think that local governments and transportation agencies will jump at the chance to borrow money from private investors to fix infrastructure, and then repay that money out of whatever tax sources they use to fund that infrastructure. But those government agencies can already sell tax-free bonds at very low interest rates. It isn’t clear how taxable bonds issued by private investors who get tax credits are going to be any more economical.
Most public-private partnerships for projects that have no revenue stream are entered into by the public party to get around some borrowing limitation. If the infrastructure spending is really necessary, it makes more sense to simply raise that borrowing limit than to create a byzantine financial structure that, Trump imagines, will have the same effect.
In short, whether funded by municipal tax-free bonds or taxable private bonds, those bonds will ultimately have to be repaid by taxpayers. We know from long experience that politicians are more likely to ask taxpayers to pay for new projects than maintenance of existing projects, and Trump’s plan will do nothing to change that.
The problem with a top-down solution such as Trump’s proposal is that one size doesn’t fit all. Different kinds of infrastructure have different kinds of needs, and the financial solution will be different for each one. Trump’s plan is more likely to result in new construction of pointless projects than whatever maintenance is needed for existing infrastructure.
Fortunately, a lot of people know this, so there is already criticism of Trump’s plan, including from conservatives in Congress. No doubt Trump’s plans will get refined between now and when he actually takes office. The question is whether Trump will realize that bottom-up solutions work better than ones that are top down.
Republished from The Cato Institute.
Randal O’Toole
Randal O’Toole is a Cato Institute Senior Fellow working on urban growth, public land, and transportation issues.
This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.
PHOTOS: Violence flares in Washington during Trump inauguration
 | ||
| Police officers react as demonstrators against U.S. President-elect Donald Trump knock a police motorcycle on its side outside the National Press Building while the Deploraball is underway in Washington, U.S., January 19, 2017. REUTERS/James Lawler Duggan |
 |
| A supporter of President-elect Donald Trump carries a flag bearing Trump's likeness into a march of protesters against Trump along the inaugural parade route outside the Trump International Hotel on Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington. REUTERS/James Lawler Duggan |
 |
| Protesters block an entry point before the inauguration of U.S. President-elect Donald Trump in Washington, DC, U.S., January 20, 2017. REUTERS/Bryan Woolston |
 |
| Protesters block an entry point before the inauguration of U.S. President-elect Donald Trump in Washington, DC, U.S., January 20, 2017. REUTERS/Bryan Woolston |
 |
| Protesters block members of the press as they chain themselves to an entry point prior at the inauguration of U.S. President-elect Donald Trump in Washington, DC, U.S., January 20, 2017. REUTERS/Bryan Woolston |
 |
| Protesters chain themselves to an entry point prior at the inauguration of U.S. President-elect Donald Trump in Washington, DC, U.S., January 20, 2017. REUTERS/Bryan Woolston |
 |
| Protesters chain themselves to an entry point prior at the inauguration of U.S. President-elect Donald Trump in Washington, DC, U.S., January 20, 2017. REUTERS/Bryan Woolston |
 |
| Protesters chain themselves to each other and block an entry point prior at the inauguration of U.S. President-elect Donald Trump in Washington, DC, U.S., January 20, 2017. REUTERS/Bryan Woolston |
 |
| A protester is detained by police during protests near the inauguration of President-elect Donald Trump in Washington, DC, U.S., January 20, 2017. REUTERS/Bryan Woolston - RTSWIOS |
 |
| A protester is assisted by police after being injured during protests near the inauguration of President-elect Donald Trump in Washington, DC, U.S., January 20, 2017. REUTERS/Bryan Woolston - RTSWIOO |
 |
| A police officer tries to tackle a protester demonstrating against U.S. President Donald Trump on the sidelines of the inauguration in Washington, DC, U.S., January 20, 2017. REUTERS/Adrees Latif - RTSWIPE |
 |
| Activists race after being hit by a stun grenade while protesting against U.S. President-elect Donald Trump on the sidelines of the inauguration in Washington, U.S., January 20, 2017. REUTERS/Adrees Latif |
 |
