The True Cost of Wind Energy — Wind energy is one of our MOST EXPENSIVE energy options!

/in , , , , , , , , , , /by

When I wrote the original version of this last year, some attentive readers said that although my list of ten costs were spot-on, I should have added more. My original list was intended to be a summary, not all inclusive. That said I believe that se

veral of their suggested additions are not trivial, so I am reposting this commentary which now has fifteen typically ignored costs of industrial wind energy…

Periodically I get asked: what is the TRUE cost of industrial wind energy?

It seems like that should be a relatively straightforward answer, but it is anything but.

To appreciate what is going on, we need to understand the Big Picture regarding wind energy. (FYI, the same applies to solar.) The system is setup to grease the skids for wind energy developers — not ratepayers. When it comes to wind energy, we are dealing with 21st century snake oil salespeople. They have a sophisticated multi-part strategy to profit at the public’s expense…

Their FIRST major strategy is to sell politicians on the bogus concept that our electrical Grid should be inclusive — i.e., include ALL electrical energy sources (whether they are good or bad. An all of the above policy makes no technical or economic or environmental sense. (For a discussion of this, see here.) My alternative motto is that our electrical grid should include all of the sensible.

Their SECOND major strategy is to sell politicians on the false belief that we need enormous amounts of industrial wind energy to “save the planet from pending climate catastrophe.” Ignoring the accuracy of the Climate Change fear-mongering aspect, the reality is that there has never been a genuine scientific study that has concluded that wind energy saves a consequential amount of CO2! In fact, there have been multiple scientific studies that have concluded that wind energy can make Climate Change WORSE! (See here for some examples.)

Their THIRD major strategy is to sell politicians and the public on the illusion that industrial wind energy is inexpensive — so we should do it anyway (irrespective of points #1 and #2 above). So what is the true cost of industrial wind energy?

The True Cost of Wind Energy

Why this is not a simple question to answer is because wind promoters are VERY well aware that industrial wind energy is MUCH more expensive than our other conventional sources of electricity (fossil fuels, nuclear and hydro). So to get politicians and the public onboard, they have gone to EXTREME lengths to obfuscate wind energy’s REAL cost.

Here are fifteen sample examples of wind energy costs that are NOT acknowledged by wind promoters, so are NOT factored into any of their “cost of wind energy” claims:

1- Production Tax Credit (PTC) —

How much is this? This objective report says: “While the original justification for the PTC was to boost a nascent industry, the PTC continues to subsidize a mature industry to the expected tune of nearly $24 billion from 2016-2020 according to the Joint Committee on Taxation. And that estimate will almost certainly be too low…”

2- Other Federal Handouts —

A good example is the $100 million for wind energy in the 2022 “Infrastructure” bill. As it spells out in a separate legislative document, this taxpayer money is for such nonsense as “To support the integration of wind energy technologies with the electric grid and other energy technologies and systems” and “To support the domestic wind industry, workforce, and supply chain.” Billions of federal dollars are hidden in wind related costs (e.g., see here). This expert concludes that: “New Treasury Department numbers show that soaring federal handouts for wind & solar dwarf all other energy-related provisions in the tax code and will cost taxpayers $421 billion by 2034.“

3- Time Value of Money for Federal Largess —

It’s bad enough that the federal government awards tens of billions to inferior but politically favored energy sources. However, the federal government does not have this money sitting in a bank account. Instead these tens of billions of dollars are mostly borrowed, so we also pay substantial interest costs on this foolishness. Yet another part of this absurdity is that communist China has loaned us almost a Trillion dollars of this — so they are directly profiting from this insanity. Now see this major red flag!

4- Transmission Cost —

A Nuclear power facility (for example), will have: a) one transmission line, and b) the distance will be relatively short, as it will almost always be located fairly near a population center. On the other hand, a very rough equivalent of wind energy will have: a) many transmission lines, and b) will be located a considerable distance from population centers. The transmission cost difference is substantial — but none of it is attributed to the root cause: industrial wind energy.

5- Auxiliary Power Cost —

The Electric Grid needs to have Supply and Demand balanced in a fraction of a second. Since wind energy is 100% unpredictable — and frequently goes to zero — 100% auxiliary power is necessary. For a variety of technical and economic reasons, the most appropriate auxiliary source is almost always gas. However, as with the preceding items, the cost and operation of whatever auxiliary source is used, is almost never attributed to the reason for it: wind energy.

6- Dutch Auction Cost —

This is a bit complicated, but once you understand it you will almost certainly say: this makes no sense whatsoever! That’s because it doesn’t.

A quickie summary is: let’s say that a Grid estimates that it needs 900 MWH next Tuesday. Five sources each bid to supply 200 MWH of it: Wind @ 1¢/KWH; Coal @ 2¢/KWH; Hydro @ 3¢/KWH; Nuclear @ 4¢/KWH; and Gas @ 6¢/KWH. The Grid takes the price of the highest accepted source (Gas), and then PAYS ALL THE SUPPLIERS THAT PRICE! Here is a good pictorial example of what happens.

What that means is that (in this case) wind gets 6¢/KWH (along with everyone else). But the wind people advertise that they are low cost (1¢/KWH) even though they got paid 6¢/KWH — and even though they knew that 1¢/KWH would never be the price they were paid (based on how the auction works). Dishonest.

7- No Penalty for Noncompliance —

Let’s say that Nuclear is unable to supply all their 200 MWH of electricity next Tuesday, as they had committed to (in #5). In this case the Grid manager heavily fines Nuclear, because the Grid manager now has to buy electricity on the spot market, which is quite expensive — so the fine is fair to ratepayers.

Let’s say that Wind is unable to supply all their 200 MWH of electricity next Tuesday, as they had committed to (also in #5). In this case the Grid manager does NOT fine wind, even though the Grid manager now has to buy electricity on the spot market, which is quite expensive. This is an ENORMOUS concession to wind developers, which is NOT fair to ratepayers. Further (like everything above), this extra Grid expense is NOT attributed to Wind — even though they caused it!

8- Payments for Non-Usage —

As if these Grid breaks aren’t enough, when the wind developers see the handouts that they are readily given, this green lights them to ask for more! Contrary to our traditional electricity sources, wind energy is not predictable — which is the excuse used for paying for underperformance of a bid. But, stunningly, in most cases wind energy also gets paid for over-performance as well! In other words, if they produce 100MWH that is not needed, in many cases they get paid to dump that (e.g., see here)! Of course, those payments are not attributable to wind energy’s cost.

9- Direct Host Community Costs —

There are numerous environmental costs to wind host communities — e.g., health costs to nearby residents (e.g., from infrasound), reduction of the values of nearby homes, etc., etc. There are multiple other costs that are spelled out here. No surprise, but none of these substantial costs are attributed to wind energy.

10- Indirect Host Community Costs —

There are several of these costs, like farmers reducing or stopping their crop production (after they sign a lease to host turbines). This means that they: lay off help, do not buy seed, fertilizer and equipment, do not provide food to the community, etc… Adverse military consequences (e.g., interfering with radar, etc.)… Trees are taken down (which are CO2 absorbers). Etc. None of these are factored into wind energy’s cost.

11- The High Cost of the Wind Supply Chain —

Some major turbine components are extraordinarily problematic from several perspectives. Rare Earth materials are a fine example. (Note: some 2 to 4 thousand pounds of Rare Earths are in every turbine!) The environmental and health cost of Rare Earths is staggering — but much of that is happening in China. Even though wind promoters say that climate impacts anywhere in the world are important to address, none of them are publicly objecting to this wind energy cost.

12- De-Industrialization —

Nowhere on earth can it be demonstrated that wind and solar grid imposters reduce electricity costs. Any country that pursues these fantasies is pursuing impoverishment because industry (and the economic benefits they create), will likely eventually leave for countries with cheaper, more reliable energy sources.

