On February 5, the Federal Register published a Notice that invited members of the public to comment on whether the Obama Administration should finally approve expansion of the Keystone Pipeline. This is your chance to cast a vote in favor of U.S. energy security, jobs, and affordable energy.
The 30-day public comment period will close on March 7, 2014.
There are two ways to submit comments: Online at regulations.gov or by mail sent to:
U.S. Department of State
Bureau of Energy Resources, Room 4843
Attn: Keystone XL Public Comments
2201 C Street, NW
Washington, DC 20520
Comments are not private and will be made public.
Read the Executive Summary of the Jan. 31, 2014 State Department report on the Keystone XL pipline that stated the project will have little negative environmental impact. Also read reaction to that report from Heartland Institute energy and environment experts.Background on Keystone XL
The Heartland Institute has published extensive research and commentary on why building the Keystone XL Pipeline would be good for American consumers and workers. Some of our work includes the following:
February 5, 2014
Build the Keystone Pipeline, Already!
The Keystone XL pipeline was AWOL from Obama’s State of the Union address — along with real energy, job, economic, and revenue solutions.
February 1, 2014
State Dept: No Environmental Objection to Keystone XL Pipeline
The State Department concludes that since the oil which the pipeline would transport will be produced in any case and transported in any case, the pipeline will have no impact on carbon emissions or climate change.
January 10, 2014
The Very Green Keystone Pipeline Delay
On December 29, 2013, the Sierra Club was celebrating the shutdown of the 150th coal-fired plant that provided electricity. That’s nothing to celebrate.
August 26, 2013
Keystone XL: Not Just a Pipeline, a Life-line
The case for the Keystone XL pipeline is straight forward. Jobs will be created.
June 7, 2013
Heartland’s James M. Taylor on the Lars Larson Show talking Keystone XL
“They want to see this country being a nation that does not have affordable energy, that is getting away from carbon-based energy sources regardless of whether there is environmental impact or not.”
April 19, 2013
Keystone XL Opponents Hypocritically Talk Property Rights
Opponents of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline are increasingly trumpeting private property rights as a reason people should oppose the pipeline.
March 14, 2013
Nebraska Gov. Heineman Announces New Support for Keystone XL
Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman, whose opposition to the original Keystone XL pipeline proposal emboldened federal opposition to the plan, announced he now supports the proposal.
March 5, 2013
State Department Says Keystone XL Will Have Little Environmental Impact
The proposed Keystone XL pipeline is “unlikely to have a substantial impact” on global climate, the U.S. Department of State concluded in a 2,000-page draft review issued March 1.
March 5, 2013
Keystone Pipeline: Housecats Have Greater Emissions Impact
The Keystone XL pipeline battle has always been about the ideology of Climatism, the belief that man-made greenhouse gases are destroying Earth’s climate.
February 14, 2013
Rockefellers behind ‘scruffy little outfit’
Nothing influences President Barack Obama’s decision on the Keystone XL pipeline quite like the protests against it, led by Bill McKibben, an American environmentalist, and his organization, called 350.org.
January 23, 2013
Michael Whatley: Keystone XL Pipeline
Michael Whatley of the Consumer Energy Alliance talks with Ben Domenech about the Keystone XL pipeline and what to expect from the Obama administration on energy policy.
June 4, 2012
Nebraska Passes Legislation to Move Keystone XL Pipeline Forward
Nebraska’s unicameral legislature has passed a bill designed to keep alive the possible approval of the Keystone XL pipeline previously rejected by President Obama. In a bipartisan 44-5 vote, lawmakers endorsed legislation that will provide a mechanism for the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality (NDEQ) to continue the Keystone evaluation independently and collaborate with the federal government on other pipeline projects. Gov. Dave Heineman (R) signed the bill into law.
May 31, 2012
Ten Actions Congress Can Take to Lower Gas Prices
President Obama and his Administration have consistently applied practices that block oil production on federal lands, denying access to energy sources and economic activity. Nevertheless, success stories on non-federal lands demonstrate the power of the free market to apply human ingenuity to natural resources and create economic growth and jobs while protecting the environment.
March 28, 2012
EPA Triples Down on “None of the Above”
Anti-energy crusaders are in a celebratory mood this week as the EPA effectively banned the construction of coal-fired power plants, and thus completed the federal government’s trifecta beat-down on affordable energy.
January 20, 2012
The Map Doesn’t Lie: Keystone XL Pipeline Is Environmentally Safe
President Obama had more than enough information to make the right decision, but – sadly and all too predictably – he choose to appease the environmental fringe once more.
January 18, 2012
Map Shows Keystone XL Pipeline Would Be One of Many Over Aquifer
Note the extensive network of existing pipelines in the area deemed too “risky” for the Keystone XL pipeline (the colored lines; the Keystone XL is in dark blue).
Heartland Daily Podcasts on Keystone XL
Map of the Keystone XL
Below is a map showing how the Keystone XL pipline (in dark blue) would be but one strand in a massive of a spider web of pipelines in the Midwest.
US oil and gas production was already declining, when the 1973 Arab oil embargo sent oil and gasoline prices skyrocketing and created block-long lines at gas stations. Increased domestic production could have eased the supply and price crunch, but the 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill had resulted in congressional leasing and drilling moratoriums on federal offshore and onshore lands.
Though it voted 50-49 to build the Alaska pipeline, Congress refused to allow more drilling. Instead, it legislated a 55-mph speed limit, mileage standards for vehicles and a ban on exporting domestically produced crude oil. The speed limit was eventually lifted, but drilling bans expanded, the mileage rules tightened, the export ban remained, and the United States increasingly imported more oil at higher prices.
However, quietly and under the federal and environmentalist radar, America’s oil industry improved and expanded its horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing (aka, fracking) technologies – on state and private lands, where DC regulators and pressure groups had little sway. The unprecedented boom that followed sent US oil, natural gas and natural gas liquids (propane) production sharply upward for the first time in decades. America’s oil output rose 30% just between 2011 and 2013, to 7.4 million barrels per day. The Green mantra that we were depleting petroleum supplies was smashed on the fractured rocks of reality.
Suddenly, the United States was importing less oil than at any time since 1995; millions of oil patch and related jobs were created; frack state royalty and tax revenues skyrocketed; natural gas prices plummeted; and the cheaper fuels and feed stocks fostered a US petrochemical and manufacturing renaissance. The fracking revolution also enabled companies to export more gasoline, kerosene, lubricants, solvents, asphalt and other finished products (since the government never banned refined product exports). Those exports have greatly improved the nation’s balance of trade and gross domestic product.
Now many American producers want the misguided export ban sent to history’s dust bin, so that they can ship crude oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG) to foreign ports. Numerous other companies support their call for change. Asia needs the energy, they note, to fuel its growing economy and support its inadequate petroleum production infrastructure. Europe needs it because too much of its natural gas comes from Russia, which charges high prices and sometimes engages in energy blackmail, and because EU fracking bans and global warming/renewable energy policies have sent business and family energy prices into the stratosphere and killed millions of jobs. The United States as a whole would also benefit.
Congress should terminate the ban. (Or President Obama could void it with yet another unconstitutional executive diktat, to counter his job-killing mandates.) Proffered reasons for perpetuating the prohibition reflect a poor grasp of energy markets, misguided self interests and simple hypocrisy.
US oil production is expected to increase by some 780,000 barrels per day in 2014, rising to 9.6 million per day by 2019. The nation’s refining capacity is at record levels, for light, heavy, sweet and sour crude. Exports would provide and important outlet for some of this crude, encouraging further exploration, protecting jobs, further revitalizing our economy, and ensuring continued royalty and tax revenues.
Opening more publicly owned lands to leasing, drilling and fracking would magnify these benefits many times over. These resources belong to all Americans, not only to those who oppose energy development or want to use anti-hydrocarbon policies to undermine economic growth and job creation. Expanded fracking operations on all these lands would further expand supplies, by making otherwise marginal plays more economic to produce, reinvigorating old oil and gas fields, prolonging oil field life, and ensuring greater resource conservation, by leaving far fewer valuable resources behind in rock formations.
Concerns that ending the ban would hurt consumers are misplaced. Indeed, for reasons just given, the opposite would happen. Expanding domestic supplies will keep OPEC at bay, stabilize global supplies and prices, and make the United States less reliant on imports and less vulnerable to supply disruptions.
What’s truly ironic and hypocritical here is that this sudden concern about consumer prices comes from members of Congress and self-styled environmental and consumer groups who have led the wars on leasing, drilling, fracking and hydrocarbons – while supporting expensive, land-intensive, water-hungry ethanol and biofuel programs. All these policies hurt consumers, by driving up energy prices. And who can forget President Obama’s pledge that electricity prices will “necessarily skyrocket” under his policies, or former Energy Secretary Steven Chu’s wish that gasoline cost $8-10 per gallon, as it does in Europe.
Companies like Dow Chemical and Delta Airlines would thus be better advised to support expanded petroleum exploration and production (for which their voices have rarely been above a whisper), than to continue campaigning for an extended oil and gas export ban.
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman (!) Ron Wyden (D-OR) also displayed woeful ignorance about energy matters when he recently expressed concern about proposed LNG exports worsening propane shortages that have left many families shivering this winter. Propane is naturally occurring natural gas liquids; it has nothing to do with exports. LNG is liquefied (compressed and super-cooled) natural gas. Moreover, the propane shortage is due to pipeline maintenance and repair problems in late 2013, coupled with unusual demand for propane last fall to dry corn for ethanol production.
