More of the “Green New Deal”

Column 2019-9 (3/4/19)

Last time I considered a part of one version of the green new deal (GND) they called “The economic bill of rights.” Today I will dig into a bit of the rest. I’ll try to cover a few of the highlights, more accurately called low lights.

The lead in to the second part is as follows; “The second priority of the Green New Deal is a Green Transition Program that will convert the old, gray economy into a new, sustainable economy that is environmentally sound, economically viable and socially responsible.” Read the details and you will find that this translates into; “Tear everything we have apart and start over again.”

One version of the GND calls for replacement or major renovation of every building in the USA by 2030. Chew on the magnitude of that for a bit, but don’t swallow it. The GNDers want to destroy our present energy production system. Their only offer of a replacement is a system never tried. In addition some of the necessary components haven’t even been invented.

If that isn’t scary enough, keep in mind that Michigan’s two largest electric and gas utilities, Consumers Energy Company and DTE have bought into the GND hook, line and sinker. We won’t need that bill board asking the last person out of Michigan to turn off the lights. The lights will flicker out on their own.

The GNDers don’t stop with green energy. They also want to change the ways we travel, the houses we live in, the food we eat, and just about everything else. It took centuries to build what we have today. The GNDers want to do a total remake in a decade or two. And, they couldn’t care less whether you want the remake or not.

The scope of the GNDers dreams make the the original New Deal look like a punctuation mark. The GNDers don’t even have a plan or a cost estimate, just an outline of what they want. You can be certain they haven't even acknowledged that their dream could turn into a nightmare.

In the real world the GND will end on the rocks, one way or another. A project of such magnitude is impossible, at least at the present time. The danger isn’t that the GND will ever come close to full completion. The danger is the damage that could be caused by an attempt to start down the GND path.

It would be easy to destroy the prosperity we enjoy. The map is littered with once prosperous nations destroyed by bad government. Argentina, Cuba, and Venezuela are prime examples.

The GND may contain a few ideas worthy of consideration. Digging them out would be like trying to rescue a candy bar from the bottom of a dumpster. The GND is little more than a wish list. It reminds me of an a caution I first heard as a child. If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

The GND may not be criminal, but it is certainly immoral for GNDers to try to impose their experiment on a nation with one-third billion people. At a minimum they should do a test run involving far fewer people. Ideally the test subjects should all be volunteers. In the real world that is probably impossible.

I will offer the best option that comes to mind. The GNDers already have California in their pocket. People who want a decent life are fleeing the Golden state. The other 49 states can grant asylum to the refugees fleeing California. The GNDers can do their experiment in California. This plan isn’t perfect. It beats flushing the entire country down the GND sewer.

* * * * *

* * * *

* * *

* *

*

Copyright 2019

Albert D. McCallum

What Is the “Green New Deal?”

Column 2019-8 (2/25/19)

There are many versions of the green new deal (GND). Some of them contain similar ideas. If I tried to describe all of them it would be a contest. Would it drive me crazy before you quit reading?

I chose one example to review. It reads like a four year olds’ letter to Santa. (I probably should apologize for insulting the four year old.) Four year olds don’t worry about how Santa will do it. They just know he can. Such thinking by adults can be dangerous.

The GND is a wish list that ignores reality and gives almost no consideration to where the wealth to implement it would come from. It also gives no consideration to the impact of diverting wealth from its current uses.

It starts with what it calls “The economic bill of rights.” It proceeds with a list of entitlements that somebody would have to pay for. The first entitlement reads as follows: “The right to employment through a Full Employment Program that will create 25 million jobs by implementing a nationally funded, but locally controlled direct employment initiative replacing unemployment offices with local employment offices offering public sector jobs which are ‘stored’ in job banks in order to take up any slack in private sector employment.”

Government generally fails when it tries to create 25 real jobs. Twenty-five million might be a bit of a stretch. Jobs in themselves aren’t important. It is the wealth created by the jobs that counts. With a real job the employee produces enough wealth to cover his pay check and the other costs of employing him. A job that fails to do this is merely an excuse for issuing a welfare check.

One of the results they claim will be achieved is: “We will end unemployment in America once and for all by guaranteeing a job at a living wage for every American willing and able to work.“ I guess it is left to Santa to create the paying jobs. The concept of storing jobs in a job bank completely baffles me. Do the jobs have to be freeze dried for storage?