13- Utility Conflict Exposed —

The bribes (aka subsidies) doled out to wind and solar exposes a significant conflict of interest for power providers: are they acting in the best interest of shareholders or customers? For example, since utilities are often guaranteed a return on their “capital base” they are perversely incentivized to install a huge capital base of unreliables to increase their profits — even though that increases costs and reduces reliability to their customers. So where is their primary allegiance?

14- Loss of Serenity —

Serenity’s legal definition is that environmental quality which provides the greatest sense of wellbeing. Industrial wind turbines are anathema to the serenity of pastoral communities. Just as with other key values in life (like happiness, contentment, peacefulness, etc.) there is no way to put a sufficient dollar value on this huge loss.

15- Loss of Community —

This frequently results when the wind industry uses citizen money to bribe local officials and select landowners in order to create an us vs. them conflict. Other nearby property owners then sign a so-called Good Neighbor Agreement by which they agree not to complain about the numerous liabilities of the industrial wind project. For an annual pittance of a bribe, these “good neighbors” cooperate in the torture of nearby non-participating residents afflicted with adverse health effects, property devaluation, etc.

The Bottom Line

This is a somewhat complicated, technical subject, so the above is a layperson’s summary. The takeaway is that — despite what the lobbyists are pitching to the non-critically thinking public — the real cost of wind energy is 3± times the cost of nuclear and other conventional sources of electricity. Solar is higher than that!

©2025 All rights reserved.

Here is other information from this scientist that you might find interesting:

I am now offering incentives for you to sign up new subscribers!

I also consider reader submissions on Critical Thinking on my topics of interest.

Check out the Archives of this Critical Thinking substack.

WiseEnergy.org: discusses the Science (or lack thereof) behind our energy options.

C19Science.info: covers the lack of genuine Science behind our COVID-19 policies.

Election-Integrity.info: multiple major reports on the election integrity issue.

Media Balance Newsletter: a free, twice-a-month newsletter that covers what the mainstream media does not do, on issues from COVID to climate, elections to education, renewables to religion, etc. Here are the Newsletter’s 2024 Archives. Please send me an email to get your free copy. When emailing me, please make sure to include your full name and the state where you live. (Of course, you can cancel the Media Balance Newsletter at any time – but why would you?

‘Government Overreach’: Liz Warren’s Favorite Agency Just Granted Itself New Powers To Regulate Checking Accounts

/in , , , , , , , , , , /by

The lame duck Biden administration’s Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) issued a rule in December to curb overdraft penalties in what experts told the Daily Caller News Foundation is an example of government overreach that will ravage low-income Americans.

The CFPB — an agency that is considered the brainchild of Democratic Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren — finalized the rule just weeks before President-elect Donald Trump takes office, with the aim of forcing banks to either cap overdraft fees at $5, far less than the $35 average, or to provide the overdraft as a form of credit rather than a penalty. While the policy’s stated aim is to increase transparency and protect American depositors, experts told the DCNF it will force banks to implement more stringent rules on bank accounts, limiting access to credit and financial services for low-income Americans, and pushing more borrowers to turn to payday lenders, who typically charge far higher interest rates.

“This is a classic case of government overreach with regulators having no idea how private business works,” E.J. Antoni, a research fellow at the Heritage Foundation’s Grover M. Hermann Center for the Federal Budget, told the DCNF. “These new regulations would eliminate certain services and impose stricter rules on bank accounts predominantly held by low-income folks. If those people need an extension of credit because they don’t have sufficient funds to meet an immediate expense, they’ll be driven to even more costly payday lenders.”

While typical credit card annual percentage rates range from 15% to 30%, and personal loans are even lower, payday lenders often charge annual interest rates of anywhere from 300% to 500%, according to Mayo Employees Federal Credit Union. In 2022, 17% of households with checking accounts reported that they or someone in their family paid an overdraft fee, with households with incomes under $30,000 twice as likely to report at least one overdraft as those with incomes of $100,000 or more.

American household debt stood at a record high of nearly $18 trillion at the end of the third quarter of 2024, increasing by nearly $4 trillion from when President Joe Biden took office in the first quarter of 2021, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Credit card balances have also surged since the COVID-19 pandemic, with American households holding $1.17 trillion in credit card debt in the third quarter of 2024, up from $770 billion in the first quarter of 2021.

CFPB claims it has the legal authority to implement the regulation on the grounds overdrafts are loans and not penalties — an argument Erik Jaffe, partner at law firm Schaerr | Jaffe LLP, described to the DCNF as a “stretch.”

“The CFPB was given authority to regulate certain circumstances of consumer lending. As a result, the question is whether or not an overdraft on your checking account constitutes a short-term loan,” Jaffe told the DCNF. “It seems like quite the stretch. Banks charge customers a fee on overdrafts. The fee is not interest, as the length of time you take to pay back the fee does not change how much you owe. Interest must have a time component to it. It’s not like banks are giving customers with overdrafts money over time. They are just doing a courtesy of not bouncing a charge and embarrassing the customer.”

Jaffe also pointed out that the CFPB contradicts itself by attempting to re-classify overdrafts as a form of lending, while simultaneously permitting banks to charge overdraft penalties so long as they are under a certain dollar amount: “If the only way the CFPB has power to regulate overdrafts is by treating it as a loan, then why do they get to regulate the amount of penalty? If they concede its a penalty, then it is not within their purview. There’s an internal inconsistency here.”

The overdraft rule incurred immediate legal pushback following its finalization, with the American Bankers Association (ABA) filing a motion in the Southern District of Mississippi’s Fifth Circuit for a preliminary injunction on Dec. 12. Jaffe suggested legal challenges like the one from the ABA could be successful, particularly after the Supreme Court voted 6-3 in June to overturn Chevron deference — a legal theory that provided unelected bureaucrats with significant leeway to interpret statutory ambiguities.

“We no longer defer to an agency when they say ‘if you squint really hard this statute means I can do whatever the heck I want,’” Jaffe told the DCNF. “This CFPB rule seems to smell a bit like that. The agency appears to be saying ‘if we squint just right, overdrafts look like loans, and so we have the authority to regulate them.’ The courts will take it upon themselves to determine if this is the most natural reading, and will likely conclude it is not.”

Outside of the courts, Republican lawmakers have taken aim at the rule, claiming it will limit access to credit and describing it as an example of “midnight rulemaking” by the outgoing Biden administration.

“As I’ve said repeatedly, lawful and contractually agreed upon payment incentives promote financial discipline and responsibility and protect access to important financial services,” incoming Senate Banking Committee Chairman Tim Scott of North Carolina wrote following the finalization of the rule on Dec. 12. “With just over a month until the next administration takes over, Director [Rohit] Chopra should never have finalized this rule in the first place, and I look forward to working with the next CFPB Director to advance policies that prioritize consumers over political talking points.”

Incoming House Financial Services Committee Chairman French Hill of Arkansas echoed Scott’s sentiment in a Dec. 23 statement: “We told federal agencies — including the CFPB — to put their ‘pens down’ and stop all midnight rulemaking. Director Chopra blatantly disregarded our request by finalizing this rule. Capping overdraft services is another form of government price controls that hurts consumers who deserve financial protections and greater choice.”

Chopra is a longtime ally of Democratic Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, helping her establish the CFPB following the passage of the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform law. Warren was instrumental in creating the CFPB, with former President Barack Obama describing the agency as “Elizabeth’s idea.”

“I also want to thank Elizabeth Warren not only for her extraordinary work standing up the new agency over the past year, but also for her many years of impassioned leadership, and her fierce defense of a simple idea: ordinary people deserve to be treated fairly and honestly in their financial dealings,” Obama said in a July 2011 speech touting the then-fledgling agency. “This agency was Elizabeth’s idea, and through sheer force of will, intelligence, and a bottomless well of energy, she has made, and will continue to make, a profound and positive difference for our country.”

Peter Earle, senior economist at the American Institute for Economic Research, told the DCNF the rule was the latest in a long line of “regulatory overreach” from the Biden administration.