(Mr. Wyden’s remark brings to mind House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s famous comment: “I believe in natural gas as a clean, cheap alternative to fossil fuels.” Memo to Ms. Pelosi: Natural gas is a fossil fuel. And these are the people who are dictating and running our energy and economic policies!)
Furthermore, these pseudo-converts to consumer protection are claiming concern that the current $9 per barrel difference between US and global oil prices could shrink if some oil is exported. They say Barclays Bank predicts that eliminating the export ban could add $10 billion a year to gasoline costs. However, US gasoline expenditures totaled $335 billion in 2012. So this potential increase works out to just 3% of an average household’s $2912 gasoline expenses. That’s $87 a year, $1.67 a week – half the price of one Starbucks Latte Grande. The consumer impact of America’s massive land lockups is much higher.
Even worse, increasingly tougher automobile mileage standards result in countless injuries and deaths.
One more ironic and hypocritical aspect of all this is that ban proponents want US oil and gas to remain in the USA, rather than letting some of it support our European allies. Let Europe produce its own oil and gas, or get it from the OPEC and Russian extortionists, they say. And yet these same “ethicists” have long demanded that the United States keep its own vast petroleum supplies locked up, while we deplete other countries’ assets and put their ecological treasures at risk from production-related accidents.
President Obama himself has said the Saudis should send us more oil, when global supplies tighten – rather than using his pen and phone to tell his energy overseers to produce more here at home. The US has also criticized China for restricting exports of rare earth metals – and selling only electronic, solar panel and wind turbine components made with rare earths – while we block US rare earth mining.
Manmade climate change alarmists should also remember that natural gas exports will reduce coal use overseas, which will in turn reduce those dastardly emissions of plant-fertilizing, life-giving carbon dioxide. (Not surprisingly, 350.org chief Bill McKibben claims that aggregate life-cycle CO2 emissions from gas production and use will “almost certainly” be worse than coal. This is utter nonsense. It’s also worth noting that life-cycle energy use, CO2 emissions and pollution associated with electric car rare earth metals, production, charging and use are almost certainly worse than coal or natural gas.)
The bottom line is simple. Exporting US oil and natural gas will benefit American workers, families, consumers, balance of trade and government revenues. We must not let provincial views, anti-hydrocarbon ideologies or misinformed policy positions perpetuate this antiquated ban.
In a victory for the future of the Internet and for property rights, last month the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia overturned — we should all hope permanently — the heart of the Federal Communication Commission’s so-called “Net Neutrality” rules.
Net Neutrality, as with so many leftist proposals, is Orwellian in name: it represents little more than the theft of property rights of companies that have invested billions of dollars in Internet infrastructure.
It is “neutral” in the sense that the regulations would force providers of Internet bandwidth to treat all content providers the same way. That is no more reasonable than saying that a stadium can’t sell better seats for higher prices or limit access to the Club level or tell you that you can’t bring in your own beer. It is “neutral” in the same way that Chairman Mao was “neutral” about private property.
The FCC had passed three rules relating to disclosure, “anti-blocking,” and “anti-discrimination” on the ’Net. The court invalidated the last two, while permitting the disclosure rule that requires broadband providers to “publicly disclose accurate information regarding the network management practices, performance, and commercial terms of [their] broadband Internet access services.”
While the majority (two of the panel’s three judges) accepted the FCC’s claims of broad authority to regulate the Internet — an important part of the unfortunate precedent continued by the case — the court nonetheless unanimously ruled that the FCC could not prevent providers of Internet bandwidth from blocking content running through their “pipes,” such as access to certain websites or access by certain devices, or from charging different content providers different amounts, such as for bandwidth-intensive applications like video streaming.
Supporters of Net Neutrality worry that the result of the court’s ruling will be that broadband providers like Comcast or Verizon, which own other businesses that may compete with certain websites, may block out the competition.
For example, if one of those companies bought an online payment service, would they try to block PayPal? Or would they give their own streaming movies advantages over Netflix or Amazon or Hulu? Or might a broadband company that can provide cable TV service try to block Internet access to a box owned by DirecTV? But, especially in the world of wireless Internet, competition will undoubtedly rein in the worst impulses of some of the companies that Americans love to hate.
Tuesday’s ruling was narrow and legalistic: The FCC’s rules were struck down because they treat Internet providers like “common carriers” (an old designation that relates to everything from telephone companies to ferries) even though the FCC is expressly prohibited from regulating Internet companies as common carriers.
The judges were kinder to the FCC than they should have been in accepting so much of the Commission’s broader justification for rule-making: “The Commission… has reasonably interpreted section 706 to empower it to promulgate rules governing broadband providers’ treatment of Internet traffic, and its justification for the specific rules at issue here — that they will preserve and facilitate the ‘virtuous circle’ of innovation that has driven the explosive growth of the Internet — is reasonable and supported by substantial evidence.”
The proper response — and perhaps explaining why I’m not a lawyer — is “Bull****!”
The reason the Internet is one of the most successful achievements in human history is that it’s been almost entirely unregulated (other than attempting to prevent already illegal acts like dealing drugs or distributing child pornography, etc.) The idea that anything the FCC would do is likely to increase innovation is ridiculous on its face.
Furthermore, telling Internet infrastructure (“backbone” or broadband) providers, who’ve spent billions of dollars of shareholders’ money building the physical structure of the Internet, how they must charge for the use of their assets is nothing more and nothing less than the theft of property. It’s as if someone builds a toll road only to have regulators say they must charge a big 18-wheeler, which does much more damage to the road than a car does, the same toll that the car pays. It is naked theft. It is destructive to the incentive to build more such roads. And you can bet the truck lobby would be for it.
In a partial dissent, Judge Laurence Silberman goes further in the right direction, questioning much of the FCC’s authority to regulate the Internet (and his colleagues’ acceptance of the FCC’s claims):
So much for the terms “promote competition in the local telecommunications market” or “remove barriers to infrastructure investment.” Presto, we have a new statute granting the FCC virtually unlimited power to regulate the Internet. This reading of § 706, as we said in Comcast Corp. v. FCC , “would virtually free the Commission from its congressional tether.” The limiting principles the majority relies on are illusory.
Silberman is pointing us to a reason why our constitutional republic, our freedom, and our national self-reliant character is crumbling: Too many legislators, judges, and citizens are erroneously and unwisely accepting the ongoing encroachment of the regulatory state into aspects of our lives where they are not permitted, wanted, or helpful — except from the point of view of left-wingers and rent-seekers who push to use the power of government to effectively steal billions of dollars from unloved (and thus not politically easy to defend) corporations like Verizon and Comcast.
Google and other Internet companies that lobbied for Net Neutrality should be ashamed. They got big, successful, and fabulously wealthy due to the “wild west” nature of the Web. But now that they’re riding high they want to use the power of government to cement their advantages. I wonder how Google would feel if the government told them they could not charge different amounts for different advertisements, or Netflix that they couldn’t charge differently for different movies, TV shows, or their own original content… or that they must supply HBO’s original content at the same price as their own.
The companies have argued that they “have based decisions to embark on significant investments precisely upon the premise of non-discriminatory access to content.”
But imagine a high-end car company trying to use the government to tell gas stations that they must sell premium for the price of regular. Imagine Godiva getting a regulator to say that they must be sold the world’s best cocoa beans for the same price that Hershey’s pays for whatever quality they buy. It cannot be said strongly or often enough: any such approach, including Net Neutrality, is immoral, impractical, and in almost any other context illegal. Claiming that they have made business decisions based on an assumption of immoral and illegal government regulation is preposterous, but all too believable in 21st-century America.
The former FCC Chairman who pushed so hard for these rules, Julius Genachowski, is a very smart guy. He is also a partisan political hack who worked for Chuck Schumer and was a classmate of Barack Obama’s at Harvard Law School. In creating the now-dead rules, he was doing the bidding of President Obama’s big donors at Google while sucking up to George Soros-funded leftist organizations.
Genachowski’s replacement, Tom Wheeler, who now must decide whether to appeal Tuesday’s ruling, is a successful communications sector venture capitalist. Unfortunately, he is described byPolitico as “a longtime Obama loyalist… (who) raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for Obama’s two presidential campaigns.”
So don’t look for the politicization of regulation under this administration to miss a step under new FCC leadership.
With Net Neutrality dead for the time being, I expect renewed focus by the partisan Wheeler on a new version of the “Fairness Doctrine” in which the FCC will work to weaken conservative dominance over talk radio and cable TV news. As of December, Fox News had more viewers than MSNBC, CNN, and HLN combined, while talk radio continues to see stations leaving the Progressive Talk format entirely. Democrats are furious.
Despite officially jettisoning Fairness Doctrine rules in 2011, a more recent makeover of this ugly mindset threatens to tell media organizations what, or at least what kind, of news stories they must cover and how they must cover them in order to “illuminate the diversity of views available.” Republicans are already calling early “studies” preparation for “Fairness Doctrine 2.0.“
Tuesday’s victory, although in an important battle, must be seen in the context of a never-ending war against a patient and determined enemy.
[First published at the American Spectator.]
Join us for a luncheon lecture with author and presidential scholar Tevi Troy, who will talk about his new book, What Jefferson Read, Ike Watched and Obama Tweeted: 200 Years of Popular Culture in the White House.
Just $15 gets you a good lunch, a great speaker, and excellent networking opportunities!
