• Tag Archives politics

  • 4 Questions You Probably Won’t Hear at CNN’s Climate Crisis Town Hall

    Posted on by Azrael 1 Comment


    Ten Democratic presidential candidates will square off in New York on Wednesday, fielding questions as part of a seven-hour telecast (yes, seven hours) that CNN is billing as an “unprecedented prime-time event focused on the climate crisis.”

    Though questions will come from members of the audience, CNN’s description of the event offers some indication of what questions viewers can expect.

    In his preview of the town hall-style event, CNN senior analyst Mark Preston writes that global warming “would cause coastal cities to disappear underwater, leaving hundreds of millions of people displaced and forced to migrate to dry areas.

    Because of this, Preston says, the UN warns that governments must take “rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society.”

    Whether questions that do not accept these premises—that global warming is a crisis and only governments can fix it—will be entertained remains to be seen. But CNN’s description suggests the event may be closer to Greta Thunberg’s “I Want You to Panic” approach to climate change than level-headed analysis that explores the costs and benefits of inaction and action on climate change.

    Regardless of CNN’s approach to the issue, here are four climate change-related questions audience members should consider asking.

    Nuclear energy is safe, comparatively cheap, reliable, and generates zero greenhouse gasses. For this reason, the Union of Concerned Scientists has said nuclear energy is necessary to address climate change. It’s already a proven solution to CO2 emissions. France and Sweden, two nations that have far lower per capita carbon emission rates than the US, rely heavily on nuclear power, generating 72 percent and 42 percent of their energy from it, respectively. The US, on the other hand, generates just 20 percent of its power from nuclear energy.

    Despite its efficiency and low-cost, prominent Green New Deal plans from Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Bernie Sanders either reject expanding US nuclear capacity or propose phasing it out entirely.

    A new study in Science magazine says one solution to the fears surrounding CO2 emissions is surprisingly simple: plant more trees. The study says that increasing the planet’s forests by an area the size of the United States “has the potential to cut the atmospheric carbon pool by about 25%.”

    That is no small order since we’re talking about an area more than five percent of the Earth’s land surface area. Yet it’s likely far more achievable than becoming a CO2-free economy by 2050.

    Assuming it could be achieved, would an international policy dedicated to increasing forestation not be preferable to taxing CO2?

    The environmentalist Dr. Bjorn Lomborg points out that since the 1920s, atmospheric CO2 concentrations increased by about 30 percent to more than 400 ppm, and global average temps increased by roughly 1°C. Yet during that same timeframe, climate-related deaths plummeted by 99 percent.

    The reason for this is that people in wealthier nations are more resistant to climate-related deaths than people in poorer nations, and the 20th century saw an unprecedented increase in economic growth (see below). This suggests the best way to protect people from climate change is with economic growth, not austerity. As it happens, the “socio-economic pathways” (SSPs) literature makes it clear that the most abundant future is one that relies on fossil fuels and free markets.

    About 65 percent of all electricity in the US is generated by fossil fuels, according to the Energy Information Administration. This actually increases during the coldest months of the year. During cold snaps, according to the Department of Energy, independent system operators (ISOs) can depend on coal, nuclear, and natural gas for more than 80 percent of the electricity they generate.

    Most parts of the country, however, aren’t heated with electric power. Natural gas—a fossil fuel—is the primary fuel for warming homes in most parts of the country by a wide margin. Kerosene and fuel oil also account for a sizable portion in some parts of the country. On a continent of about 3.8 million square miles that sees temps reach as low as 13 degrees Fahrenheit in Atlanta and -4 degrees in New York City, fossil fuels are what fight the freeze, keeping hundreds of millions of Americans warm during the coldest months. 


    Jon Miltimore

    Jonathan Miltimore is the Managing Editor of FEE.org. His writing/reporting has appeared in TIME magazine, The Wall Street Journal, CNN, Forbes, Fox News, and the Washington Times. 

    This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.


    📂This entry was posted in News and Politics 📎and tagged

  • The Effort to Abandon Electoral College Gains Steam. Here’s What It Would Ruin for America. – Foundation for Economic Education

    Posted on by Azrael Comment

    Colorado is joining a list of states attempting to overturn the way Americans have selected their presidents for over two centuries.