“Capping overdraft fees by regulatory fiat is yet another example of regulatory overreach from the Biden administration, as it interrupts the pricing mechanism that reflects the costs and risks of providing overdraft services,” Earle said. “It’s not the first time, by far, that the outgoing administration has assumed that government knows better than private enterprises, consumers, and the price system, undermining the voluntary, cooperative commerce that drives competition and innovation.”

The CFPB and Warren’s office did not respond to requests for comment.

AUTHOR

Owen Klinsky

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLE: Tech Giants Secure Work Visas For Tens Of Thousands Of Foreigners While Kicking Existing Employees To The Curb

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

PODCAST: What Did We Gain from Trump’s Win and What Could it Mean for American Energy?

/in , , , , , /by

GUESTS:

FRANK LASEE

Frank Lasee, author of Climate and Energy Lies: Expensive, Dangerous & Destructive, served Wisconsinites as a state senator and in Governor Scott Walker�s administration. The district he represented had a lot of electricity generation – coal, natural gas, two nuclear plants, biogas, biodigesters, wind towers, and now a solar plant.  Frank is an expert on energy and environmental issues. His articles have appeared in the Washington Examiner, Washington Post, Real Clear Energy, The Hill, and others, and he has been a guest on TV and radio news. He has spoken to more than 15,000 people in large and small groups.

TOPIC: What Trump’s Win Could Mean for American Energy

JOAN SWIRSKY

Joan Swirsky is a New York-based journalist and author. For over 20 years, she wrote health, science and feature articles for The New York Times Long Island section as well as for many regional and national publications. She is a former delivery room and operating room nurse, Lamaze teacher, and NY State-certified psychotherapist, Joan is also the author/co-author of 12 books. You can visit her website at www.joanswirsky.com.

TOPIC: What Did We Gain In Trump’s Win?

PODCAST: What Trump’s Win Could Mean

©2025 . All rights reserved.

Costco Embraces DEI As Other Companies Move In Opposite Direction

/in , , , , , , , , , /by

Costco has urged its shareholders to vote against the push to limit the major retailer’s commitment to diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) after receiving a proposal about striking “discriminatory practices.”

The National Center for Public Policy Research requested that Costco publish a report about the risks the company could face by maintaining its current DEI policies, according to The Hill.

“It’s clear that DEI holds litigation, reputational and financial risks to the Company, and therefore financial risks to shareholders,” the proposal stated.

“And yet Costco still has such a program, though it was apprehensive enough to recognize this as it recently and quietly rebranded its DEI program to ‘People and Communities.’ But sticking a new label on discriminatory practices does not protect Costco and its shareholders from these risks,” the proposal continued.

The proposal noted the renamed program still contains a “commitment to equity,” meaning an “equality of outcome, not opportunity,” in addition to employing a “Chief Diversity Officer” that “picks suppliers based on their race and sex, still appears to factor in race and sex in hiring and promotion, and still contributes shareholder money to organizations that advance the discriminatory agenda of DEI.”

“With 310,000 employees, Costco likely has at least 200,000 employees who are potentially victims of this type of illegal discrimination because they are white, Asian, male or straight,” the group stated. “Accordingly, even if only a fraction of those employees were to file suit, and only some of those prove successful, the cost to Costco could be tens of billions of dollars.”

Costco said the request is simply “inflicting burdens on companies with their challenges to longstanding diversity programs.”

“The proponent’s broader agenda is not reducing risk for the Company but abolition of diversity initiatives,” the wholesale corporation said.

“Our Board has considered this proposal and believes that our commitment to an enterprise rooted in respect and inclusion is appropriate and necessary,” Costco said, adding that the Board “unanimously” recommends shareholders vote against the proposal. 

The meeting where shareholders will vote on the issue is set to take place on Jan. 23.

The matter comes after companies like Walmart, Lowe’s and Harley Davidson announced they were repealing DEI practices following similar pushback.

AUTHOR

Fiona McLoughlin

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLE: Appeals Court Deals Blow To Nasdaq’s Efforts At Pushing Diversity Rules On Companies

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

NEW YORK: Gov. Hochul Signs Law Forcing Energy Companies To Pay Billions in the Name of Climate Hoax

/in , , , , , , , , , , , , /by

The increasingly deranged Governor Kathy Hochul signed Climate (hoax) Superfund legislation forcing customers to pay more for Democrat pork.

Hochul approved a controversial law that will force oil, natural-gas and coal companies to fork over a staggering $75 billion to the state for ‘carbon emissions’ and allegedly contributing to ‘climate change.’

Representatives for the energy industry said the new law is a declaration of war against firms that provide energy and power to New York.

More than three dozen energy firms and business advocates sent a letter to Hochul on Dec. 5, urging her to veto the bill.

Remember, when Democrats talk about taxing “business” – that’s us, that’s people. Business is people, workers. It’s us. It’s always us.

Democrats Ramp Up War on Fossil Fuels as New York Governor Signs Law Forcing Energy Companies To Pay Billions in the Name of Climate Change

The American Petroleum Institute says the new law is ‘nothing more than a punitive new fee on American energy.’

Bradely Cortlight, NY Sun, Dec. 26, 2024:

Major fossil fuel companies will be required to hand over billions of dollars to help pay for New York State’s efforts to fight climate change under a new law signed by the governor Thursday.

Governor Hochul signed the Climate Change Superfund Act, creating a new requirement that companies seen as responsible for the majority of carbon emissions between 2000 and 2024 will have to pay roughly $3 billion a year for the next 25 years.

The funds will be used to pay for new infrastructure meant to withstand the impacts of more flooding or more extreme weather some blame on climate change. The funds would also be used to pay for repairs to damage caused by extreme weather events.

In a statement, Ms. Hochul said, “With nearly every record rainfall, heat wave, and coastal storm, New Yorkers are increasingly burdened with billions of dollars in health, safety, and environmental consequences due to polluters that have historically harmed our environment.

“Establishing the Climate Superfund is the latest example of my administration taking action to hold polluters responsible for the damage done to our environment and requiring major investments in infrastructure and other projects critical to protecting our communities and economy,” she added.

A New York state senator, Liz Krueger, celebrated the law and said the state “has fired a shot that will be heard round the world: the companies most responsible for the climate crisis will be held accountable.”

Fossil fuel and business groups opposed the implementation of the law. The American Petroleum Institute said it “represents nothing more than a punitive new fee on American energy, and we are evaluating our options moving forward.”

Meanwhile, the Business Council of New York State and more than 30 other business organizations urged Ms. Hochul to veto the bill earlier this month.

The groups argued that it “targets sellers of fossil fuels while ignoring users as a contributor to emissions” and said the law would “certainly face a long and costly legal challenge.”

New York’s law will not go into effect immediately as officials still have to develop a system to identify which companies they believe are the largest emitters and provide them notice that they must pay.

Continue reading.

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

POST ON X:

Hochul signs NY law that will charge $75B to oil, gas and coal companies for climate change — but critics say customers will pick up tab https://t.co/5Z76dH0djo pic.twitter.com/9npL21jtns

— New York Post (@nypost) December 27, 2024

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

10 New Ideas to Make America’s Economy Great Again in 2025

/in , , , , , , , , /by

Here’s my wish list for the incoming Trump administration to make America healthy and prosperous and great again in 2025.

1. Slash Job-Killing Regulations

The regulatory state is a $2 trillion tax on the American economy. We all want worker safety, a clean environment, and consumer protections, but in too many cases the costs of regulations far outweigh the societal benefits. President-elect Donald Trump has promised to slash 10 rules for every new rule. Just do it, Mr. President.

2. Make the Trump Tax Cuts Permanent

As JFK, Ronald Reagan, and others have proven throughout history, lower tax rates lead to more growth, more investment, and more jobs. The Trump tax cuts meant that a typical family of four earning $75,000 a year saw their tax bill fall by half—a benefit valued at more than $2,000. And the corporate tax rate fell from 35%—the highest in the world—to 21%, bringing jobs and capital to America. Trump has promised to make all these tax cuts permanent. Why? Because they worked almost exactly as we anticipated they would.