From Cicero to Snooki, the cultural influences on our American presidents are powerful and plentiful. Thomas Jefferson famously said “I cannot live without books,” and his library backed up the claim, later becoming the backbone of the new Library of Congress. Jimmy Carter watched hundreds of movies in his White House, while Ronald Reagan starred in a few in his own time. Lincoln was a theater-goer, while Obama kicked back at home to a few episodes of HBO’s “The Wire.”
America is a country built by thinkers on a foundation of ideas. Alongside classic works of philosophy and ethics, however, our presidents have been influenced by the books, movies, TV shows, viral videos, and social media sensations of their day.
In What Jefferson Read, Ike Watched, and Obama Tweeted: 200 Years of Popular Culture in the White House former White House aide Tevi Troy combines research with witty observation to tell the story of how our presidents have been shaped by popular culture.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Tevi Troy is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and a writer and consultant on health care and domestic policy. He is a frequent television and radio analyst, and has appeared on CNN, Fox News, Fox Business, CNBC, and The Jim Lehrer Show, among other outlets.
Troy served as deputy secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under President George W. Bush. In that position, he oversaw all operations, including Medicare, Medicaid, public health, medical research, food and drug safety, welfare, child and family services, disease prevention, and mental health services.
Troy has extensive White House experience, having served in several high-level positions over a five-year period, culminating in his service as Deputy Assistant and then Acting Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy. In the latter position, he ran the Domestic Policy Council and was the White House’s lead adviser on health care, labor, education, transportation, immigration, crime, veterans and welfare. At the White House, Troy also specialized in crisis management, creating intra-governmental consensus, and all aspects of policy development, including strategy, outreach and coalition building.
Troy has a B.S. in Industrial and Labor Relations from Cornell University and an M.A and Ph.D. in American Civilization from the University of Texas at Austin. Troy lives in Maryland with his wife Kami and four children.
On Tuesday, the Congressional Budget Office released a budget projection update which decimates Democrats’ claims that Obamacare does not hurt the American economy.
In Appendix C of the rather dense document, the CBO concludes that various provisions of Obamacare will “reduce the total number of hours worked,” “will cause a reduction…in aggregate labor compensation,” and most dramatically will result in “a decline in the number of full-time equivalent workers of about 2.0 million in 2017, rising to about 2.5 million in 2024” as compared to employment growth in the absence of the Affordable Care Act.
The White House responded by pointing out that the CBO’s estimates do not derive primarily from a reduced demand for labor by employers, as Republicans have argued. But it’s hardly consoling to read CBO’s prediction of “a net decline in the amount of labor that workers choose to supply…(which) will appear almost entirely as a reduction in labor force participation and in hours worked….”
The main cause of this trend is the work-discouraging combination of taxes and subsidies for lower-income Americans in Obamacare. In other words, the implied tax and subsidy penalties for success are so high that it won’t be worth a lower-income person’s effort to try to climb up the income ladder.
So much for the American dream.
And while the CBO does suggest that demand for labor will not decline substantially due to the costs imposed by Obamacare, they do say that costs “will be borne primarily by workers in the form of reduced wages or other compensation.” So even the White House’s good news is bad news for working Americans.
The CBO also suggests that part of the reason that Obamacare will not substantially reduce the demand for labor is because “the expansion of Medicaid subsidies and the provision of exchange subsidies will not only stimulate greater demand for health care services but also allow lower-income households that gain subsidized coverage to increase their spending on other goods and services.”
But the CBO’s static analysis ignores the fact that this effect – nothing more than massive wealth distribution – is just another version of Keynesian economic stimulus which has failed every place and every time it has been attempted. There is no free lunch, and the money which the CBO claims will benefit the economy through increased consumption will simply result in decreased consumption – and therefore decreased employment – in other sectors of the economy. It’s the healthcare version of Cash for Clunkers.
The non-partisan CBO, highly respected by the media despite (or perhaps because of) their reliance on static analysis that tends to bias results toward higher spending and higher taxes, has cut the legs out of Democrats’ claims that Obamacare is not harmful to the economy.
[First published at the American Spectator.]
President Obama said in his State of the Union last week, “But Americans overwhelmingly agree that no one who works full time should ever have to raise a family in poverty.”
Thank you, Mr. President. But even without you, as already enacted in current law, for anyone who works full time in America, the minimum wage, plus the Earned Income Tax Credit, plus the Child Tax Credit, equals or exceeds the poverty level for every possible family combination, including single mothers with children.
Full time work at the current federal minimum wage of $7.25 equals $15,080 a year. That exceed the federal poverty level for 2014 for one single person living alone, at $11,670. In addition, that single person still qualifies for an earned income tax credit of $496. Because that is “refundable,” the individual still gets that in cash even if he or she is not liable for any federal income taxes.
With one child, the single person gets an additional $1,000. Plus the Earned Income Tax Credit increases to $3,305, for a grand total of $19,385. The poverty level for 2014 for a single mother with a child is $15,730.
With 2 children, the family gets $2,000 in child tax credits, and the Earned Income Tax Credit increases to $5,460. So with full time work, that comes to $22,540 in total income. The poverty level for 2014 for a single mother with two children is $19,790.
With 3 children, the family gets $3,000 in child tax credits, and the Earned Income Tax Credit increases to $6,143. With full time work, family income totals $24,223, compared to the federal poverty level for 2014 for a mother and 3 children of $23,850.
And so it goes. Your job, Mr. President, is not to give pretty sounding speeches proclaiming to everyone how you are more moral and caring than they are. Your job is to adopt policies that will foster the creation of jobs, so the poor can get full time work.
You can start with approving the Keystone XL Pipeline, and telling billionaire Tom Steyer who keeps threatening you if you do to report to the nearest poverty office in California and take personal responsibility for all the poor people there without full time work.
Then you can support Ted Cruz in his effort to repeal Obamacare, which is strongly discouraging employers from offering full time work. You can also repeal all the new taxes on capital investment you forced through at the start of last year, because capital investment is what creates jobs and increases wages in a capitalist economy.
I am sorry you never learned that from all your “progressive” parents, mentors, and teachers growing up, or through your inadequate education at Columbia and Harvard. I know, I got the same inadequate education at Harvard College and Harvard Law School myself. But I at least supplemented that with independent thinking and reading.
So I know, unlike you, that if you increase the legal minimum wage above what some workers can produce, employers will just not hire them at all. That is why after your thoughtless Democrat friends raised the minimum wage when they took over Congress in 2007, teenage unemployment soared to 25%, teenage Hispanic unemployment exploded to 30%, and black teenage unemployment skyrocketed to 45%.
Those numbers have come down a bit more recently. But now you want to raise them again.
The way jobs and wages are increased in a capitalist economy like ours is though capital investment. That creates jobs and increased demand for labor, which increases wages. It also gives workers the tools to be more productive, so employers can finance hiring them at higher wages.
It would help as well if fathers would stick around and work full time and contribute to the welfare of their children. That would add at least another $15,080 a year to the above family income levels. That is why there is no poverty among two parent families with both parents working. Zero, zip, nada.
But that would mean all of your social liberal friends would have to stop promoting family breakup and chaos. And that would mean a lot less fun for everyone. Except the children.
[First published at The American Spectator.]
Despite planning efforts to restrict it, the Bay Area continues to disperse. For decades, nearly all population and employment growth in the San Jose-San Francisco Combined Statistical Area has been in the suburbs, rather than in the core cities of San Francisco and Oakland. The CSA (Note) is composed of seven adjacent metropolitan areas (San Francisco, San Jose, Santa Cruz, Santa Rosa, Vallejo, Napa, and Stockton). A similar expansion also occurred in the New York CSA.
The San Francisco Bay Area is home to two of the three most dense built-up urban areas in the United States, the San Francisco urban area, (6,266 residents per square mile or 2,419 per square kilometer) with the core cities of San Francisco and Oakland and the all-suburban San Jose urban area (5,820 residents per square mile or 2,247 per square kilometer), according to US Census 2010 data. Only the Los Angeles urban area is denser (6,999 per square mile or 2.702 per square kilometer). The more spread out New York urban area trails at 5,319 per square mile (2,054 per square kilometer).
The San Francisco Bay & Central Valley Area
The continuing dispersion was reflected in commuting patterns that developed between 2000 and 2010, with the addition of the Stockton metropolitan area, which is composed of San Joaquin County, with more than 700,000 residents. San Joaquin County is located in the Central Valley and is so far removed from San Francisco Bay that it may be appropriate in the long run to think of the area as the “San Francisco Bay & Central Valley Area.” The distance from Stockton to the closest point shore of San Francisco Bay is 60 miles, and it is nearly another 25 miles to the city of San Francisco.
Ironically, this continued dispersion of jobs and residences is, at least in part, driven by the San Francisco Bay Area’s urban containment land use policies designed to prevent it. What the planners have ignored is the impact on house prices associated with highly restrictive land use planning. The San Francisco metropolitan area and the San Jose metropolitan area are the third and fourth most unaffordable major housing markets out of 85 rated in the recent 10th Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey, trailing only Hong Kong and Vancouver.
Historical Core Cities: San Francisco and Oakland
The historical core municipalities (cities) of the San Francisco Bay Area, San Francisco and Oakland have held their population very well. Each essentially retains it 1950 borders. Among the 40 US cities with more than 250,000 residents in 1950, only San Francisco and Oakland managed population increases by 2000 without substantial annexations and substantial non-urban (rural) territory within their city limits. For example, New York and Los Angeles, both of which have grown, have nearly the same city limits as in 1950 and 2000, yet much of New York’s Staten Island was rural in 1950 as was much of the San Fernando Valley in Los Angeles.
