Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host
Excerpt from my latest book, 7 Worst Constitutional Liars:
[Alexander] Hamilton was, among other things, also the founding father of Crony Capitalism and Corporate Welfare. In addition to a government-directed economy, Hamilton made it clear that it was his opinion that the government should work with massive corporations, and use government influences to benefit politically connected businesses. At the time, the practice was called “mercantilism.” Hamilton maintained that government intervention was necessary, and that if the government did not provide tax-financed subsidies for businesses, manufacturing would never develop. In his Report on Manufactures Hamilton argued for using government to try to make certain manufacturing industries appear earlier than they otherwise would on the free market – a practice that is followed today by the Democrat Party, of which they are trying to apply to “renewable resources” industries.Are you paying for, through your taxes or a higher cost for products, the liberal left dream of dumping "brown energy" for "green energy? The answer is "yes," and the tactic is as old as the U.S. Constitution that our system of liberty is based upon.
In a number of circles, going green has become the trendy thing to do. The trend, however, was not encouraged by the free market, or individualism. It was thwarted upon us by government, and the greed for power and money that dwells within the empty skulls of establishment politicians and leftist ideologues.
We are told that there are many benefits associated with renewable energy and electric conveyances. We need to dump our gas-guzzlers, outlaw all thin plastic grocery bags, and go hug a tree.
In California, the Democrat Party has a stranglehold on the State, so it is their policies that are getting shoved into place. The problem is, while they claim their policies are friendly to the environment, and provides for a sustainable society, the reality is, they are neither "green," nor sustainable.
In 2010, when I was still a truck driver, Sacramento put into place a law requiring big rigs to reduce their emissions of pollutants by adding filtration systems (much like catalytic converters) to all trucks in California. All big rigs were required by law to be retrofitted with new equipment at a cost of about $25,000 per truck. The same went for tractors, and other heavy equipment. In many cases, the retrofits cost more than the value of the equipment. Smaller companies and owner-operators were not able to afford compliance. Without the retrofits, the State of California shut those companies down, and disallowed them from doing business in California. In the end, the smaller players in trucking and construction either went out of business, or left the State . . . leaving less competition for the larger corporations, of whom the Democrats claim to have a problem with.
In the end, while the move may, or may not, have helped the environment, it enabled California to force funds out of businesses, take more control over their operations, and reduce the number of companies operating in the State when it comes to trucking and construction.
A similar thing happened with the plastic grocery bag ban. In California, thin plastic grocery bags are illegal, and if you use a thicker bag that is intended to be used over and over, there is a ten-cent tax attached.
A friend of mine was telling me about another friend of his who is in the plastic bag business. He was afraid the new law would kill his business. In the end, it actually helped his business. The thicker bags cost more, and people, for the most part, are using them the same way they used the thinner bags. The result of the switch is that the grocery stores are forced to raise prices on some products to cover the loss of revenue through the additional plastic bag expenditure. California is receiving a ten-cent hidden tax on each bag. However, the environment is not only not better off, in the long run it is actually worse off. That said, my friend's friend is making a bundle.
Compared to the old, thinner bags we used prior to this law, the thicker plastic bags require twenty-six times the energy to produce, and twenty-six times the amount of time to decompose. So, unless you are using these bags at least twenty-six times, they are worse on the environment, not better.
Most people are using them once, and then using them as a trash liner, as they did with the thinner bags, in their smaller trashcans.
Reusing the bags, if one really is a green nut and believes in the claimed original intent of the law, it turns out, is not good, either. In fact, reuse of the bags create a legitimate health hazard. Most people, when they reuse bags, do not wash out the bags each time they are used. Besides, if they did, the increase of water usage may also create its own environmental situation. But, since most folks are reusing the bags, often what happens is contaminants get into the bags, and then are passed onto their food during the next trip to the store, causing illness, and an increased strain on the health care system, and a reduction in hours worked by employees due to missing work as a result of their bag-born illness.
Overall, in addition to the damage the new thicker bags create in regards to the environment, they are also resulting in a reduction in income tax revenue (from the people who missed work due to illness caused by the re-use of the bags), an increase in environmental damage and costs, and an increase in the cost of products in stores to cover the higher cost of manufacturing the thicker plastic bags.
The green agenda has backfired, and the State of California is worsening its economic situation.
So, while going “green” may seem trendy, it's not really as green as one would think, and it is definitely detrimental to our overall economy, and the prosperity of individuals at the lower scale of things.
Even the electric cars are not as green as they say, for while they may be using electricity to run, the increase in the use of electricity is requiring brown energy to be used to keep up with the demand.
Besides, we must also remember, there are all kinds of hidden costs in the pursuit of “clean energy,” much of which directly influences all consumers.
In California, the State’s new Zero Emissions Vehicle (ZEV) mandate, along with nine other States, have automakers pushing to produce more electric cars each year. With California's cap and trade, automakers are forced to either meet their annual ZEV quotas or purchase costly credits to make up the difference.
The Democrats are pulling a Hamiltonian move (using government to try to make certain manufacturing industries appear earlier than they otherwise would on the free market), and to be honest, consumers aren't quite completely ready for these vehicles. The price tag is too high, and the variety of vehicles in that industry are too limited. Besides, you only get somewhere between 40-55 miles per charge. Californians drive much farther than that.
Granted, a Tesla Model S may travel 200-300 miles per charge, but it's sticker price is pretty high, around $70,000.
Auto manufacturers already survive on tight margins, and that number is even tighter when it comes to environmentally friendly vehicles. Therefore, with no wiggle room, the cost of making the cars "cleaner" is being passed on to the consumers, as is the cost of cap and trade credits. The increases in prices are not only on those new greener cars. Conventional auto prices are also rising in price to help subsidize more-costly electric cars.