| Protesters clash with police while demonstrating against U.S. President Donald Trump on the sidelines of the inauguration in Washington, DC, U.S., January 20, 2017. REUTERS/Adrees Latif |
 |
| Protesters clash with police while demonstrating against U.S. President Donald Trump on the sidelines of the inauguration in Washington, DC, U.S., January 20, 2017. REUTERS/Adrees Latif |
 |
| Protesters demonstrating against U.S. President Donald Trump raise their hands as they are surrounded by police on the sidelines of the inauguration in Washington, DC, U.S., January 20, 2017. REUTERS/Adrees Latif |
 |
| A firefighter extinguishes a limousine which was set ablaze during a protest against U.S. President Donald Trump on the sidelines of the inauguration in Washington, D.C., U.S., on January 20, 2017. REUTERS/Adrees Latif |
 |
| Police stand near a limousine which was set ablaze during a protest against U.S. President Donald Trump on the sidelines of the inauguration in Washington, D.C., U.S., on January 20, 2017. REUTERS/Adrees Latif |
 |
| Activists leave the site of a limousine which was set ablaze during a protest against U.S. President Donald Trump on the sidelines of the inauguration in Washington, D.C., U.S., on January 20, 2017. REUTERS/Adrees Latif |
 |
| Police and firefighters stand near a limousine which was set ablaze during a protest against U.S. President Donald Trump on the sidelines of the inauguration in Washington, D.C., U.S., on January 20, 2017. REUTERS/Adrees Latif |
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - America's political divisions turned violent on Washington's streets during U.S. President Donald Trump's inauguration on Friday, as black clad anti-establishment activists set fires and clashed with police while Trump supporters cheered the new chief executive.
Hundreds of protesters with varying agendas marched through downtown streets, and some groups clashed with police, throwing rocks and bottles which police responded to with tear gas and concussion grenades. A helicopter hovered low overhead.
At one flash point, a protester hurled an object through the passenger window of a police van, which quickly sped away in reverse as demonstrators cheered. Earlier, activists wearing masks used chunks of pavement and baseball bats to shatter the windows of a Bank of America branch and a McDonald's outlet, all symbols of American capitalism.
Multiple vehicles were set on fire, including a black limousine and a television truck. A knot of people dragged garbage cans into a street a few blocks from the White House and set them ablaze, later throwing a red cap bearing Trump's "Make America Great Again" campaign slogan into the flames.
Police said that at least 95 people were arrested and two officers injured in scuffles with activists.
The protests played out just blocks from Pennsylvania Avenue, where New York businessman-turned-Republican politician Trump proceeded in the traditional parade a newly sworn in president takes from the U.S. Capitol to the White House.
The various protest groups scattered around the city chanted anti-Trump slogans and carried signs with slogans including "Trump is not president" and "Make Racists Afraid Again."
"Trump is not going to be stopped at the top, he's going to be stopped from the bottom, from people rising up," said Ben Allen, a 69-year-old retired teacher from San Francisco. "We support the right of everybody in this country, no matter what nationality, what religion, the color of their skin, to be respected as a human being, and this guy doesn't respect anybody."
'DIDN'T EXPECT VIOLENCE'
Trump supporter Ryan Shiring, 21, stood nervously with a group of friends near a pile of smoldering trash cans.
"We thought there would be protests but we didn't expect violence," said Shiring, a college student from Hartford, Connecticut. "We were hoping for a completely peaceful transfer of power."
Democratic officials, including Washington Mayor Muriel Bowser, condemned the violence.
The U.S. Secret Service, Washington police and other law enforcement agencies had about 28,000 officers in place to secure a roughly three-square-mile (7.8 square km) of the city.
During the election campaign and former reality TV star Trump's surprising rise to power, some of his rhetoric was interpreted as racist and anti-immigration. His inauguration speech was a populist and nationalist rallying cry.
Protesters and police said the black-clad violent activists were acting independently of organized opposition to Trump.
The Disrupt J20 group on Twitter said its anger was not directed only at Trump, that it would also have demonstrated had Democrat Hillary Clinton won the election last November.