    The Colorado legislature recently passed a bill to join an interstate effort called the “interstate compact” to attempt to sidestep the Electoral College system defined by the Constitution. Gov. Jared Polis, a Democrat, called the Electoral College an “undemocratic relic” and vowed to sign the bill into law.

    So far, 12 states representing 172 Electoral College votes have passed the initiative into law. With the addition of Colorado (which has nine votes), that number will rise to 181. They need 270 for the compact to go into effect. It would then undoubtedly be challenged in the courts.

    Some major voices on the left were gleeful about the potential change.

     

    While the Constitution, intentionally, gives wide latitude to states to create their own electoral systems, the law passed in Colorado, along with the rest of this effort, would be unprecedented. It would be the first time states potentially outsource their Electoral College votes to the will of the nation as a whole rather than having elections determined by their own voters. The result of this, ironically, could be very undemocratic.

    For instance, if the people of Colorado vote overwhelmingly for a Democrat, yet the total popular vote of the nation goes Republican, all of the state’s votes would go to the Republican, essentially overturning the will of the people in Colorado.

    The Electoral College is already fairly democratic. Nearly every state switched to direct, democratic elections of electoral votes in the early 19th century, as opposed to selection by state legislatures. What the national popular vote would do is overturn the concept of federalism, which recognizes that states have unique interests that deserve representation in the electoral system. We are not just a nation of individuals but a nation of communities and states.

    Some have dismissed the Electoral College system as outmoded and unjust. But they are mistaken—the Electoral College system remains highly relevant and necessary today. The 2016 election actually demonstrated that.

    In 2016, states that had gone Democratic in presidential politics for a generation flipped to Republican, in large part because of a unique candidate who appealed to their interests. While one candidate capitalized on their support, the other took them for granted and focused elsewhere. The result was a startling upset that demonstrates why the Framers wanted an Electoral College.

    Without an Electoral College, candidates could more easily write off certain constituencies located in limited areas. The Electoral College binds those votes up with a larger mass of votes so that in order to win the whole, candidates have to appeal to the interests of more constituents.

    Under a popular vote system, candidates could ignore entire localities and focus on driving up votes among their natural supporters.

    Many on the left have also complained that the Electoral College gives an undue weight to small states, which, in their minds, are conservative.

    It’s true that small states are given a boost because Electoral College votes are based on population and Senate votes. Since every state automatically has two senators, small states do get slightly more weight per their population. But in practice, this ends up benefitting Democrats just as much as Republicans.

    In 2018 , for instance, the 10 smallest states sent 10 Democrats and 10 Republicans to the Senate, and the 10 largest states sent 11 Democrats and nine Republicans to the Senate.

    This system of electors is not perfect, of course. But it is the best system for a large and diverse country like the United States, as it favors candidates who do the best job of appealing to diverse interests and not just the big population centers.

    In fact, while the Founding Fathers disagreed on many things, the Electoral College was one thing that received the widest acceptance, as Alexander Hamilton recorded in Federalist 68:

    The mode of appointment of the chief magistrate of the United States is almost the only part of the system … which has escaped without severe censure. … I venture somewhat further, and hesitate not to affirm that if the manner of it be not perfect, it is at least excellent.

    In addition to protecting diverse interests, the diffused federal nature of the Electoral College is also a vital tool to counteract election fraud and contentious recounts that could undo the public will.

    Imagine if the 2000 recount of the presidential contest between Al Gore and George W. Bush included not just Florida, but the entire nation. That’s what would have happened if the Electoral College weren’t in place to isolate election systems from each other.

    It doesn’t take long to see how the new system that the Colorado bill aims for could become a nightmare to deal with in other ways, too, especially in tightly contested races.

    This Twitter thread explains one highly plausible scenario in which the national popular vote is decided by around 100,000 votes—a tiny margin given the nation’s population is over 320 million.

     

    If Colorado were to narrowly choose a Democrat, while the other states chose the Republican by a wide margin, Colorado would have no way of making the other states conduct a recount.

    The people of Colorado would essentially be forced to throw the election to a candidate they didn’t support.

    Even more problematic is the effort in New Jersey to strip President Donald Trump from the state ballot over his refusal to release his tax returns. This will likely be ruled unconstitutional, but consider what it would do if implemented under a national popular vote: with Trump off the ballot in all of New Jersey, it would skew the vote for the entire nation.