3. Replace Welfare With Work

Growth will require more able-bodied Americans getting off welfare and into jobs. Welfare—which includes cash assistance, public housing, food stamps, disability payments, unemployment benefits, and Medicaid—needs to be a hand-up, not a handout.

4. Use America’s Abundant Natural Resources

America has well more than $50 trillion of natural resources that are accessible with existing drilling and mining technologies. This is a vast storehouse of wealth that far surpasses what any other nation is endowed with. We can use the royalty payments and leases to reduce our national debt while creating hundreds of thousands of jobs.

5. Cut Medical Costs by Demanding Health Care Price Transparency

One of many ways to bring health care costs down to consumers (and taxpayers, who pay half the costs) is to require hospitals, pharmacies, doctors, and health clinics to list prices for what they are charging. The Committee to Unleash Prosperity estimates that $1 trillion to $2 trillion could be reduced from health care costs, with no reduction in the quality of care, by allowing consumers to shop around on the internet for the best price—just as we do when we buy groceries, a home, or a car. This will foster free market competition and lower prices.

6. Allow School Choice for All Families

Test scores in America have been plummeting. Kids are graduating from high school—if at all—without even being able to read the diploma. America no longer ranks in the top 10 in many academic achievement ratings.

A child can get a better education at half the cost in the Catholic school system and in many charters.

Trump has endorsed universal school choice for all children regardless of income or ethnicity or race. This is the civil rights issue of our time.

7. Implement a Pro-America Immigration Policy

Trump is committed to securing our border, but we also need legal immigrants through a merit-based immigration system. This visa system would select immigrants based on their skills, talents, investment capital, English language ability, and education level. These characteristics all presage success in America.

8. Revive America’s Great Cities

Our once-great cities in America—from New York to Chicago to Detroit to San Francisco to Seattle—have come to look like war zones. Crime has run rampant. Businesses and people and capital are fleeing and leaving the poorest Americans—mostly minorities—stranded with tragically limited opportunities other than working at Walmart or McDonald’s for minimum wage. Since 2020, our major cities have lost nearly 1 million residents. And tens of thousands of businesses.

Trump wants to revitalize our cities and abandoned rural areas through deregulation, reduction in tax rates, changes in zoning policies, and infrastructure investments.

9. Pull the U.S. Out of the Paris Climate Change Treaty and Other Anti-America Agreements

We must end American participation in globalist treaties that hurt America most. This includes the Paris climate accords—a treaty with which most other nations have failed to comply, yet which places huge burdens on American companies and workers. Trump also has pledged to end global taxation—such as Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen’s global minimum tax. Do we even need a United Nations?

10. Finally, Drain the Swamp

AUTHOR

Stephen Moore

Stephen Moore, who formerly wrote on the economy and public policy for The Wall Street Journal, is a distinguished visiting fellow for the Project for Economic Growth at The Heritage Foundation. He was a senior economic adviser to Donald Trump during the 2016 presidential campaign. Read his research. Steven on X: .

RELATED ARTICLES:

3 Big Takeaways From Donald Trump’s Madison Square Garden Rally

Despite the Left’s Hysterics, We Can Deport Millions of Illegal Aliens

13 Things We Should Be Thankful for This Postelection Thanksgiving

RELATED VIDEO: MILTON FRIEDMAN: Efficiency Drops When It’s Not Your Own Money

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now

Biden Admin Invoked ‘Indigenous Knowledge’ To Cut Alaska Drilling, But Some Tribal Leaders Are Ready For Trump

/in , , , , , , , , , , /by

The Biden administration justified major crackdowns on fossil fuel and mineral development in Alaska by playing up its commitment to Native American tribes, but some community leaders who spoke with the Daily Caller News Foundation said they did not feel respected by the administration

Over the course of the last four years, the Biden administration moved to shut down drilling activity on tens millions of acres of land in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), retroactively canceled lease sales and effectively blocked a major mining project in the state, often touting the administration’s commitment to protecting the environment for native communities in official statements and press releases. However, these actions were a major disappointment to some of Alaska’s natives, who told the DCNF that the administration seems to have mostly ignored their desire to allow development that generates revenues for their communities and that they are ready to work with the incoming Trump administration to strike an appropriate balance.

“With climate change warming the Arctic more than twice as fast as the rest of the planet, we must do everything within our control to meet the highest standards of care to protect this fragile ecosystem,” Secretary of the Interior Deb Haaland said in a September 2023 statement after the administration moved to shield 13 million acres from drilling activity in the NPR-A and retroactively canceled lease sales. “President Biden is delivering on the most ambitious climate and conservation agenda in history. The steps we are taking today further that commitment, based on the best available science and in recognition of the Indigenous Knowledge of the original stewards of this area, to safeguard our public lands for future generations.”

However, the administration’s deference to “Indigenous Knowledge” did not mean much to some tribal leaders and officials in light of the government’s apparent disinterest in meaningfully engaging with them about key issues related to resource development.

Nagruk Harcharek is the president of Voice of the Arctic Iñupiat, an organization that represents the interests of numerous native communities in the resource-rich North Slope region of Alaska. In his view, the Biden administration was not particularly interested in hearing what his organization had to say about the value of the economic benefits that resource development provides for his community.

“I started here in 2022. The first thing I did was try to get in there and make sure our voices were heard, because what we’re hearing from the administration is that we’re the most tribally-friendly administration in the history of the United States, right? ” Harcharek told the DCNF. “At least from our perspective, that’s not our impression.”

“We’ve always tried to stress that we are part of the environment. We utilize it for subsistence hunting, for our culture, and it’s extremely important to us. We don’t need to be protected from our own environment,” Harcharek continued. “We can make decisions and help administrations make decisions that are both good for the region and also good for the environment and good for the state, good for the nation. And that just wasn’t the case. There was a lack of engagement, meaningful engagement. Oftentimes, we heard of policy changes in the news and not from phone calls from folks, even though everybody has our number.”

Harcharek says his organization attempted to secure a meeting with Haaland on nine different occasions, but only managed to get a chance in June of this year. Other times, the Department of the Interior (DOI) sent staffers or other officials to meet with them, if their outreach to the government was even returned.

“Sometimes we didn’t even get a response from those emails, so saying that they’re the most tribally-friendly and then not speaking to most of our tribes or us in a timely manner or a meaningful manner, the just question is, who are you? Who considers you the most tribally friendly organization? Because it sure isn’t us, or we’re not getting that sentiment,” Harcharek said.

Doreen Leavitt, secretary for the Inupiat Community of the Arctic Slope (ICAS), also ripped Haaland for lackluster engagement with her community since 2021 and expressed hope that Republican North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum — Trump’s pick to replace Haaland — will be a better leader at DOI.

“Secretary Haaland’s leadership for ICAS and our region was not just deeply frustrating, but it was saddening because as an indigenous woman myself, who wants to see other indigenous women in leadership succeed and grow, her lack of respect for our region was frustrating, to say the least, despite her recognition of tribal stewardship, our requests for consultation on critical issues were ignored or dismissed,” Leavitt told the DCNF. “I don’t know much about Secretary Burgum, other than that he comes from the Dakotas, but we will expect the incoming secretary to provide that meaningful consultation, that transparent process and respect for our tribal sovereignty and self-determination and those things we did not see under Haaland.”

Leavitt also explained that resource development has provided the money her community needed over the past 50 years to establish and maintain basic things like running water, school systems, health clinics, emergency services and more.

Without taking a political stance, Leavitt noted that she and her organization are “especially looking forward to having the government-to-government relationship rights respected” by the incoming Trump administration.

Charles Lampe, the president of Kaktovik Iñupiat Corporation, said that he and his people are looking forward to Trump’s return to power after sensing that most of his community’s concerns about cracking down hard on resource development were “pretty much just cast aside” by the Biden administration.