Yet both San Francisco and Oakland have had difficult times. Between 1950 and 1980, both San Francisco and Oakland suffered 12 percent population losses, which were followed by recoveries. The losses were modest compared to the emptying out of municipalities like St. Louis. Detroit, Chicago, Copenhagen, and Paris, which remain one quarter to nearly two-thirds below their 1950s figures. Further, population gains from annexations masked losses within the 1950 boundaries of many cities, such as Portland, Seattle, and Indianapolis, etc.
San Jose: Now the Largest City
San Jose is now the Bay Area’s largest city. San Jose has grown spectacularly, from a population of 95,000 in 1950 to nearly 1,000,000 today. San Jose passed San Francisco by the 1990 census and Oakland by the 1970 census (Figure 1). Virtually all of San Jose’s population growth has occurred during the postwar period of automobile suburbanization. The pre-automobile urban form familiar in San Francisco and central Oakland simply does not exist in San Jose. Even attempts to pretend the pre-war urban form has returned have been famously unsuccessful. Even after building an extensive light rail system, San Jose’s transit work trip market share is barely one quarter that of the adjacent San Francisco metropolitan area.
Nonetheless, suburban San Jose has become a dominant force in the “Silicon Valley”, which stretches through San Mateo County in the San Francisco metropolitan area and into Santa Clara County, which includes San Jose. The Silicon Valley has been the capital of the international information technology business for at least a half century. The highly suburbanized region has done more than its share to elevate the San Francisco Bay Area to its high standard of living (According to Brookings Institution data), a phenomenon that has spread also the urban core of San Francisco. At the same time, San Jose is the second most affluent major metropolitan in the world and San Francisco ranks seventh. The Silicon Valley, which includes much of San Mateo County (adjacent to Santa Clara County in the San Francisco metropolitan area), is clearly the economic engine of the region with twice as many jobs as San Francisco (which is both a city and a county).
Overall, the San Francisco Bay Area has grown approximately 180 percent since 1950, considerably more than the national average from 1950 to 2012 of 107 percent. The Bay Area’s growth was strong, but well behind the 280 percent growth achieved in the Los Angeles CSA (Los Angeles, Riverside-San Bernardino, and Oxnard MSAs).
However, growth has since moderated substantially. Between 1950 and 2000, the Bay Area grew at an annual rate of 1.9 percent but since 2000, the annual growth rate has dropped to 0.7 percent annually. Even so, in recent years, the Bay Area has nearly equaled the much slowed growth of the Los Angeles CSA, adding 23.6 percent to its population since 1990, compared to 25.5 percent in Los Angeles. Both areas, however, grew at less than the national population increase rate (25.8 percent), and slowing, in the 2000s to the slowest growth rates since California became a state in 1850.
Despite the decent demographic performance of the cities of San Francisco and Oakland since 1950, nearly all Bay Area growth occurred in the suburbs. Between 1950 and 2012, only one percent of population growth in the CSA occurred in the two historical core municipalities and 99 percent in suburban areas. Things have been somewhat better for the two cities since 2000, with seven percent of the growth in the historical core municipalities and 93 percent of the growth in suburban areas (Figure 2).
Since 1950, the San Jose metropolitan area has grown by far the fastest in the CSA, with the more than 500 percent increase in population. The outer metropolitan areas (Santa Cruz, Santa Rosa, Vallejo, Napa, and Stockton) have grown nearly 300 percent, while the parts of the San Francisco metropolitan area outside the two core cities grew more than 200 percent. San Francisco and Oakland grew approximately 5 percent (Figure 3).
As house prices increased before the subprime crisis, the Bay Area lost more than 600,000 domestic migrants, a rate of more than 85,000 per year. Since 2008, however, with substantially lower house prices, and a renewed tech boom, there has been an annual gain of approximately 4,000 to the Bay Area in domestic migration. However, if the substantial house price increases since 2012 continue, the area could again become a net exporter of people.
Future Urban Evolution
Like much of California, San Francisco Bay CSA exhibits much slower population growth than before. How much of this is tied to the regional and state policies constricting suburban housing remains an open question, but it seems much growth that might have occurred in the original San Francisco metropolitan area or the later developing San Jose metropolitan area will instead occur in the Vallejo or Stockton metropolitan areas, where housing prices tend to be much lower, particularly for larger homes that are increasingly unaffordable closer to the urban core. Indeed, it is not impossible that Modesto (Stanislaus County) could be added to the San Francisco Bay CSA by 2020, which is even farther away from the historical core than the Stockton metropolitan area.
At the same time, many potential new residents may find either the high prices near the core nor the long commutes associated with Central Valley residence unappealing. Many households may instead seek their aspirations in Utah, Colorado, Texas, and even Oklahoma, not least because the “California Dream” has been made affordable.
Wendell Cox is a Visiting Professor, Conservatoire National des Arts et Metiers, Paris and the author of “War on the Dream: How Anti-Sprawl Policy Threatens the Quality of Life.
Note: Metropolitan areas are labor markets. Their building blocks in the United States are complete counties. Metropolitan statistical areas are organized around built up urban areas with counties reaching a threshold of the urban area population being considered central counties and included in the metropolitan area. In addition, any county with an employment interchange of 25 percent or more with the core counties is also included in the metropolitan area. Adjacent metropolitan areas are added together to form Combined Statistical Areas if there is a 15 percent or more employment interchange. This is a simplified definition. Complete details are available from the US Office of Management and the Budget.
Today marks the 103rd anniversary of the birth or Ronald Wilson Reagan, the nation’s 40th President. Fifty years earlier, at the age of 53, he made a prescient observation that remains true today. From his famous “A Time for Choosing” speech in 1964:
The Founding Fathers knew a government can’t control the economy without controlling people. And they knew when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. So we have come to a time for choosing. … You and I are told we must choose between a left or right, but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right, there is only an up or down. Up to man’s age-old dream — the maximum of individual freedom consistent with order — or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism.
“Affordable care” … “Income equality” … “Common core” … these and other popular words and phrases of today are merely names for more schemes leading the nation down, not up.
It’s a good thing Ronald Reagan isn’t around to see it.
Watch Reagan’s “A Time for Choosing” speech below:
Heartland Senior Fellow Benjamin Domenech was a guest Wednesday night on “All In with Chris Hayes” on MSNBC. Chris was nice enough to call Ben “one of my favorite conservatives,” and you can see from his affable and fact-filled TV presence why that might be. Ben is also rare among people who go on TV to talk that he actually endeavors to answer the questions he’s asked.
Ben talked about the new Congressional Budget Office report stating Obamacare will end up removing millions of Americans from the full-time workforce. Chris seemed to think that’s a good thing. Ben disagreed.
Media Matters’ Eric Boehlert follows Ben. Media Matters, a lefty outfit few take seriously, has made a habit of attacking Heartland. Nonetheless, we’ve included it because Hayes referred again to the good, honest stuff Ben said.
On one hand, President Obama extoled efforts to increase fuel efficiency to “help America wean itself off foreign oil.” He touted the new reality of “more oil produced at home than we buy from the rest of the world, the first time that’s happened in nearly twenty years.” On the other hand, he promised to use his “authority to protect more of our pristine federal lands for future generations”—which is code for more national monuments and endangered species designations that will lock up federal lands from productive use.
Electricity and extreme poverty
Concern was expressed for Americans who “are working more than ever just to get by.” He wants to help Africans “double access to electricity and help end extreme poverty.” But his policies are limiting access to electricity in America and raising the cost (20% in the past 6 years). Higher-cost energy is the most punitive to those struggling “just to get by.”
The “Energy Cost Impacts on American Families, 2001-2013” report found: “Lower-income families are more vulnerable to energy costs than higher-income families because energy represents a larger portion of their household budgets, reducing the amount of income that can be spent on food, housing, health care, and other necessities. Nearly one-third of U.S. households had gross annual incomes less than $30,000 in 2011. Energy costs accounted for an average of 27% of their family budgets, before taking into account any energy assistance.” The report shows the 27% is an 11% increase over the 2001 energy cost impact. For households with an after-tax income higher than $50,000, the 2001 percentage was 5 and the 2013: 9—a 4% increase. For low- and middle-income families, energy costs are now consuming a portion of after-tax household income comparable to that traditionally spent on major categories such as housing, food, and health care—with black, Hispanic and senior households being hit especially hard.
All of the above
President Obama took credit for his “‘all of the above’ energy strategy” which, he claims has “moved America closer to energy independence than we have been in decades.” And, regarding natural gas, he says that he’ll “cut red tape to help states get those factories built and put folks to work.” POTUS proclaimed: “I’ll act on my own to slash bureaucracy and streamline the permitting process for key projects, so we can get more construction workers on the job as fast as possible.” The Department of Energy has dozens of permits for liquefied natural gas (LNG) export facilities languishing on some bureaucrat’s desk. One of the few approved terminals: Cheniere Energy’s Sabine Pass LNG Terminal Project in Cameron Parish Louisiana, created more than 2000 jobs in 2013 and looks to create another 2000 jobs in 2014. President Obama, please act on your own here. Cut the red tape and slash the bureaucracy. Let’s get those permits issued.