    Interestingly, stripping a candidate from the ballot has been used as a tactic against a Republican presidential candidate before. Southern states made it nearly impossible to create ballots for Abraham Lincoln in the 1860 election, which severely depressed his support in those states.

    Fortunately, because of the Electoral College, Lincoln was able to win without these states, even though he ended up with only around 39 percent of the popular vote.

    If the nation had simply taken a popular vote at the time, Lincoln may never have been elected president.

    At the end of the day, the Colorado law is unlikely to ever be put into effect, despite the best efforts of activists.

    It’s important to note that while Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has publicly voiced support for abolishing the Electoral College, she has said it would take a constitutional amendment to do so.

    “There are some things that I would like to change, one is the Electoral College,” she said in 2017 when asked about things she’d change in the Constitution. “But that would require a constitutional amendment and amending our Constitution is powerfully hard to do.”

    Given the unlikeliness of such an amendment—which, according to Gallup, actually reached a high point of popularity after the 2016 election—national popular vote activists have turned to more indirect means to accomplish their ends.

    This misguided attempt to subvert the Constitution and abolish the Electoral College has been cooked up for partisan purposes. It is based on the false notion that Hillary Clinton’s defeat in 2016 reflected a failure in our electoral system—not an abysmal candidate—and that this “relic” from the founding stands in the way of progressive dominance of U.S. politics.

    Such a view is not only partisan but also historically ignorant. It overlooks all that the Electoral College has produced—chiefly, a stable political system that forces politicians to reckon with our nation’s diverse needs.

    We would be wise to cling to that system and reject these machinations to upend it.

    This article was reprinted from The Daily Signal.


    Jarrett Stepman

    Jarrett Stepman is an editor for The Daily Signal

    This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.




    📂This entry was posted in News and Politics 📎and tagged

  • Media Fail Marvelously in Mocking Rand Paul for Surgery in Canada, “Land Of Universal Health Care”

    Posted on by Azrael Comment

    Senator Rand Paul is no stranger to public criticism. As one of the few principled members of Congress and an heir to his father’s legacy of anti-authoritarianism, he has grown accustomed to falling under public scrutiny for standing up for his beliefs. But this week he isn’t being condemned for his foreign policy views or his stance on criminal justice reform. Instead, the progressives have chastised the senator from Kentucky for going outside of the United States for medical treatment.

    When Paul was attacked by his neighbor while doing yard work in 2017, he was left with six broken ribs, a bruised lung, and a hernia, which has since been left unresolved. Needing surgery and being well-versed in the atrocity that is our overpriced and overregulated American health care system, Paul decided to join the 150,000 to 320,000 Americans who travel abroad each year in search of lower costs and high-quality health care. But since the medical facility in question happens to be in Canada, Paul has suddenly found himself a target of those accusing him of utilizing the same socialist system he so fervently decries.

    It wasn’t long after Senator Paul announced his intention to travel to Canada for surgery that the accusations began to make their rounds on social media. Democratic Coalition tweeted, “Oh, the irony: Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, one of the fiercest political critics of socialized medicine, will travel to Canada later this month to get hernia surgery.” Likewise, Talking Points Memo also took a jab at Paul when it tweeted, “Rand Paul, enemy of socialized medicine, will go to Canada for surgery.”

    The media also had a field day attacking Senator Paul. Deceiving headlines intended to mislead the public read, “Rand Paul Heading To Canada, Land Of Universal Health Care, For Surgery” and “Sen. Rand Paul Is Having Surgery in Canada, Where Healthcare Is Publicly Funded.” But there is just one major problem with these tweets and headlines: They inaccurately assert that because the senator is traveling to Canada for surgery, he must be utilizing the country’s infamous socialized medical program. Nothing could be further from the truth.

    Had any of these overzealous Twitter users bothered to do some research, they would have quickly discovered that contrary to their claims, Senator Paul was not being a hypocrite at all. In fact, staying true to his beliefs, the senator plans to go abroad next week to make use of a top-notch private medical facility that offers competitive rates to patients.

    The Shouldice Hernia Hospital is a private facility in Thornhill, Ontario, that prides itself on being “the global leader in non-mesh hernia repair.” It also offers competitive pricing for those paying out of pocket, which is a huge plus for the uninsured. And since it is private, the facility also has more control over its pricing structure, giving it more autonomy to work with health care consumers.