In short, only the wealthy can afford the higher priced green cars, but in order for them to be made available, subsidies to make sure those cars make it to the showroom floor are being shouldered by lower-income families buying brown energy vehicles.
What about all of that electricity being used that is supposed to be cleaner? As I mentioned earlier, most of that comes from what the environmentalists call "brown energy." Almost two-thirds of all electricity generated in the U.S. comes from coal and natural gas power plants. Thus, while advertised as non-fossil fuel cars, the plug-in electric vehicles are still being powered mostly by fossil fuels, just not through an internal-combustion engine.
Government is determined, however, to continue to compel Americans to purchase electric cars . . . to save the planet. It's either that, or your old school car's price will continue to skyrocket to help the market nobody is participating in. In the end, eventually the average American won't be able to afford a car at all.
But, that's the plan, isn't it? They want us out of our cars. That's way too much freedom, for you. Be happy. Ride a bike, or ride a bus. Never mind that you commute to a job outside your neighborhood, or region.
Well, there's that, or you can leave California . . . but the Democrats are working on taxing that, too.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
A similar thing happened with the plastic grocery bag ban. In California, thin plastic grocery bags are illegal, and if you use a thicker bag that is intended to be used over and over, there is a ten-cent tax attached.
A friend of mine was telling me about another friend of his who is in the plastic bag business. He was afraid the new law would kill his business. In the end, it actually helped his business. The thicker bags cost more, and people, for the most part, are using them the same way they used the thinner bags. The result of the switch is that the grocery stores are forced to raise prices on some products to cover the loss of revenue through the additional plastic bag expenditure. California is receiving a ten-cent hidden tax on each bag. However, the environment is not only not better off, in the long run it is actually worse off. That said, my friend's friend is making a bundle.
Compared to the old, thinner bags we used prior to this law, the thicker plastic bags require twenty-six times the energy to produce, and twenty-six times the amount of time to decompose. So, unless you are using these bags at least twenty-six times, they are worse on the environment, not better.
Most people are using them once, and then using them as a trash liner, as they did with the thinner bags, in their smaller trashcans.
Reusing the bags, if one really is a green nut and believes in the claimed original intent of the law, it turns out, is not good, either. In fact, reuse of the bags create a legitimate health hazard. Most people, when they reuse bags, do not wash out the bags each time they are used. Besides, if they did, the increase of water usage may also create its own environmental situation. But, since most folks are reusing the bags, often what happens is contaminants get into the bags, and then are passed onto their food during the next trip to the store, causing illness, and an increased strain on the health care system, and a reduction in hours worked by employees due to missing work as a result of their bag-born illness.
Overall, in addition to the damage the new thicker bags create in regards to the environment, they are also resulting in a reduction in income tax revenue (from the people who missed work due to illness caused by the re-use of the bags), an increase in environmental damage and costs, and an increase in the cost of products in stores to cover the higher cost of manufacturing the thicker plastic bags.
The green agenda has backfired, and the State of California is worsening its economic situation.
So, while going “green” may seem trendy, it's not really as green as one would think, and it is definitely detrimental to our overall economy, and the prosperity of individuals at the lower scale of things.
Even the electric cars are not as green as they say, for while they may be using electricity to run, the increase in the use of electricity is requiring brown energy to be used to keep up with the demand.
Besides, we must also remember, there are all kinds of hidden costs in the pursuit of “clean energy,” much of which directly influences all consumers.
In California, the State’s new Zero Emissions Vehicle (ZEV) mandate, along with nine other States, have automakers pushing to produce more electric cars each year. With California's cap and trade, automakers are forced to either meet their annual ZEV quotas or purchase costly credits to make up the difference.
The Democrats are pulling a Hamiltonian move (using government to try to make certain manufacturing industries appear earlier than they otherwise would on the free market), and to be honest, consumers aren't quite completely ready for these vehicles. The price tag is too high, and the variety of vehicles in that industry are too limited. Besides, you only get somewhere between 40-55 miles per charge. Californians drive much farther than that.
Granted, a Tesla Model S may travel 200-300 miles per charge, but it's sticker price is pretty high, around $70,000.
Auto manufacturers already survive on tight margins, and that number is even tighter when it comes to environmentally friendly vehicles. Therefore, with no wiggle room, the cost of making the cars "cleaner" is being passed on to the consumers, as is the cost of cap and trade credits. The increases in prices are not only on those new greener cars. Conventional auto prices are also rising in price to help subsidize more-costly electric cars.
In short, only the wealthy can afford the higher priced green cars, but in order for them to be made available, subsidies to make sure those cars make it to the showroom floor are being shouldered by lower-income families buying brown energy vehicles.
What about all of that electricity being used that is supposed to be cleaner? As I mentioned earlier, most of that comes from what the environmentalists call "brown energy." Almost two-thirds of all electricity generated in the U.S. comes from coal and natural gas power plants. Thus, while advertised as non-fossil fuel cars, the plug-in electric vehicles are still being powered mostly by fossil fuels, just not through an internal-combustion engine.
Government is determined, however, to continue to compel Americans to purchase electric cars . . . to save the planet. It's either that, or your old school car's price will continue to skyrocket to help the market nobody is participating in. In the end, eventually the average American won't be able to afford a car at all.
But, that's the plan, isn't it? They want us out of our cars. That's way too much freedom, for you. Be happy. Ride a bike, or ride a bus. Never mind that you commute to a job outside your neighborhood, or region.
Well, there's that, or you can leave California . . . but the Democrats are working on taxing that, too.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
No comments:
Post a Comment