A January 16, 2013, letter sent to the White House from 18 environmental groups, whose opinions seem to be held in such high regard by the Obama administration, challenged the president’s approach—calling “all of the above” a “compromise that future generations can’t afford.” The letter states: “We believe that continued reliance on an ‘all of the above’ energy strategy would be fundamentally at odds with your goal of cutting carbon pollution and would undermine our nation’s capacity to respond to the threat of climate disruption.” They claim: “an
‘all of the above’ approach that places virtually no limits on whether, when, where or how fossil fuels are extracted ignores the impacts of carbon-intense fuels and is wrong for America’s future.” The groups see it as a threat to “our most sensitive lands.” Despite an abundance of evidence to the contrary, they posit: “clean energy and solutions that have already begun to replace fossil fuels” save Americans money. The letter concludes: “We believe that a climate impact lens should be applied to all decisions regarding new fossil fuel development, and urge that a ‘carbon-reducing clean energy’ strategy rather than an ‘all of the above’ strategy become the operative paradigm for your administration’s energy decisions.”
As if an executive decree could make it so, he announced: “the debate is settled. Climate change is a fact.” True, climate change is a fact—the climate changes, always has, always will. But the debate as to what causes it or what should be done about it is far from “settled.” “We have to act with more urgency because a changing climate is already harming western communities struggling with drought and coastal cities dealing with floods,” he announced. However, droughts and floods have been going on throughout history when CO2 emissions (which he calls “carbon pollution”) were much lower than today. His solution? “The shift to a cleaner economy,” which gobbles up taxpayer dollars in crony corruption (more than 30 such projects have gone bust since the 2009 stimulus bill released nearly $100 billion for “clean energy”).
A story in the January 25, 2013, Economist titled “European climate policy: worse than useless” starts: “Since climate change was identified as a serious threat to the planet, Europe has been in the vanguard of the effort to mitigate it.” Europe has been the global leader in climate change policies that are, according to The Economist: “dysfunctional.” The “worse than useless” piece states: “Had Europe’s policies worked better, other countries might have been more inclined to emulate the leaders in the field.” It points out that Europe’s “largest source of renewable energy” is wood.
A companion article in the same issue of The Economist, “Europe’s energy woes,” states: “Europeans are more concerned with the cost of climate-change policies than with their benefits. European industries pay three to four times more for gas, and over twice as much for electricity, as American ones.” Calling the EU “a lone front-runner without followers,” the article points out: “it is hard to sell the idea of higher energy prices, particularly when the rest of the world is doing too little to cut greenhouse gases.” Rather than learning from Europe, like a lemming, President Obama apparently wants to lead America off the same “useless” cliff.
He believes that the minimum wage needs to be increased to $10.10 an hour. He wants to “Give America a raise.” Yet, in North Dakota’s boom economy, workers at Walmart and McDonalds are paid in the teens—without government meddling. The best wages are paid with a fully employed workforce. The Keystone XL pipeline would provide thousands of good paying (often union) jobs, but, it was never mentioned in the 2014 SOTU. (By the way, the long-awaited report on Keystone was released on Friday. It found that “the project would have a minimal impact on the environment.” Politico calls the report: “a major disappointment to climate activists.”)
President Obama, you are correct when you say, “opportunity is who we are,” but your policies hurt the poor and block job creation. My question for you echoes what you asked early in the SOTU address: “The question for everyone in this chamber, running through every decision we make this year, is whether we are going to help or hinder this progress.” Are you going to help Americans or hinder our opportunities? This question should run through every decision you make in 2014.
On one hand, you say you want to help. On the other hand, everything you do hinders.
[Originally posted at Townhall]
One of Sunday’s most controversial Super Bowl ads came with the message “Friends don’t let friends smoke.” Bizarrely, it’s organized anti-smokers in the public-health establishment who want the commercial banned.
The line comes in an ad for the NJOY King, an electronic cigarette produced by Scottsdale, Ariz.-based NJOY. The commercial shows people helping each other in situations like moving a couch up a flight of stairs or helping a friend in a bar fight. Then one man starts to light up a cigarette, only for his friend to offer him an NJOY King.
For most people, the message is clear: If someone close to you smokes cigarettes, try recommending they switch to a smoke-free alternative.
Those who care about public health should be rejoicing that the private sector is not only placing anti-smoking ads on the country’s largest stage, but that the ad actually offers smokers an appealing alternative to smoking.
Many smokers complain that nicotine gum and patches, which are promoted by government-funded anti-smoking campaigns, aren’t satisfying; e-cigs give those trying to quit an experience closer to smoking. Many ex-smokers who’d failed to quit smoking with the government-endorsed solutions are now succeeding with e-cigarettes.
Yet the response from many of America’s most prominent anti-smoking groups is a call for a ban on all TV and radio advertising of e-cigs. Last year’s NJOY Super Bowl ad made activists furious. That ad, which also ran in select markets, focused on distinguishing between smoking and vaping (for the vapor emitted from e-cigs). Yet Bill Pfeifer, president and CEO of the American Lung Association’s Southwest chapter, fumed that the NJOY ads were “slick misinformation” that should be banned by the Food and Drug Administration, and that both CBS and the NFL should have benched the ads.
Why would the American Lung Association, whose purpose is to reduce lung disease, oppose letting smokers learn about smoke-free e-cigarettes, which even opponents acknowledge are dramatically less harmful than smoking? Because, they argue, some e-cigs look like the real thing.
No, really. E-cigarette opponents say the products should be demonized because they look like cigarettes, or as the World Health Organization claims, they “normalize” smoking.
That some e-cigs look, feel and taste somewhat like cigarettes is actually what makes them so appealing to people trying to quit smoking. Yet if it were up to activist groups, alternatives to cigarette smoking would be entirely unappealing — and therefore ineffective.
As Clive Bates, the former head of Action on Smoking and Health, the largest anti-smoking group in the United Kingdom, recently stated at an e-cig investors conference held in New York City, “If you’ve got a very, very low risk product that no one wants to use, you don’t get much harm reduction.”
Instead, Bates encourages a pragmatic view of harm reduction that recognizes that so long as a product is far less hazardous than smoking, it should be free to compete with deadly combustible tobacco cigarettes.
And public-health advocates should favor giving them competitive edges over cigarettes, such as the opportunity to advertise to adults on TV.
Jeff Stier is a senior fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research in Washington, DC, and heads its Risk Analysis Division. Gregory Conley is a Heartland Institute research fellow.
[Originally published in The Post]
The popular, middle-class-yet-upscale Trader Joe’s grocery store chain wanted to build a new store in Portland, Oregon. And instead of heading to a tony neighborhood downtown or towards the suburbs, the popular West Coast grocer chose a struggling area of Northeast Portland.
The company selected two acres along Martin Luther King Blvd. that had been vacant for decades. It seemed like the perfect place to create jobs, improve customer options and beautify the neighborhood. City officials, the business community, and residents all seemed thrilled with the plan. Then some community organizers caught wind of it.
The fact that most members of the Portland African-American Leadership Forum didn’t live in the neighborhood was beside the point. “This is a people’s movement for African-Americans and other communities, for self-determination,” member Avel Gordly said in a press conference. Even the NAACP piled on, railing against the project as a “case study in gentrification.” (The area is about 25 percent African-American.)
After a few months of racially tinged accusations and angry demands, Trader Joe’s decided it wasn’t worth the hassle. “We run neighborhood stores and our approach is simple,” a corporate statement said. “If a neighborhood does not want a Trader Joe’s, we understand, and we won’t open the store in question.”
Hours after Trader Joe’s pulled out, PAALF leaders arrived at a previously scheduled press conference trying to process what just happened. The group re-issued demands that the now-cancelled development include affordable housing, mandated jobs based on race, and a small-business slush fund. Instead, the only demand being met is two fallow acres and a lot of anger from the people who actually live nearby.
“All of my neighbors were excited to have Trader Joe’s come here and replace a lot that has always been empty,” said Nghi Tran. “It’s good quality for poor men.” Like many residents, Tran pins the blame on PAALF. “They don’t come to the neighborhood cleanups,” he said. “They don’t live here anymore.”
“There are no winners today,” said Adam Milne, owner of an area restaurant. “Only missed tax revenue, lost jobs, less foot traffic, an empty lot and a boulevard still struggling to support its local small businesses.” The store was to be built by a local African American-owned construction company.
Artist Kymberly Jeka insisted:
This is not what the neighborhood people want. This is terrible.
Grayson Dempsey looked out of her window at the vacant lot:
I appreciate that (PAALF) is trying to talk about the origins of gentrification. That’s really essential, but they can’t stand up and say, ‘As residents of the King neighborhood, this is what we want.’ The residents of the King neighborhood want this to happen.
Sometimes a community doesn’t want to be organized.
But have no fear, Portland. You might not have a new Trader Joe’s, but PAALF promised to hold a “community visioning process” later this month. No word yet if that brainstorming session will offer jobs, affordable housing or Two-Buck Chuck.[First posted at Ricochet.]
President Obama’s State of the Union address on the night of January 28, 2014 was all about “micro-management.” It was micro-management at one level since he realizes that a divided Congress will not pass any “grand” legislation that he might try to submit.
Thus, he proposed a series of small changes that he hopes that either Congress would go along with, or that he can try to impose through “executive order” without Congressional approval (raising potential Constitutional issues).
Indeed, the president’s ambiguity in not stating in great detail all of the specific “executive orders” he might introduce if Congress did not go along with his policy demands highlighted that he was threatening to impose actions that clearly might potentially cross “red lines” separating presidential from congressional responsibilities under the Constitution.Constitutional Separation of Powers
The Founding Fathers constructed the Constitution in a way precisely to prevent abuse and concentration of power in any one branch of the government. They had had enough experience under a British king who asserted the “right” to arbitrarily impose taxes and regulations over the lives of the American colonists with neither their advice nor their consent.