“We’re really excited about the next four years. With the previous administration, the Trump administration, we had a great relationship. We just felt like we were actually listened to during that time,” Lampe told the DCNF.

AUTHOR

Nick Pope

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Tribes Claim ‘A Seat At The Table’ Thanks To Trump’s National Monument Decision

‘Silence, Stonewall, And Scorn’: Native American Group Sues Biden Admin For Cracking Down On Massive Petroleum Reserve

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Rand Paul Releases Report Detailing $1,000,000,000,000 In Gov’t Waste. Here Are The Worst Offenders

/in , , , , , , , , , , /by

Republican Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul released a report on Monday outlining more than $1 trillion in government waste from the past year.

WATCH: Rand Paul exposes Biden admin for wasting $1 trillion

The 2024 “Festivus” report highlighted various instances of wasteful government spending from the federal government, including a pickleball complex in Las Vegas and a cabaret show on ice. This year marks Paul’s 10th annual report.

“This year, I am highlighting a whopping $1,008,313,329,626.12,” Paul wrote in the report. “That’s over $1 trillion in government waste, including things like ice-skating drag queens, a $12 Million Las Vegas pickleball complex, $4,840,082 on Ukrainian influencers, and more! No matter how much money the government has wasted, politicians keep demanding even more.”

The Department of the Interior (DOI) spent $12 million on a Las Vegas Pickleball Complex, according to the report. The DOI also spent $720,479 on wetland conservation projects for ducks in Mexico.

“I have a lot of problems with federal spending, and now it’s time to hear all about them,” Paul wrote in the report.

The National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) awarded the Bearded Ladies Cabaret a $10,000 grant to support a cabaret show on ice skates focused on climate change, according to the report. The NEA also spent $365,000 to promote circuses in city parks, the report states.

The State Department spent $500,000 to expand the U.S. Embassy in Ethiopia’s #USInvestsInEthiopians social media campaign to a larger national public relations campaign, according to the report. The State Department also sent $253,653 to Bosnia to fight “misinformation,” spent $2.1 million for Paraguayan Border Security, and spent $3 million for ‘Girl-Centered Climate Action’ in Brazil, according to the report.

The Department of Health and Human Services spent $419,470 to determine if lonely rats seek cocaine more than happy rats, the report states.

The National Science Foundation spent $288,563 to ensure bird watching groups have safe spaces, also known as “Affinity Groups,” according to the report.

President-elect Donald Trump announced on Nov. 12 that he had picked Vivek Ramaswamy and Elon Musk to co-chair a new Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), aimed at cutting down on wasteful government spending.

“As always, taking the path to fiscal responsibility is often a lonely journey, but I’ve been fighting government waste like DOGE before DOGE was cool, Paul wrote in the report. “And I will continue my fight against government waste this holiday season.”

Many Americans have faced steep costs amid high inflation throughout President Joe Biden’s term, with inflation hitting a peak of 9.1% in June 2022. While inflation rates have eased some since June 2022, prices still remain high, with the consumer price index (CPI), a measure of the price of everyday goods, experiencing a year-over-year increase of 2.7% in November, according to a Dec. 11 report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Some experts have attributed massive government spending under the Biden-Harris administration to fueling inflation rates. The national debt was at $36.16 trillion as of Tuesday, according to U.S. Treasury Fiscal Data.

A spokesperson for Paul did not immediately respond to a request for comment from the Daily Caller News Foundation.

AUTHOR

Ireland Owens

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLE: Bah Humbug! Biden’s Christmas Gift To America Is Going To Burn A Hole In Household Budgets

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

AI Movies Are No Threat to Hollywood

/in , , , /by

Why Hollywood’s Fear of AI-Generated Movies Might Be More Fiction Than Fact

Hollywood is having a moment. Not the glitzy, red-carpet kind, but the kind filled with existential dread. The enemy this time isn’t streaming services, box office bombs, or even actors on strike.

It’s text-to-video AI tools like OpenAI’s Sora. These platforms are accused of threatening Hollywood’s creative dominance.

Consider this alarm from Fran Drescher, president of the Screen Actors Guild-American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (SAG-AFTRA), who called AI an “existential threat to creative professions.”

But let’s cut to the punchline: even the tamest Hollywood content wouldn’t pass the strict moderation (i.e. censorship) standards of these AI tools.

The result?

At best, an AI-produced Hallmark greeting card—and, at worst, hardly a threat to the Hallmark channel.

AI Moderation: Where Creativity Goes to Die?

Here’s the deal: AI tools like Sora are designed with strict safeguards to avoid controversy.

If Hollywood blockbusters were run through AI moderation, we’d probably see half of them flagged for “explicit violence,” “hateful content,” or “overly dramatic explosions.”

How about The Godfather? Surely this cinematic classic would make the cut, right? Wrong. REJECTED. “Themes of organized crime and morally ambiguous characters not suitable for AI standards.”

Even Toy Story might get flagged if the algorithm catches a hint of that existential crisis Woody has when Buzz steals the spotlight. “Depiction of psychological distress among toys,” the content warning would read.

The pendulum has swung so far that even mildly boundary-pushing content gets the axe.

Independent creators—those AI is supposed to empower—often find their visions stifled by overzealous censors.

For example, imagine a filmmaker crafting a story about a community healing after a horrific tragedy.

The story is about unity, resilience, and overcoming grief. But because the narrative involves a violent crime as the catalyst for that healing, the project is flagged and rejected.

The AI sees the “violent content” but misses the redemption arc entirely.

This isn’t just a hypothetical.

Many critical, human stories depend on showing difficult truths to reach their uplifting conclusions. Without the ability to include those raw moments, creators are left telling sanitized versions of reality that strip their stories of authenticity.

Hollywood’s Fear Is Overblown

Here’s the irony: Hollywood has little to fear from AI tools. If anything, these platforms’ strict moderation ensures they won’t be producing the next Pulp Fiction or Breaking Bad.

Hollywood’s edgy, boundary-pushing content is safe…for now. But for independent creators, the stakes are higher.

These platforms represent an incredible opportunity to bypass traditional studios and tell their stories directly. The problem is, these tools fail to see the forest for the trees. They evaluate content in isolated pieces, not as a cohesive whole.

AI moderation shouldn’t operate like a referee handing out penalties for individual fouls without watching the whole game. Instead, it should judge content based on its complete arc.

Was that violent scene gratuitous, or was it essential to the story’s resolution? Did the controversial element add depth, or was it just shock value?

By examining projects holistically, AI tools could empower creators to tackle complex subjects responsibly. After all, the best stories often emerge from exploring the gray areas of life—not just sticking to black-and-white morality.

Hollywood’s concern about AI is misplaced. But creators’ frustrations? Those are real.

Final Thoughts

The real battle isn’t AI vs. Hollywood—it’s AI vs. true storytelling. Here’s hoping these platforms lighten up a bit and let creators tackle the tough subjects that make stories truly matter.

©2024 . All rights reserved.

RELATED VIDEO: AI-Generated Concept Ad for Levi’s by RenderNet

Please visit the Majority Report substack.

The Third Spending Bill Passes the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate

/in , , , , , , , , , , /by

The Democrats’ big bloated monster heist has been foiled. Democrat thieves lost. 118 pages down from over 1,500 pages. Shutdown averted.

WATCH:

President Trump and Americans get a Huge Win in Congress with the Continuing Resolution vote

Elon Musk: “I’m suspicious of laws that are longer than The Lord of the Rings script.”

House passes bill to avoid a shutdown, sending it to the Senate hours before the deadline

The bill, which keeps the government funded through March 14, must still pass the Senate before 12:01 a.m. to avoid a shutdown.