The wish list continues with, among other things: 1) the right to a living wage, 2) Medicare for all, 3) tuition-free, quality, federally funded, local controlled public education system from pre-school through college, 4) The right to decent affordable housing, including an immediate halt to all foreclosures and evictions, 5) The right to accessible and affordable utilities – heat, electricity, phone, Internet, and public transportation – through democratically run, publicly owned utilities that operate at cost, not for profit.

One thing they didn’t touch is, Who will be enslaved to pay the bills? Also, “federal funding and local control” is the impossible dream. The golden rule still applies. He who has the gold makes the rules, even if he stole the gold. And, all wealth is created locally somewhere before government takes it.

Of course, the GND draws its name from Roosevelt's New Deal of the 1930s. Many still believe the New Deal ended the great depression. Close analysis of events of the 1930s and 1940s show that the New Deal prolonged the depression by more than a decade.

How dangerous is the GND? The answer depends on whether it is implemented, or not. If it is a passing fad that dies on the vine, it will be relatively harmless. If it is even partially put into practice it would be an unmitigated disaster that would achieve almost none of it advocates’ objectives. Some of the goals may be desirable. The means for implementation are pure fantasy.

So far I have covered only the lead in to the main agenda item “green energy.” They want to destroy the energy supply system that powers our survival and prosperity. They promise to replace it with something never tried. More about that next time.

* * * * *

* * * *

* * *

* *

*

Copyright 2019

Albert D. McCallum

The Wall

Column 2019-7 (2/18/19)

To wall or not to wall, that is the question. The controversy over the wall has consumed far more ink and megabytes than did the debates about invading Afghanistan and Iraq. I’m not sure that rantings about the wall have changed a single mind.

It might be well to clarify a few points. Building the wall won’t come close to securing the border, even if it blocks all land traffic to and from Mexico. Are we going to extend the wall up 1he Pacific, Gulf, and Atlantic coasts? How about the Canadian border?

Drug traffickers have evaded every obstacle the US government has thrown in their way. Can anyone believe the wall will significantly affect the drug trade? Most illegals in this country enter through legal ports of entry. They merely forget to leave. The wall won’t change that.

The wall isn’t going to save civilization. Not building the wall won’t send us crashing into a new dark age. The one question remaining is, Will the wall be a small net benefit, or a small net detriment? Whether the wall is built, or not, I doubt that the question will ever be answered. History won’t reveal what might have happened along the road not traveled.

Declaring a national emergency to build the wall is insane. Just because it is insane doesn’t mean it can’t be done. Building the wall certainly won’t be as insane as was the invasion of Iraq.

I see one benefit from the wall controversy. The benefit is serendipitous rather than intended. President Trump’s claim that he can build the wall by declaring a national emergency has focused attention on what his emergency powers might be.

Various reporters have dug up emergency power laws passed by Congress. What they have found resemble a very scary Halloween movie. If the grants of power are taken at face value, the president can essentially rule as a dictator.

Congress made little attempt to define “emergency.” This little detail seems to be left up to the president. Does anyone believe President Trump, or any other president, will have a narrow view of his own powers?

I saw a cartoon of Trump sitting at a table with burgers on it. He was saying, “I ordered three packets of ketchup. It is a national emergency.” Perhaps emergencies, like beauty, are in the eye of the beholder.

For ages Congress has passed vague laws allowing bureaucrats in the executive branch to write most of the law, prosecute violators, and decide if the individuals prosecuted are guilty. Is it possible that Congress might have second thoughts on writing these blank checks to the White House? Of course, before Congress can have a second thought, it must have a first thought.

A simple start would be, limit declarations of national emergencies to 90 days unless Congress votes to continue the emergency. If the president can’t convince Congress that an emergency exists, it probably isn’t an emergency. If all a president need do to bypass Congress is say the magic words “National emergency,” the country is hard wired for dictatorship.

Granted, in theory Congress can always vote to take away emergency powers it granted. In reality, what are the chances Congress will be able override the almost inevitable veto? It would be far safer to limit the president’s powers in advance.

One unanswered question is, Does Congress have the right to grant dictatorial power to the president? We may have started the march to the answer.

In 1952 the Supreme Court did rule against President Truman’s seizure of the steel mills.

* * * * *

* * * *

* * *

* *

*

Copyright 2019

Albert D. McCallum