President Obama has a “progressive” vision for America, but it is one that a large portion of the citizenry do not desire or agree with. Their elected representatives are supposed to reflect and defend their conception of what for many of them means a smaller and less intrusive government in people’s everyday life.
The president’s arrogance is shown by his assertion that he will use executive-imposed coercive methods to impose the policies that he wants, in place of persuasion and a wider legislative consent of the governed by winning more of the American people over to his view of a better country.Micro-Managing the People’s Lives
But the other level of his focus on micro-management highlights the inescapable political paternalistic mindset in which the president thinks. All the issues that he mentioned in his State of the Union address emphasized a hubris that he knows how Americans should live, act, and associate with each other.
He knows what wage government contractors should pay their workers;
He knows how pre-kindergarten children should be taught;
He knows how businesses should organize their use of energy in their manufacturing of products;
He knows how long people should be financially able to be unemployed between jobs while looking for employment;
He knows how divergent income inequalities should or should not be in America;
He knows how to create career opportunities for young people and the type of education they should have available;
He knows the type and quality of health insurance and medical care people should receive.
This is why he has faced much of the Congressional opposition, over which he is clearly frustrated. Many people in the United States, and some of their elected representatives, believe that these are not matters for the government. They are matters that should be left up to the judgment, planning and decisions of individuals, families, and voluntary agreements among people themselves in their communities and in the workplace.
The president’s government-imposed “one-size-fits-all” solutions to what he considers to be America’s “problems” are in stark contrast to the diversity of America, and the more reasonable and common-sensical view that people in their own circumstances and with their own knowledge can far better handle their own problems than someone in a far-away national capital with none of the real micro-knowledge of people’s lives.
This partly explains the president’s low poll ratings. People come to resent the arrogant “do-gooder” who presumes to know better how people should live than those people themselves.Political Presence of Knowledge in Education
What he seems unable to understand – or does not want to understand – is that those in government do not have the knowledge, wisdom or ability to successfully plan the lives, actions, and outcomes of hundreds of millions of people in any way superior to what may result when each person is able to guide and direct his or her own life in their own corner of the society.
For example, how does President Obama know what type of pre-kindergarten education or training would be most effective in, maybe, giving a helping hand to the young? He probably might answer, the educational “experts.” But who are these “experts” other than university academics and government bureaucrats who self-appoint themselves and mutually congratulate each other as the “informed” specialists knowing how children should be raised and awakened to an interest in learning.
Self-confident in their own wisdom, these “experts” lobby and argue for their “scientific” concepts of pre-school education to be imposed on the young at taxpayers’ expense. Education for children of all ages is put into the straightjacket of what the “experts” agree upon or consider “best.”
The advantage of the market – including in education – is that it creates the competitive opportunity and the profit-driven incentive for many minds outside of government to innovate, experiment, and offer to others multiple methods of awakening that interest and ability to learn among the young.
We understand and take for granted that setting many minds to work in the competitive drive for market profits widens the process of discovery for improving the multitudes of products and services in our everyday lives. Better cell phones, improved flat-screen TVs, new stain removing clothing detergents, more convenient ways to read a book on an electronic tablet.
This would be no less true in education at all levels, if only the creative possibilities of many minds in the market were freed from the monopoly and controlling hand of government schooling and mandated teaching techniques.Arrogance of Dictating People’s Pay
Or on what basis does Obama declare that $10.10 is a “fair” and “living” minimum wage? He would no doubt reply that government bureaucrats have worked up statistical benchmarks of what is “needed” for a minimum standard of living, which every person should receive so as to have enough to satisfy those statistical benchmarks.
But merely saying that a person should be paid a certain amount does not mean that someone else will think they are worth that amount in terms of the wage they are willing and able to pay to have that person do a particular job. Perversely, minimum wages laws often end up harming some of the very people they are supposed to help.
Anyone that a prospective employer considers not to be worth $10.10 per hour will not be hired, or if currently employed may lose their job. No one will pay $10.10 for something, including someone’s labor services, if it is only considered to be worth, say, $9 or “$6.
All you end up doing is pricing out of the market some of the low or unskilled workers who are most in need for the entry level and lower paying job that offers them an opportunity to acquire, “on the job,” the experience, talent, and skills that over time may make them worth more to their existing or some other possible employer.
Take away this opportunity through imposing or further increasing a government-mandated minimum wage, and the government ends up guaranteeing that supposed minimum standard of living through welfare transfers in the form of cash or in-kind services that potentially lock many of these unfortunate people into prolonged or perpetual government dependency.
At the same time, the money to redistribute in this manner must come from increased taxes or more government borrowing, both of which have their negative effects. They undermine the incentives to work, save and invest on the part of those who are producing the wealth of the society, and thus, at a minimum, potentially slows down that rate at which the country’s “economic pie” of goods and services grows and improves over time. At its worst, it can bring a society to the point of stagnation or even economic decline.Reduced to Pawns on the Chess-Board of Society
More than 250 years ago, the great Scottish economist, Adam Smith, warned about such people who wish to be “social engineers” imposing their plan for a “good society” on the mass of the population.
Adam Smith called such a person the “man of system” who “is apt to be very wise in his own conceit . . . He seems to imagine that he can arrange the different members of a great society with as much ease as the hand arranges the different pieces upon a chess-board.”
The social engineer “does not consider that the pieces upon the chess-board have no other principle of motion besides that which the hand impresses upon them; but that, in the great chess-board of human society, every single piece has a principle of motion of its own, altogether different from that which the [social engineer] might choose to impress upon it.”
Each piece on that “great chess-board of human society” is an individual human being with his own hopes and dreams, goals and purposes, and ideas of how best to go about improving his own life in free association with others in the networks of social and market exchanges.
But, said Adam Smith, the social engineer’s insistence on imposing his idea of a better society through government power, “and in spite of all opposition . . . must often be of the highest degree of arrogance. And it is to erect his own judgment into the supreme standard of right and wrong. It is to fancy himself the only wise and worthy man in the commonwealth, and that his fellow-citizens should accommodate themselves to him and not he to them.”
The American tragedy right now is that the current occupant of the White House is a man suffering from that “highest degree of arrogance,” and who fancies “himself the only wise and worthy man” in the nation, to whom all the rest of us must conform.
[Originally posted at Epic Times]
One year ago today, Maureen Martin passed away in a house fire at her home in Green Lake, Wisconsin. She had served as Heartland’s senior fellow for legal affairs for ten years and was a good friend of many of us here. She was also a great lawyer, writer, and champion of liberty.
Reading again the remarks I prepared for Maureen’s memorial service, I’m struck by how quickly my memories of an old friend have dimmed. I guess it’s easy to forget people, even those who were wonderful and dear.
I hope all friends and supporters of Heartland will take a moment today to remember Maureen Martin and her many contributions to our freedom.
See our tribute page to Maureen’s life and work here.
February 1st was National Freedom Day. It commemorates Lincoln’s signing of the House and Senate resolution that later became the 13th Amendment. Lincoln signed the Amendment outlawing slavery on February 1, 1865.
Short of another Civil War, Americans have reached a point verging on the loss of their Constitutional freedoms as ever before. The issue then was slavery, but Americans are rapidly moving toward having their Bill of Rights annulled by a President intent on ruling as a despot, making them slaves of a regime that rules as he wishes, ignoring the Constitution and Congress.
His actions have been supported by the Democratic members of Congress and because Republicans only control the House they have seen their legislative efforts to oppose the regime blocked, often by one man, Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader. The nation’s media with few exceptions have supported or ignored the President’s actions.
Why is this happening? A brief review of the means put forth in Saul Alinski’s “Rules for Radicals”, written by a “community organizer”, outlines what Obama is doing as he seeks to turn America into a socialist state. It is a process that progressives/liberals have been pursuing since early in the last century.
1) Healthcare – Control healthcare and you control the people.
2) Poverty – Increase the poverty level as high as possible, poor people are easier to control and will not fight back if you are providing everything for them to live.
3) Debt – Increase the debt to an unsustainable level. That way you are able to increase taxes, and this will produce more poverty.
4) Gun Control – Remove the ability to defend themselves from the Government. That way you are able to create a police state.
5) Welfare – Take control of every aspect of their lives (Food, Housing, and Income).
6) Education – Take control of what people read and listen to – take control of what children learn in school.
7) Religion – Remove the belief in God from the Government and schools.
8) Class Warfare – Divide the people into the wealthy and the poor. This will cause more discontent and it will be easier to take (tax) the wealthy with the support of the poor.
We are close to having everything we write and say known to the regime. As Andrew Napolitano asks, “What if the government spies on all of us all the time and recognizes no limits to its spying? What if its appetite for acquiring personal knowledge about all Americans is insatiable? What if the government uses the microchips in our cellphones to follow us and listen to us as we move about?”
And what if Congress, as World Net Daily’s Bob Unruh has written, has empowered the President to “arrest, kidnap, detain without trial and hold indefinitely American citizens thought to ‘represent an enduring security threat to the United States.’” That’s what the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) does!
“Some of the nation’s most respected legal teams are asking the Supreme Court to take up a challenge to the indefinite-detention provisions” of the Act “charging that the law has created the framework for a police state.” That’s how far along we are toward the destruction of the U.S. Constitution.