Dec. 20, 2024, 11:51 AM EST / Updated Dec. 20, 2024, 6:11 PM EST

WASHINGTON — The Republican-controlled House on Friday evening passed a short-term bill to avert a government shutdown, just hours ahead of a deadline that would force U.S. troops, border patrol agents, air traffic controllers and millions of other federal workers to work without pay during the holidays.

The vote was 366-34, with all opposition coming from Republicans and one member voting present. It capped a tumultuous week in the House that foreshadowed how the new Congress in January might deal with a mercurial Donald Trump back in the White House. A two-thirds vote was needed because the bill came to the floor under a fast-track process.

The legislation now heads to the Senate which must pass it before 12:01 a.m. to avert a shutdown.

The package funds the government at current levels through March 14, and includes disaster aid and a farm bill — while stripping out a debt limit extension demanded by President-elect Trump earlier in the week.

Just three days ago, bipartisan House and Senate leaders struck an agreement to keep the government’s lights on, but Trump and his billionaire confidant Elon Musk killed the deal, insisting at the 11th hour it needed to extend or abolish the debt limit to make way for Trump’s agenda next year.

A backup plan — slimmed down from the original deal and endorsed by Trump and Musk — then went down in flames on the House floor, tanked by Democrats as well as 38 Republicans who objected to the debt extension.

That left Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., who is fighting to keep his leadership job, with few good options. After privately huddling with rank-and-file Republicans for more than two hours, Johnson told his party he was pressing forward with Plan C: the same package brought to the floor a day earlier but without Trump’s debt increase.

Earlier Friday, leaders floated breaking up the package into three separate parts and having lawmakers vote on them individually on the floor, according to GOP sources familiar with the plan. But the one-package proposal was seen as an easier lift with the clock ticking down.
Exiting the private GOP meeting, Johnson told reporters there would not be a shutdown and that House Republicans are “unified.”

“We will not have a government shutdown, and we will meet our obligations for our farmers who need aid, for the disaster victims all over the country, and for making sure that military and essential services and everyone who relies upon the federal government for a paycheck is paid over the holidays,” Johnson said.

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

RELATED ARTICLE: The Big Bloated Monstrosity CR is DEAD After Trump Rejects It

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Trump Inherits an Economic Crisis

/in , , , , , , , /by

Possibly only President Reagan inherited a similar economic crisis as President Trump is about to come January 20th. I dare say, however, the economic crisis is deliberately not talked about, especially by the RINOs and Socialists in Congress. It is truly a crisis, and I say clearly the successful businessman, leader and strong personality Trump is along with his core beliefs in the uniqueness of America, makes him the right person to save this Ship of State from going under. My statement just now is not theatre or sensationalism but predicated on the numbers and stagnation deliberately created.

Government spending is out of control with few anywhere in government elected, appointed or otherwise even wanting to acknowledge this horrendous fact. The national debt is over $36 trillion. Americans are also facing a debt crisis at the family and individual levels. Living off of credit cards has created a serious set of issues; 25% of credit card users are maxed out, delinquency payments are rising quickly and with those who can’t make their payments anyway! Individual savings were approximately 7.5% of their income under Trump 2016-2020. Under Biden personal savings is at 3.4%. Families are facing 20% or more higher prices than when Biden came into office. The Department of Labor reported that in the first week of December 242,000 filed for unemployment, up from 225,000 at the end of November. With a “holiday hiring surge” you would think unemployment would be down, albeit even temporarily, but this is not the case, and the unemployment rise is sobering and concerning.

The magnitude of this pending crisis is deliberately being hidden or downplayed. But Trump “gets it!” Even now, a good month prior to his inaugural Donald Trump is sincerely, cleverly, boldly and with personal knowledge on how to make a dollar count at work. Just today the President-elect announced at a press conference that a Japan multibillion dollar company will be investing $100 billon into America and hiring 100,000 Americans, there was even a statement of interest by the owner of the Japanese tech company of investing an additional $100 billon into America to make the company soar and America Great Again! Wow…tell me another elected official who has the background, contacts, ability to make something similar happen? The Uniparty and Swamp creatures are so committed to making a New-World Order, One-World Government, they reside in self-made bubbles purposefully ignorant of the plight Americans are facing, and how this nation is teetering on the edge. Heck, this is part of their game plan, and they are joyous, that is, until Donald Trump won by a landslide and the American people shouted, “ENOUGH!”

Donald Trump has the experience as a businessman to turn things around. He has a proven history of doing so in the private sector. You can research the problems and financial messes he deliberately walked into and straightened out in New York City, the Boardwalk in Atlantic City, New Jersey even Mara-a-Lago which he purchased for his own fun and relaxation after it had fallen into neglect requiring serious investment and attention. Donald J. Trump’s core values include believing in making things better for his having been there, to improve the life of others, and to sincerely Make America Great Again as his dad and mom taught him and his brother, and I am sure his two sisters.

The overwhelming victory in the November 2024 election was a minor miracle. The host of liars, deep state operatives in elected and appointed positions who maliciously and with forethought set out to destroy Trump, the tyrannical mega industry and business executives who placed self over the welfare of this nation and people in general, who have disdain for Donald Trump and all he stands for – were clearly identified and defeated along with their Marxist handlers and partners. Donald J. Trump has a solid battle plan to save this nation and her people, and to once again allow America to bring order, peace and even economic common sense to a world that has gone astray and nearly in chaos. His battle plan is being made public so watch and enjoy what he intends to accomplish his first 120 days in office.

Trump does not simply “talk the talk.” He walks the walk and delivers.

©2024 All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: Biden is AWOL as Washington spirals into shutdown chaos

ROOKE: House Speaker Gives Tone Deaf Speech Defending The Swamp’s Last Funding Stunt Before Trump Comes Home

/in , , , , , , /by

House Speaker Mike Johnson is promoting a pork-filled spending resolution that would give Congress more power and waste billions of taxpayer dollars, making this the coal in Americans’ Christmas stockings.

Johnson promised members (and voters) under his leadership that massive spending bills would be an open process led by committee chairs. He also said that members would have at least 72 hours to read the bill before they were expected to vote and that the passing of any Christmas omnibus spending packages would be a thing of the past.

However, in the past 24 hours, he has broken almost all of these promises by introducing the Christmas Continuing Resolution (CR), which would keep the federal government funded until March 2025. Worst of all, Johnson is shamelessly trying to sell the American people on the idea that passing the CR is the conservative way to handle the funding issue.

Johnson tried to make his case Tuesday night in an interview with Newsmax.

“This was the conservative play call. We don’t normally like what’s called a Continuing Resolution, a CR. But in this case, it makes sense because if we push it into the first quarter of next year, then we have a Republican-controlled Congress and President Donald J. Trump back in the White House, we’ll be able to have more say about funding decisions in 2025,” Johnson said.

“Now, that would have been an easier thing to do, but then we had circumstances outside of our control. We had these emergencies that are required. We had, as you know, a record hurricane season. We had Helene and Milton, and they just did massive destruction across our red states, frankly,” Johnson continued. “And then we had farmers who are in jeopardy of permanently going under. They’ve had three loss years in a row because of Bidenomics and inflation and other circumstances outside of their control. So when you coble those two things together, there’s a desperate need for that aid, and that’s what adds another 100+ billion dollars to the bill. That’s where everyone is uncomfortable with it.”

The problem that Johnson expects the American people to be either too stupid or too lazy to understand is that Congress has known about this funding deadline since the last time they passed a CR funding bill in late September, around the same time hurricanes Helene and Milton devastated the country. There is no reason why Congress couldn’t have gone through the standard process earlier in the last quarter to avoid the rushed vote right before members wanted to go home for Christmas.

Most Americans sympathize with the victims of the hurricanes and Biden’s economic policies. However, adding aid for these emergencies isn’t really the issue here. It’s the decision to drop an almost 2,000-page spending bill that includes way more than aid to desperate Americans right before Christmas. We can see that this bill is supposed to allow policies Americans wouldn’t support to go through and designed to drop when it did in order to avoid a public debate.