Not far from the White House, Bob Hrifko, a member of the Bikers for Trump group, was struck in the face with an aluminum chair when he tried to intervene in a scuffle involving police and protesters.
"I know, law and order and all that. We need more order. This ain't right," said Hrifko, who was bleeding from a cut under his eye.
The number of people who turned out for the midday swearing-in ceremony in the rain appeared to be significantly smaller than the estimated 2 million who attended Democrat Barack Obama's first inauguration in 2009. Overhead video of the National Mall showed sections of the white matting laid down to protect the grass were largely empty.
Trump supporters Chris and Karen Korthaus, who carried a life-size cardboard cutout of the former reality TV star, crossed paths with an anti-Trump crowd.
"A protester came over and ripped off the Don's head," Karen Korthaus said as she showed a reporter a video of the incident. "We ran to a pizza shop and taped his head back on."
There were also protests around the world.
In Tokyo, several hundred people, most of them expatriate Americans, protested against Trump. In London, activists draped a banner across the British capital's iconic Tower Bridge reading "Build bridges not walls," a reference to Trump's promise to wall off the U.S.-Mexico border. But in Moscow, Russians hoping Trump will usher in a new era of detente with their country celebrated his inauguration.
Along the stretch of Washington where the rioters smashed windows, workers cleaned up the debris.
"We're just working, and the next thing you know, violence is coming our way," said Edwin Garcia, 26, a cook at an Au Bon Pain where three windows were shattered. "What was the point if they never got to where Trump is?"
(Additional reporting by David Lawder, Joel Schectman, Mike Stone, Matt Spetalnick, Jonathan Landay and Phil Stewart; Editing by Jonathan Oatis, Paul Simao and Grant McCool)
Full Text of President Trump’s Inaugural Address
We, the citizens of America, are now joined in a great national effort to rebuild our country and restore its promise for all of our people.
Together, we will determine the course of America and the world for many, many years to come. We will face challenges. We will confront hardships. But we will get the job done.
Every four years we gather on these steps to carry out the orderly and peaceful transfer of power.
And we are grateful to President Obama and first lady Michelle Obama for their gracious aid throughout this transition.
They have been magnificent.
Thank you.
Today’s ceremony, however, has a very special meaning because today we are not merely transferring power from one administration to another or from one party to another, but we are transferring power from Washington, D.C., and giving it back to you, the people.
For too long, a small group in our nation’s capital has reaped the rewards of government while the people have borne the cost. Washington flourished, but the people did not share in its wealth. Politicians prospered but the jobs left and the factories closed.
The establishment protected itself, but not the citizens of our country. Their victories have not been your victories. Their triumphs have not been your triumphs. And while they celebrated in our nation’s capital, there was little to celebrate for struggling families all across our land.
That all changes starting right here and right now, because this moment is your moment.
It belongs to you.
It belongs to everyone gathered here today and everyone watching all across America.
This is your day.
This is your celebration.
And this, the United States of America, is your country.
What truly matters is not which party controls our government, but whether our government is controlled by the people.
January 20th, 2017, will be remembered as the day the people became the rulers of this nation again.
The forgotten men and women of our country will be forgotten no longer. Everyone is listening to you now. You came by the tens of millions to become part of a historic movement, the likes of which the world has never seen before.
At the center of this movement is a crucial conviction that a nation exists to serve its citizens. Americans want great schools for their children, safe neighborhoods for their families, and good jobs for themselves.
These are just and reasonable demands of righteous people and a righteous public.
But for too many of our citizens, a different reality exists.
Mothers and children trapped in poverty in our inner cities, rusted out factories scattered like tombstones across the landscape of our nation.
An education system flush with cash but which leaves our young and beautiful students deprived of all knowledge.
And the crime and the gangs and the drugs that have stolen too many lives and robbed our country of so much unrealized potential. This American carnage stops right here and stops right now.
We are one nation, and their pain is our pain.
Their dreams are our dreams, and their success will be our success. We share one heart, one home, and one glorious destiny.