“The 2014 NDAA was fast-tracked through the U.S. Senate, with no time for discussion or amendments, while most Americans were distracted by the scandal surrounding A&E’s troubles with ‘Duck Dynasty’ star Phil Robertson. Eighty-five of 100 senators voted in favor of the new version of the NDAA, which had already been quietly passed by the House of Representatives.”
Ostensibly a law to address terrorists, the NDAA is a blueprint for a nation in which its citizens have none of the rights spelled out in the Bill of Rights. All it will take is the declaration of martial law or a national emergency.
Sen. Ted Cruz, a leading opponent of Obamacare, writing in The Wall Street Journal, said, “Of all the troubling aspects of the Obama presidency, none is more dangerous than the President’s persistent pattern of lawlessness, his willingness to disregard the written law and instead enforce his own policies via executive fiat…the President’s taste for unilateral action to circumvent Congress should concern every citizen, regardless of party or ideology.”
Americans will soon have little recourse against a government intent on controlling every aspect of their lives, spying on them, and arresting them for criticizing it.
A May 16 march on Washington may cause the White House and the Congress to pause in its attacks on our freedom and liberty. One can only hope that millions participate.
Americans fought a war to end slavery. Will we have to fight to resist becoming slaves?
Congress is on the verge of extruding a new five-year farm bill. President Barack Obama says he will sign it.
As has each and every farm bill for coming up on eighty years:
Indeed it does.
Thank goodness we’re experiencing such stark global warming.
The fee would last for nearly 20 years…
Four times longer than the interminable farm bill.
…and would siphon the money to develop equipment that is cheaper, more efficient and safer….
Because the government is so excellent as a venture capital firm.
So they’re taxing our energy bills – for more of these fabulous “investments.”
…and to encourage consumers to update their equipment.
My monthly electric bill is currently the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of Cuba – I’m already full-up on reasons to update my equipment. Yet another tax won’t “encourage” me – so much as infuriate me.
…(T)he bill taxpayers may foot for crop insurance subsidies—at least $89 billion over ten years—may outweigh what taxpayers would have contributed in direct (farm) subsidies. There are other many other costly bells and whistles to be found in the bill.
In short, what Congress has billed as a cost-cutting reform measure is nothing of the sort.
Heck, even the un-conservative Washington Post is opposed. And look at the uber-Leftist website Crooks and Liars:
The welfare queens in our Congress don’t want Americans knowing how much they are receiving in farm subsidies.
But this is Washington, D.C. – where reality goes to die. Soon – likely by the end of this week – the farm bill will be farm law.
So – what next?
This Colossus will be astride us for the next half decade. There will be nothing more to do about domestic farm policy except to sit here and take it. Oh – and pay for it. And borrow for it, so our progeny can also pay for it – with interest.
So let’s take all of this unified, righteous energy and channel it towards something with the potential to effect a far better future outcome.
Let’s make the global farm market safe for domestic reform the next go round.
(O)ur lather-rinse-repeat anti-free-market farm policy (has) warped the emerging global farm market. The world’s growers saw our bad moves – and matched them. Subsidy-for-subsidy, tax-for-tax, protectionism-for-protectionism.
Seven decades later, we have a worldwide Crony Socialist nightmare mess….
None of this has anything to do with a free exchange of goods.
The solution? Negotiate a global across-the-board reduction in government.
This is where the World Trade Organization, usually a colossal waste of space, can actually be of some good use….
The world’s sugar-producing nations need to sit down together, each with a copy of everyone else’s lists of protectionist sugar policies. And start horse trading.
“Brazil – how about if you get rid of this subsidy, we’ll each get rid of one.”
“Mexico – if you get rid of this tariff, we’ll each get rid of one.”
Let the subsequent discussions ensue. Lather, rinse, repeat.
Something good should come of this farm law heinousness. To set the stage for far less farm bill heinousness five years hence.
[Originally published on Human Events]
President Obama frequently says he wants to turn the economy around, put America back to work, produce more energy, improve public safety, and open new markets to goods stamped “Made in the USA.” In his State of the Union address he said, if congressional inaction continues, “I will act on my own to slash bureaucracy and streamline the permitting process for key projects, so we can get more construction workers on the job as fast as possible.”
Unfortunately, like Arafat, he never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity to do all these things.
Most Americans are no longer fooled by empty hope and change hype. In December only 74,000 jobs were created (many of them low-paying part-time seasonal positions), while 374,000 more people gave up looking for work. Not surprisingly, recent polls have found that three-quarters of Americans say the country still appears to be in a recession, two-thirds don’t trust the President to make the right decisions for the country, and barely 30% say the nation is “heading in the right direction.”
The President needs to use his pen and phone to free our energy, economy and entrepreneurial instincts. But ANWR, OCS, HF, KXL and other solutions were AWOL from the SOTU. They were sacrificed on the CO2 and CMGW altar, by the POTUS, EPA, DOI and DOE, in obeisance to the EDF, NRDC, other environmentalist pressure groups, and assorted unelected, unaccountable, unconstitutional autocrats.
(Don’t you love Washington-speak – from the land of acronyms, that pricey patch of real estate on the banks of the Potomac River, bordered by reality and places where people actually work to earn a living, despite presidents and hordes of legislators and regulators doing their level best to make that difficult. For those whose Wash-speak is as bad as their Spanish and German, translations are provided below.)*
Our nation is blessed with vast energy, metallic, mineral, forest and other resources, waiting to be tapped. But they are locked up in favor of crony-capitalist, eco-unfriendly, land-hungry, subsidy-dependent, nigh-useless pseudo-alternatives that are dearly beloved by utopian environmentalists – and by politicians hungry for campaign contributions from businesses that they repay with billions in other people’s money, taken from taxpayers at the point of an IRS gun to prop up renewable energy schemes.
Our hydrocarbon wealth especially offers amazing benefits: improved human safety, health, welfare and living standards, in a more stable world, with new sources of jobs, wealth and income equality. Not tapping these resources is contrary to Obama’s promises and our national interest. It is immoral.
Of all the opportunities arrayed before him, the 1,179-mile Alberta to Texas Keystone XL pipeline (KXL) is the most “shovel ready.” Indeed, it awaits merely a presidential phone call or signature, to slash bureaucratic red tape, streamline the permitting process, and create construction and manufacturing jobs. Some 40,000 jobs in fact – more than half as many as were created nationwide last December.
Jobs. KXL would create an estimated 20,000 construction jobs; another 10,000 in factories that make the steel, pipelines, valves, cement and equipment needed to build the pipeline; thousands more in hotel, restaurant and other support industries; and still more jobs in the Canadian, North Dakota and other oil fields whose output would be transported by the pipeline to refineries and petrochemical plants where still more workers would be employed. With Mr. Obama and his EPA waging war on communities and states that mine and use coal, these jobs are even more important to blue-collar workers in Middle America.
Revenue. States along the pipeline route would receive $5 billion in new property tax revenues, and still more in workers’ income tax payments. Federal coffers would also realize hefty gains.
Safety. Right now most of the oil from Canada’s oil sands and North Dakota’s Bakken shale deposits moves by railroad and truck fuel tanks, often through populated areas. Truck and rail accidents have forced towns to evacuate and even killed 50 people in Lac-Megantic, Quebec. Corporate executives and federal regulators are working to improve tanker designs and reroute traffic. But even despite occasional accidents, pipelines have a much better safety record. KXL would be built with state-of-the-art pipe, valves and other components, to the latest design, manufacturing, construction and inspection specifications. It has been configured to avoid population centers, sensitive wildlife areas and the Ogallala Aquifer.
Resource conservation and energy needs. Building Keystone will help ensure that vast petroleum resources can be efficiently utilized to meet consumer needs. In conjunction with other pipelines, it will greatly reduce the need to flare (burn and waste) natural gas that is a byproduct of oil production in Bakken shale country. The pipelines will also help get propane and natural gas to places that need these fuels. Recent pipeline problems, plus unusually high demands for propane to convert corn to ethanol, created soaring prices and shortages amid one of the nastiest North American cold spells in decades.
KXL will also enable state and private lands to continue contributing to America’s hydrocarbon renaissance. That is especially important in the face of congressional and Obama Administration refusals to open more federal onshore and offshore oil and gas prospects in Alaska and the Lower 48 States.
US-Canadian relations. The endless dithering over KXL has frayed relations between Canada and the United States. It has compelled the Canadians to take decisive steps toward building new pipelines from the Alberta oil sands fields to Superior, Wisconsin … and to Canada’s west coast, for shipment to Asia’s growing economies. Further delays will not reduce oil sands development – only the oil’s destination.
Climate change. In his SOTU speech, President Obama informed us that “climate change is a fact.” Well, duh. It’s been a fact since Earth was formed. The only pertinent issues are these: Are humans causing imminent, unprecedented climate change disasters? And can we control Earth’s climate, by drastically curtailing hydrocarbon use, slashing living standards and switching to renewables?
No evidence supports either proposition. Moreover, oil sands production would add a minuscule 0.06% to US greenhouse gas emissions, a tiny fraction of that amount to global carbon dioxide emissions, and an undetectable 0.00002 deg F (0.00001 C) per year to useless computer-model scenarios for global warming.
A January 24 letter spearheaded by Sen. John Hoeven (R-ND) and signed by all 45 Republican Senators notes many of these points and requests that President Obama permit KXL pipeline construction “as soon as possible.” Several Democrats told Hoeven privately that they support his effort and Keystone, but are nervous about challenging the President or Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid publicly.