In his defense of the omnibus, Johnson did not mention that Congress would receive a massive salary increase or that a carve-out would give members the legal freedom to avoid subpoenas of their electronic conversations. Nor did he tell Americans that the Christmas omnibus would fund the Global Engagement Center (GEC) for another nine years. The GEC is part of the federal government’s Censorship Industrial Complex, which worked to pressure social media companies to censor Americans.

Johnson continues to signal that he and other Republicans believe business in Washington will continue as usual despite the American voter mandate handed down Nov. 5. We are emaciated, exhausted, and ready to fight the federal government over the abusive relationship it’s formed with us. We are tired of the status quo. We want fighters willing to end the swampy business Washington elites conduct. This Christmas Omnibus is a red flag.

AUTHOR

Mary Rooke

Commentary and analysis writer.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Stopgap Funding Bill Scrapped After Trump Opposes It

OBSCENE: Continuing Resolution Prevents Trump From Investigating Criminal Activities of Congress, Plus 75K PAY RAISE

Heated Committee Chair Race Puts Two Eras Of GOP At War, May Show Whether Mike Johnson Will Stab Trump In Back

The Craziest Things Congress Is Trying To Sneak Through It’s Pork-Packed Christmas Spending Spree

‘An Early Test’: Trump Administration’s Spending Bulldogs Sound Alarm Over GOP’s Federal Funding Bill

GOP rep becomes first Republican to publicly say he won’t throw support behind Mike Johnson for speaker

ROOKE: Biden Fell For Legal Trap Set By Trump Appointees

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Will Trump’s trade and tariff policies make America great again?

/in , , , , , , /by

International trade is one of the key areas of concern for those nervously awaiting the commencement of the second Trump presidency.

Trade occupies a position of special significance in the strange mind of the 45th and 47th president. On many issues, he has flip-flopped, usually due to a clear disinterest in questions of public policy or a clear self-interest in pursuing whatever course of action will benefit him.

Yet trade is different. For decades before becoming commander-in-chief, Donald Trump lambasted those responsible for America’s trade policy and consistently called for tariffs and import restrictions in order to aid American industry and save American jobs.

When he took office in 2017, he looked for a US Trade Representative who would implement his general vision and found a vastly experienced trade negotiator with the skills and intellect to chart a new way forward: Robert Emmet Lighthizer.

Over the next four years, Lighthizer was centrally involved in Trump’s various trade battles. Regardless of whether or not he serves in Trump’s team this time around, Lighthizer’s thinking will influence Trump’s approach, and his 2023 book, ‘No Trade is Free: Changing Course, Taking on China, and Helping America’s Workers,’ offers a brilliant insight into Trump world trade policy.

Though the intricate technicalities of his chosen profession may be suggestive of a dry personality, his writing style is surprising for its fluency and liveliness.

The story he tells about American de-industrialisation helps to explain much about recent American politics.

Imports into America have greatly exceeded exports for decades — Lighthizer writes that America has accumulated $11 trillion in trade deficits since 2000.

What this means in practical terms is outlined early on. Though America invented the personal computer, the vast majority of computers are now imported, and America has also lost its status as a heavyweight in semiconductor production and the production of rare earth elements.

Industries like car manufacturing and shipbuilding have declined significantly; America’s shipyards now produce fewer than 10 ships each year, compared to the more than 1,000 ships built in China annually.

Lighthizer adds that China makes more steel than twice the combined steel production capacity of America, the EU, Japan and Brazil.

President-elect Trump’s stated plans to apply tariffs on Chinese goods after he takes office suggests that major disputes lie ahead in the relationship between the two superpowers.

Much of the book is dedicated to Lighthizer’s explanation of how China operates as a mercantilist power which boosts its own industries while hindering US access to Chinese markets, while also engaging in espionage, industrial theft, forced technology practices and other harmful practices.

Yet Lighthizer (and Trump) would have a major concern with the current trade imbalance with China even if it was not a criminal dictatorship or America’s largest rival.

“[E]vidence and experience have shown us that free trade is a unicorn: a figment of the Anglo-American imagination. No one really believes in it outside of countries in the Anglo-American world, and no one practices it…It is a theory that never worked anywhere. All the great economies were built behind a wall of protection, and often with government money,” Lighthizer argues, before adding that what makes a country great is not consumption, but production.

This means that the preservation of productive industry is vital in a national context where more than half of American adults have no college degree and where their employment opportunities in sectors like tech are therefore limited.

While many economists would dispute Lighthizer’s criticisms of free trade – and the recent record of dramatically expanded prosperity worldwide is not afforded any space in this almost exclusively American-focused argument – there are compelling points throughout.

In the context of China’s recent behaviour and that of its junior partner in Ukraine, Chinese industrial strength is a threat, and all the more so given the decline of America’s industry. The difficulties which the West is having in effectively supplying Ukraine demonstrates the cost of allowing industrial muscle to atrophy over several decades.

The decline of the American Rust Belt, like the decline of northern Britain, owes much to elitist focus on political, economic and cultural centres elsewhere. For too long, these post-industrial areas were left behind, as Sir Paul Collier wrote recently, and the political backlash helps explain much of what has happened in recent years, including the rise of Trumpism.

There is something much deeper underpinning Lighthizer’s worldview.

One of the key factors which made him adopt a far more critical position on international trade compared to other successful figures in the legal or corporate worlds was the impact of de-industrialisation on Lighthizer’s hometown of Ashtabula, Ohio.

The story he tells of declining life prospects for many in a small Ohio town closely resembles the personal reflections of Robert Putnam in his memorable 2016 bestseller, ‘Our Kids: The American Dream in Crisis.’ Members of the cognitive and educational elite like Lighthizer and Putnam continue to prosper, but the economic upward mobility which existed in mid-20th century America is nowhere near as evident.

This is an economic problem but also a cultural one.

Lighthizer describes the Catholic parishes and the Catholic education which forged him in the 1950s and 1960s. Surveying Ashtabula today, he describes how the parishes have amalgamated into one, and notes that the Catholic school he went to has since closed.

This is not incidental to his argument. Taking issue with the standard approach of free market economists who prioritise economic efficiency – even at the cost of disruption caused to domestic industries – Lighthizer emphasises that other considerations such as the need for dignity in work must be taken into account.

Referencing Pope Leo XIII and the insightful Oren Cass among others, Lighthizer contends that “[d]oing honest work for a decent wage instils feelings of self-worth that come from being needed and contributing to society. Stable remunerative employment reinforces good habits and discourages bad ones. That makes human beings into better spouses, parents, neighbours and citizens.”

Take away these kinds of jobs, he suggests, and you end up with the sort of social problems which ail so many post-industrial regions in America and elsewhere.

When negotiating the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) deal to replace NAFTA, Lighthizer ensured that the new agreement would contain stronger labour rights for Mexican workers along with a Labor Value Content requiring that more workers be paid at least $16 per hour.

Of course, a self-interested goal here was to ensure American businesses could not be badly undercut on wages, but the Lighthizer/Trump approach also meant that more Mexican workers could earn a better wage.

Among the policy steps which Lighthizer recommends in future are the introduction of stricter labour and environmental standards for those selling goods into the American market, along with tougher enforcement of existing trade rules and increased US investment in critical areas.

Much of this has – as a result of steps taken by both Trump and Biden – become part of a new American economic policy consensus. Gone are the days of free trade agreements being a key goal of the Clinton and Bush administrations.

Is this a positive development? For many outside the US who counted on America as the leading champion of global trade, it clearly is not.

An air of nostalgia permeates this book’s pages, as when Lighthizer describes how an economically protectionist America rose dramatically in the late 19th and early 20th centuries to become the world’s greatest economy.

Yet many of America’s trade rivals whose imports so concern Lighthizer were desperately poor in that era. Their rise has been good for their people, and for humanity writ large.