The oath of office I take today is an oath of allegiance to all Americans.
For many decades we’ve enriched foreign industry at the expense of American industry, subsidized the armies of other countries while allowing for the very sad depletion of our military.
We’ve defended other nations’ borders while refusing to defend our own. And we’ve spent trillions and trillions of dollars overseas while America’s infrastructure has fallen into disrepair and decay.
We’ve made other countries rich while the wealth, strength, and confidence of our country has dissipated over the horizon.
One by one, the factories shuttered and left our shores with not even a thought about the millions and millions of American workers that were left behind.
The wealth of our middle class has been ripped from their homes and then redistributed all across the world. But that is the past, and now we are looking only to the future.
We assembled here today are issuing a new decree to be heard in every city, in every foreign capital, and in every hall of power. From this day forward, a new vision will govern our land.
From this day forward, it’s going to be only America first, America first. Every decision on trade, on taxes, on immigration, on foreign affairs will be made to benefit American workers and American families. We must protect our borders from the ravages of other countries making our products, stealing our companies, and destroying our jobs.
Protection will lead to great prosperity and strength. I will fight for you with every breath in my body, and I will never ever let you down.
America will start winning again, winning like never before.
We will bring back our jobs.
We will bring back our borders.
We will bring back our wealth, and we will bring back our dreams.
We will build new roads and highways and bridges and airports and tunnels and railways all across our wonderful nation.
We will get our people off of welfare and back to work, rebuilding our country with American hands and American labor.
We will follow two simple rules: buy American and hire American.
We will seek friendship and goodwill with the nations of the world, but we do so with the understanding that it is the right of all nations to put their own interests first.
We do not seek to impose our way of life on anyone, but rather to let it shine as an example.
We will shine for everyone to follow.
We will reinforce old alliances and form new ones and unite the civilized world against radical Islamic terrorism, which we will eradicate completely from the face of the earth.
At the bedrock of our politics will be a total allegiance to the United States of America, and through our loyalty to our country we will rediscover our loyalty to each other.
When you open your heart to patriotism, there is no room for prejudice.
The Bible tells us how good and pleasant it is when God’s people live together in unity. We must speak our minds openly, debate our disagreements honestly, but always pursue solidarity. When America is united, America is totally unstoppable.
There should be no fear. We are protected and we will always be protected. We will be protected by the great men and women of our military and law enforcement. And most importantly, we will be protected by God.
Finally, we must think big and dream even bigger. In America, we understand that a nation is only living as long as it is striving. We will no longer accept politicians who are all talk and no action, constantly complaining but never doing anything about it.
The time for empty talk is over. Now arrives the hour of action.
Do not allow anyone to tell you that it cannot be done. No challenge can match the heart and fight and spirit of America. We will not fail. Our country will thrive and prosper again.
We stand at the birth of a new millennium, ready to unlock the mysteries of space, to free the earth from the miseries of disease, and to harness the energies, industries, and technologies of tomorrow.
A new national pride will stir ourselves, lift our sights, and heal our divisions. It’s time to remember that old wisdom our soldiers will never forget, that whether we are black or brown or white, we all bleed the same red blood of patriots.
We all enjoy the same glorious freedoms and we all salute the same great American flag.
And whether a child is born in the urban sprawl of Detroit or the windswept plains of Nebraska, they look up at the same night sky, they fill their heart with the same dreams, and they are infused with the breath of life by the same almighty Creator.
So to all Americans in every city near and far, small and large, from mountain to mountain, from ocean to ocean, hear these words: You will never be ignored again. Your voice, your hopes, and your dreams will define our American destiny. And your courage and goodness and love will forever guide us along the way.
Together we will make America strong again, we will make America wealthy again, we will make America proud again, we will make America safe again.
And, yes, together we will make America great again.
Thank you.
God bless you.
And God bless America.
CNN: The Most Busted Name In News
After a stunt like this CNN actually wonders why they're considered "fake news" and are denied questions at press conferences?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Commentary by Kevin D. Dayaratna. Originally published at The Daily Signal.