On January 31, the State Department reaffirmed its previous conclusions that KXL is unlikely to noticeably increase demand for Canadian oil sands or global emissions of carbon dioxide. With reelection behind him, the President has “greater flexibility” and doesn’t need to kowtow to his radical green base. By picking up his pen and phone, cutting off another year-long study of whether Keystone is “in the national interest,” and approving the pipeline, he could satisfy independents and his union base. He’d even reduce CO2 emissions, which State says would be 28-42% higher if Canada’s oil is shipped via train or truck, instead of through the pipeline.
Democrats are urging unemployed workers to lobby Republicans for extended benefits. They should instead lobby Democrats and the President to do what’s right for America: create the jobs they promised, by approving Keystone – along with drilling, fracking, mining, and reduced taxes and regulations.
America is waiting. Will there finally be real hope and change? Or just more hype and empty rhetoric?
* Acronym translator: Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Outer Continental Shelf, hydraulic fracturing, Keystone XL pipeline, absent without leave, State of the Union, carbon dioxide, catastrophic manmade global warming, President of the United States, Environmental Protection Agency, Department of the Interior, Department of Energy, Environmental Defense Fund, Natural Resources Defense Council.
The Heartland Institute is proud to announce Michelle Malkin as the keynote speaker at our 30th Anniversary Benefit on September 12, 2014. Save the date — and reserve your table or tickets now so you don’t miss out on this exciting evening for liberty!
Michelle is a New York Times best-selling author, nationally syndicated columnist, wildly successful digital entrepreneur, and Tea Party champion. She was there at the beginning, amplifying what the mainstream media still doesn’t understand about the Tea Party — that it began and remains the most patriotic, bottom-up, truly grassroots movement to restore Constitutional principles our country has seen in generations.
She will be joined at Heartland’s 30th anniversary gala by our Master of Ceremonies, The Hon. Joe Walsh. Joe was the greatest champion the Tea Party ever had in Congress. He lived his small-government principles by refusing to accept his taxpayer-funded Congressional health benefits and sleeping in his office. Joe will bring to Heartland’s event the same energy and enthusiasm for liberty he displays every night on the radio in Chicago at AM 560 The Answer.
The Heartland Institute is most honored by the opportunity to award its 2014 Liberty Prize to M. Stanton Evans — the legendary conservative journalist and global champion of liberty. He studied under Ludwig von Mises at New York University, and went on to join the staff of William F. Buckley’s fledgling National Review (where he served as associate editor from 1960 to 1973). He later became managing editor of Human Events, where he is currently a contributing editor.
Evans was present at Great Elm, the Buckley family home, at the founding of Young Americans for Freedom — where on September 11, 1960, he drafted YAF’s charter, the Sharon Statement. Many conservatives still revere this document as a concise statement of their principles. He became a proponent of National Review co-editor Frank Meyer’s “fusionism,” a political philosophy reconciling the traditionalist and libertarian tendencies of the conservative movement.
You won’t want to miss this night of good food and drink, great speakers, and excellent fellowship and networking opportunities with fellow lovers of liberty — especially as the 2014 midterm elections draw near. Individual tickets are just $49, but it is best to purchase a table for your Tea Party or non-profit group at a an early-bird discount rate. Visit Heartland’s Benefit Site for more information.
See you there!
Barack Obama is fortunate to be president during the U.S. energy revolution. Extraction of oil and natural gas from dense shale is occurring with no help from the administration. It is occurring on private or state controlled lands and driven by private initiatives.
According to 2012 statistics compiled by the Energy Information Administration, the production of oil, natural gas, natural gas liquids and coal from federal lands and waters all fell.
The difference between what is occurring on non-federal lands and federal lands demonstrates the economically punitive policies of this administration.
Mr. Obama correctly stated that climate change is a fact. It has been ongoing for hundreds of millions of years and there is little governments can do to stop it. The great fear of global warming was artificially contrived. In its claim that carbon dioxide emissions endanger public health and welfare, the EPA claimed its findings are supported by science and cited three lines of evidence.
1.) EPA claims a distinct human fingerprint — a hot spot in the atmosphere centered over the tropics at about 33,000 feet. It does not exist. Satellites and weather balloons have failed to find it.
2.) EPA claims late 20th century surface global warming was unprecedented and dangerous. It was not. A similar warming occurred in the early 20th century, which was not associated with carbon dioxide. The late 20th century surface warming stopped 16 years ago.
3.) EPA claims climate models are reliable. Climate models failed to predict that global warming would stop and greatly exaggerate the warming over the past 30 plus years.
The EPA finding that carbon dioxide endangers human health and welfare is based on failing science and sub-prime climate models that are wrong.
For a president to declare that he will expand executive powers, without congressional approval, to fight this non-threat is a drastic step towards authoritarian government. Already, the administration has contrived an artificial concept called the social cost of carbon. All life on the planet is carbon based. Is life a pollutant? Does life have a social cost? The concept is an insult to logic, language, and science.
The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) has produced reports reviewing the appropriate scientific papers and concluded carbon dioxide emissions are not a major cause of global warming or climate change. Also, the reports cited thousands of studies in laboratories and in the field that demonstrate increased atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations promote growth of virtually all forms of green plants and are a tremendous boon to agriculture and the environment. Three decades of satellite observations confirm these findings. The earth is greening. Though the greening is occurring everywhere, it is particularly noticeable in arid or semi-arid regions. This should not be a surprise, because carbon dioxide is the principal food for green plants.
In an October 2013, Craig Idso of CO2 Science published an independent analysis in which he estimated that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide would yield about $9.8 Trillion in total benefits to the global society over the period from 2012 to 2050.
In August 2013, the White House reported that in FY 2013 U.S. government climate change expenditures amounted to $22.6 billion. Based on previous reports by the GAO and the Congressional Research Service, this brings the total expenditures to over $165 billion since 1993. With all that money, we did invent some very good instruments to measure climate change, particularly from satellites; but those are largely ignored.
Where has most of the $165 billion gone? Much has been spent on failing science, failing climate models, failing alternative energy policies, and extreme exaggerations of the human influence on climate.
Western Europe has led the fight on global warming/climate change with dire economic results. Those industries that can are fleeing high electricity costs brought on by a big commitments on renewable energy. Countries such as Germany and the UK face unpleasant choices – subsidize electricity costs for industries or face enormous job losses. The promised green jobs are unsustainable without continued government subsidies and/or mandates.
Now, President Obama desires to lead the U.S. into adopting similar economically disastrous policies, without bothering to obtain congressional approval. There is no justification for ignoring the Constitution in a constitutional democracy. Global warming/climate change is not a dire emergency and should not be used to justify ignoring the Constitution.
Over at a place called The Patriot Post, writer Burt Prelutsky recently posted an amusing if profane piece called “The Dumbing & Numbing of America,” which addresses mostly the topics of legalizing marijuana, gender voting demographics, and political correctness and the Olympics, none of which we care to talk about today.
But if anything shows how dumb Americans can be, it’s a recent Pew Research/USA Today poll purporting to show that 60 percent of Americans think the U.S. economic system “unfairly favors the wealthy.” It would be more accurate to say that the U. S. economic system – if allowed to operate freely – creates more wealth than the alternatives.
Having done so before, we won’t waste time and energy pointing out once again the differences between wealth and income. Instead, we’ll make just a few simple points that may be easier to grasp.
First, any kind of economic system – mercantilism, unrestrained capitalism, a regulated market, socialism, communism – will “unfairly” favor “the wealthy” because – wait for it – “the wealthy” will by definition be the ones who wind up having the wealth. Regardless of how you start, once you earn it, steal it, inherit it, or have the government take it from somebody else and give it to you and your friends, then you have material wealth and you are “wealthy” – at least for the moment.
Chances are, if you didn’t earn it through hard work, thrift, and making better rather than worse choices about things like marriage, education, a socially useful career, the number of children you have, and whether to commit crimes and do drugs, you won’t keep it very long. But saying that the U. S. economic system unfairly favors the wealthy is simply oxymoronic, because whoever the system favors will – by definition – wind up with more wealth.
Second, the only way to permanently rid a society of a “gap” in either wealth or income is by making everybody equally poor. If nobody has any more wealth than anybody else, then nobody can be “wealthy.”
You want a new pair of hiking boots or a new car? Sorry, not unless you buy enough for the whole class. And in this case “class” means everyone – because otherwise you will be wealthier than someone else and things will be unequal. You want a 10% raise? Then everybody else must get one too. But the price of everything will suddenly go up 10% on average, too, because everyone who wants those things will have 10% more in bitcoins with which to buy them, so your raise won’t really be worth anything. So both absolutely and in relative terms you’ll still be as poor (or wealthy) as you used to be.
President Obama’s current lament that income inequality has “stalled” upward economic mobility therefore makes little sense, because without inequality there’s no higher place to go. Think about it: Most poor people want to move up the economic ladder, we presume. But as they move up, they become wealthier, which necessarily increases the amount of inequality between them and whoever is now below them. And if their moving up gives their children a better start in life, then their children may move even higher up the scale, which will again increase inequality compared to those who don’t.
The truth of the matter is that redistribution of wealth in the name of equality is just feel-good happy talk that benefits no one but professional politicians. Its premise is to buy votes based on envy and resentment while creating more of both. Redistribution of wealth makes no financial or economic sense for the people as a whole, but it lets members of the political class fly around in Air Force One and get ambassadorships to Norway.
In the end it always breaks down, but not before causing needless misery and loss of freedom. Just ask the survivors of the Soviet gulag or Pol Pot’s regime, or the starving people of North Korea.
Or someday soon, perhaps, your next door neighbor.