Although measures to increase pay levels and labour standards in the developing world could be morally useful, differences in living standards (and therefore salaries) will persist and these should not be used to justify measures blocking trade and keeping the global poor in their lowly position.

As with some opposition to the breakdown of social cohesion caused by mass immigration, there is always a risk that those pining for America’s lost industry are really grieving the loss of something else: the post-World War II America characterised by close-knit communities, intact families and packed churches. Ultimately, tariffs and trade wars will not bring this world back.

While protectionism and state support are necessary in some areas (particularly relating to defence), a world where countries trade less with one another will ultimately be one which is poorer overall.

Robert Lighthizer’s arguments should be taken very seriously by trade advocates and everyone else, as his disciples will be at the driving wheel of the American economy for many years to come.

The true test of Lighthizer’s vision will be the extent to which he and others focus on the human dimension: whether they earnestly promote the dignity of the worker wherever in the world he toils, or whether protection becomes a euphemism for a narrow-minded selfishness.

A new day is coming; indeed, it has already arrived.

What’s your take on Trump’s proposed tariffs?    

AUTHOR

James Bradshaw writes from Ireland on topics including history, culture, film and literature.

EDITORS NOTE: This Mercator column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

EXCLUSIVE: KIA, TJ Maxx Listed As Corporate Sponsors Of ‘Rainbow Library’ Pushing Trans Books To Kids

/in , , , , , , , , , , /by

Retailer T.J. Maxx and automaker KIA are listed as co-sponsors of a program that distributes LGBTQ-themed books to K-12 schools across the U.S., according to a Wednesday report from conservative nonprofit Consumers’ Research obtained by the Daily Caller News Foundation.

The initiative, titled the Rainbow Library, is run by national LGBTQ+ activist organization the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), and sends participating teachers books that push transgenderism and homosexuality onto kids as young as five, Consumers’ Research found. Over 8,100 schools in 33 states nationwide participate in the program.

“T.J. Maxx and Kia are pushing radical gender ideology on kids through their sponsorship of the GLSEN Rainbow Library, which promotes transgender ideology in classrooms across the country through books and recommended lesson plans for teachers,” Will Hild, executive director of Consumers’ Research, said in a statement to the DCNF. “By sponsoring organizations with a political activist agenda like GLSEN and the Rainbow Library, these companies are putting woke politics ahead of their consumers.”

A spokesperson for Kia denied in a statement that the auto company sponsored Rainbow Library in 2023 or 2024, but did not respond to further inquiries about why it was prominently displayed as a sponsor on GLSEN’s website.

One book distributed by Rainbow Library, “When Aidan Becomes a Brother,” tells the story of a black girl who comes out as “transgender” and “explore[s] different ways of being a boy.” GLSEN recommends the story as part of its lesson plan for second graders, according to the Rainbow Library website.

A 2023 Pew Research Center study found that nearly 70% of black Americans believe gender is assigned at birth.

Another book, this time intended for first graders, is called “My Rainbow,” and depicts a mother constructing a rainbow wig for her young transgender child. Yet another, entitled “When We Love Someone, We Sing To Them,” is meant for third graders and tells the story of a young boy singing to another young boy in order to confess his love to him.

When teachers request books from the Rainbow Library, they also receive a toolkit telling them how to facilitate children coming out as transgender, with GLSEN educator Michael Rady stating in a 2021 video uncovered by the DCNF that “when a teacher or a librarian rolls out the Rainbow Library in their location, students start coming out to them… [be]cause they see that adult as someone that they can trust.” The program also instructs educators to keep it “confidential” if a student comes out to them until they can determine if the child is supported by the adults in their life, in an apparent reference to the child’s parents.

The nonprofit’s website sponsors page identifies Kia and T.J. Maxx parent corporation TJX companies, which also owns retailers Marshalls, HomeGoods and Sierra, as its 2023-2024 “national partners that help make Rainbow Library possible.”

Target came under fire in May 2023 for its partnership with GLSEN, donating at least $2.1 million to the nonprofit over a 10-year period. Later that month, the National Education Association — the U.S.’ largest teachers union — pledged its support for GLSEN.

TJX Companies participates in the Human Rights Campaign’s (HRC) Corporate Equality Index, which assesses corporations based on their commitment to LGBTQ+ activism. The Human Rights Campaign, meanwhile, champions pediatric sex changes.

Facing pressure from conservative activist Robby Starbuck, a variety of corporations have rolled back diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives in recent months, including John Deere, Coors, Harley Davidson, Ford and Lowe’s.

Meanwhile, Republicans spent at least $215 million critiquing progressive “transgender” ideology during the 2024 election cycle, according to data from ad tracking firm AdImpact, with some Trump ads declaring, “Kamala is for they/them. President Trump is for you.”

“The recent Presidential election has indicated consumers do not want companies to continue to push radical left-wing ideology,” Hild told the DCNF in a statement. “There is a reckoning coming for companies who continue to put woke politicians and policies above consumers.”

Kia’s head of corporate communications, James Bell, denied the company had been a sponsor of the Rainbow Library in 2023 or 2024, despite the automaker being prominently displayed on the program’s sponsor page. When the DCNF sent multiple follow-up inquiries asking why Kia is listed as a “2023-2024 school year sponsor” if it did not sponsor the nonprofit in 2023 or 2024, Bell stopped responding.

Additionally, Bell’s initial response did not answer the majority of questions from the DCNF’s original inquiry, including when the company began funding the Rainbow Library and if the company supports pediatric sex change surgeries and hormonal treatments.

T.J. Maxx and GLSEN did not respond to the DCNF’s requests for comment.

AUTHOR

Owen Klinsky

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLES:

GLSEN: An Instrumental Organization Responsible For Infiltrating Schools With LGBT Ideology

Senators Demolish NCAA Boss for Trans Policy: ‘Why Don’t You Go to Amazon and Buy a Spine?’

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Trump Reportedly Looks To Privatize U.S. Postal Service

/in , , , , , , , /by

President-elect Donald Trump is reportedly looking to privatize the U.S. Postal Service (USPS), three people familiar with the matter told The Washington Post in a report published Sunday.

Trump has made known his desire to detach the USPS from the federal government in conversations at his Mar-a-Lago estate, sources informed the outlet, including with Howard Lutnick, his commerce secretary pick and co-chair of his presidential transition team.

In early December, Trump also talked with a group of transition team officials to feel out their opinions on privatizing the agency, one person told the outlet.

As mail volume declines for the Postal Service, the agency has reportedly lost $9.5 billion in the fiscal year ending on Sept. 30, The Washington Post reported.

The outlet expressed concern regarding the potential effect on e-commerce of privatizing the Postal Service, naming Amazon, whose executive chairman Jeff Bezos reportedly plans to donate $1 million to Trump’s inaugural fund. Jeff Bezos owns The Washington Post.

As the Christmas season of mailing cards and packages approaches, the USPS, which many view as inefficient, has become a potential target of the incoming president’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Although DOGE co-leaders Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy have yet to publicly call for the privatization of the agency, it falls in line with their mission.

Members of the DOGE panel have reportedly “held preliminary conversations about major changes to the Postal Service,” according to the Washington Post.

Privatization of the USPS has become a “prominent target” of federal cost-cutting as Republican lawmakers and Trump allies plan major reforms, the outlet noted.

Republican Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, the incoming chair of the DOGE subcommittee, said Friday on X that the USPS wasting money “has to stop.”

The Postal Service only received 93 Oshkosh trucks as part of the Biden-Harris administration’s multibillion dollar plan to give 60,000 electric vehicles to the federal agency in the name of climate change, the Washington Post reported Saturday.

The Postal Service was established roughly one year before the country in 1775. Benjamin Franklin was appointed as the first U.S. Postmaster General.

The Daily Caller reached out to the USPS and the Trump transition team for comment, but did not hear back.

AUTHOR

Julianna Frieman

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLE: Big Tech Company Follows Zuckerberg’s Example, Also Gives $1,000,000 To Trump Inaugural Fund

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.