    Paul, who has likened socialized medicine to slavery and who himself is an ophthalmologist, has always been an advocate for private solutions to our health care woes. And while many would like to condemn this decision to go to Canada as hypocrisy, it is actually right on brand for the senator.

    Kelsey Cooper, a spokesperson for Paul, defended his decision and wrote in an email to the Courier Journal, which broke the story,

    This is more fake news on a story that has been terribly reported from day one—this is a private, world-renowned hospital separate from any system and people come from around the world to pay cash for their services.

    While the media and talking heads continue to waste their breath gossiping about Paul’s personal medical decisions, the senator is demonstrating what a truly free market health care system could look like.

    In an interview with Wave 3 News in Washington, DC, Paul commented on his decision, saying:

    I looked for a place that did primarily that type of surgery. A place that actually accepts Americans who pay cash. It’s a private hospital. The funny thing is, people had an agenda that wanted to attack me said, “Oh, you’re going to choose socialized medicine.” I’m actually choosing capitalistic medicine because they only take cash from foreigners.

    He continued:

    We have some centers like this. Oklahoma has a center like this but doesn’t specialize in the surgery I need. I chose (Shouldice) because they are good at it and actually the price is right.

    Once it was made widely known that Paul would not be partaking in Canada’s socialized medicine, the critics switched to condemning the senator for going outside of the US for treatment, as if doing so was somehow anti-American in nature. And while many are using this instance as a means of shaming Rand Paul, his actions offer a great teaching moment for the country.

    It’s a mistake to view health care as some sort of phenomenon unrelated and immune to the market process. Health care is a commodity just like any other consumer good. And when choice in medical treatment is limited, health care consumers suffer greatly.

    Keeping health care options confined only to one’s own country of origin is an outdated concept. Medical tourism is a booming industry that gives patients more control over their health care by giving them the opportunity to go wherever the best possible care is available at the lowest costs. This has resulted in a boom for countries like India and Costo Rica.

    As I have previously written:

    For anyone unfamiliar with the term, medical tourism is when someone chooses to travel outside their country of origin, usually to less-developed countries, in search of affordable, quality medical care. And it also happens to be one of the fastest growing global industries. In 2016, this burgeoning sector was valued at $100 billion and is expected to experience 25 percent year-by-year growth by the year 2025. And in an era of soaring medical costs, it is saving health care consumers thousands of dollars and providing them with the care they so desperately need.

    The thought of traveling abroad for health care might scare a fair number of Americans. After all, we tend to think our own medical system as more advanced than others. But the truth is that excessive government regulation has actually stifled medical innovation and caused the cost of treatment to skyrocket. And while American politicians argue about how to best fix this problem, other countries have been innovating and relaxing regulations in order to offer competitive care to medical tourists.

    In India, for example:

    [T]he critically acclaimed Narayana Hrudayalaya heart hospital offers cardiac surgeries from $5,000- $7,000. The same surgery in the US would cost a patient upwards of $50,000. And as far as other medical procedures are concerned, in Costa Rica, a knee replacement surgery can cost a patient around $23,000. However, the same surgery, obtained in the US can cost anywhere from $35,000-$60,000.

    The dramatically lower costs have encouraged some US employers to encourage their employees to seek treatment outside the country rather than use their insurance policies to see an American doctor. For employees who need knee replacement surgery, Hickory Springs Manufacturing began offering a choice: pay $3,000 dollars out of pocket and have the procedure performed in the United States, or opt to take an all-expenses-paid vacation to Costa Rica for the surgery instead. And on top of the free trip, you will also receive a $2,500 bonus check. Since switching to this model, the company has saved more than $10 million on health care costs.

    The free market is not constrained to the political borders of one’s own country. And in order to have a robust health care market full of choice, consumers need to be able to go wherever the best care is available. Senator Rand Paul’s decision to go to Canada for surgery should not be condemned; rather, it should inspire the rest of the country to take a look at all the medical options available to us.

    Source: Media Fail Marvelously in Mocking Rand Paul for Surgery in Canada, “Land Of Universal Health Care” – Foundation for Economic Education




    📂This entry was posted in News and Politics 📎and tagged