Category Archives: News

Democrat Congresswoman calls for 70% tax rate to fund complete overhaul of energy production and usage

Cost of renewable wind and solar energy
Cost of renewable wind and solar energy

A top Democrat Congresswoman has announced her plan to convert all American businesses and individuals away from low-cost energy production (natural gas, etc.) to high-cost “green” energy sources.  The new government spending will require a tax rate of 70%, which means you (or your employer) will be taking home 30% of what they work for. Let’s look at the consequences of this plan.

Here is the report from Daily Signal:

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is ready to tax the rich to make her Green New Deal a reality.

“People are going to have to start paying their fair share in taxes,” the recently elected New York Democrat told TV show “60 Minutes” in an interview set to air Sunday.

Speaking of prior decades’ taxation rates in the country, Ocasio-Cortez added, “Once you get to the tippy tops, on your 10 millionth dollar, sometimes you see tax rates as high as 60 or 70 percent.”

What is this money for? To convert all existing energy production away from low-cost energy sources:

Among its goals are meeting “100 percent of national power” demand through renewable sources, retrofitting “every residential and industrial building for state-of-the-art energy efficiency, comfort, and safety,” and eliminating “greenhouse gas emissions from the manufacturing, agricultural, and other industries.”

Those changes are going to come with real costs. According to an editorial for Investor’s Business Daily, moving the economy away from fossil fuels to 100 percent renewable energy will come “at a cost of about $5.2 trillion over 20 years.”

You’ll be paying more for energy usage. And what’s more, your EMPLOYER will be paying more for energy usage, which means that a lot of people will be losing their jobs in order to make ends meet.

Even if we’re willing to shoulder the costs, it’s, well, impossible to achieve.

“Producing 100 percent of electricity from renewable sources is a practical impossibility in the near future,” stated a report issued by the Senate Republican Policy Committee in December.

Keep in mind that Ocasio-Cortez also wants to spend another $32 trillion over 10 years nationalizing the health care industry and turning it into an expensive single payer scheme. In Canada, single payer health care costs the average family about $11,000 in taxes, and they get inferior health care (long wait times, lower success rates for cancer / disease treatments, etc.). In 2018, the entire federal budget was $4 trillion. Adding $3.2 trillion (for single payer health care) and $0.52 trillion (for green energy total makeover) will DOUBLE the current budget, and give us $5 trillion dollar annual deficits. The entire national debt is currently $22 trillion, and we’d be adding $5 trillion per year to it. Interest payments on the debt would quickly take over the budget, blocking out all other spending.

Three points

I want to make three points about this.

First, even if we take every penny from “the tippy top” producers in America, we can’t afford a fraction of what all these big government programs will cost. In 2011, the Tax Foundation explained that even if you taxed ALL THE INCOME from all the people who make $200,000 or more, you would only raise $1.53 trillion dollars. We have to come up with $5 trillion annually to cover all this spending.

In any case, the rich are already paying “their fair share of taxes”:

The highest earners already pay the most taxes
The highest earners already pay the most taxes

Half the country doesn’t pay income tax at all, and that’s only going to increase because Democrats keep importing uneducated, unskilled immigrants.

Secondly, raising the tax rates does not guarantee that you will get more money from the people you are taxing. The same person who works 70-hour weeks in order to keep 70% of the $200,000 they earn will not work as hard if you only let them keep 30% of the $200,000 they earn. What will they do instead? Well, they can leave the country. They can hide their income by moving into the underground economy. They can downsize their business by laying off young, inexperienced workers. But most likely, they will just take a break, and reduce the amount of hours, so that they work normal hours in an easy job.

Raising tax rates just causes people to work less and pay less
Raising tax rates just causes people to work less and pay less

Democrats are the party of slavery, so they think that they can enslave people and those people will keep working. It’s not true. People are not slaves, and if you take most of what they earn, they they will stop working. I would personally quit my job and scale down to a regular job if someone raised my taxes over the 30% I pay right now.

Third, U.S. emissions already way down under Trump, because one of the first things he did was deregulate the energy industry, setting them free to innovate. Surprise! If the American people decides that pollution is a problem, then private sector businesses are going to have to solve that problem, since they can only profit by pleasing their customers. The American energy businesses were able to come up with innovative drilling techniques to extract natural gas, with virtually zero impact on the environment.

The Washington Times explains:

The Environmental Protection Agency announced Wednesday that U.S. greenhouse gas emissions dropped by 2.7 percent last year, the first year of the Trump presidency, even as the administration slashed environmental regulations and global emissions continued to climb.

The United States has cut carbon emissions more than any other country on the planet, despite not taking part in socialist climate accords:

Carbon emissions have declined more than any other country
United states carbon emissions have declined more than any other country

The problem with Democrat like Ocasio-Cortez is that don’t see how allowing businesses to innovate can lead to solutions to problems like carbon emissions. And that’s because they don’t have any serious experience in the private sector solving problems for customers in exchange for their money.

I hope everyone understands that the truth about Ocasio-Cortez is very different from the image that she portrays. She likes to present herself as “Alex from the Bronx”. But the truth is that she grew up in Yorktown Heights, which is over 80% white, with an average household income of $116,741 a year. Her father was an architect and partner in an architecture firm. She attended the prestigious Boston University, which currently charges $70,000 a year for tuition. She interned with former Democrat Senator Ted Kennedy. And the reason she likes socialism is because she failed to get a job in the field she was educated in. She was working as a bartender until age 29. She spent a quarter million on her education, and didn’t use it. And that spectacular failure of a woman is now deciding how the earnings of people far more educated and successful than she is will be spent. I want nothing to do with her.

Stephen C. Meyer and Doug Axe discuss 5 major problems with macro-evolution

Undeniable: How Biology Confirms Our Intuition That Life Is Designed
Undeniable: How Biology Confirms Our Intuition That Life Is Designed

The host of the Cross Examined radio show Dr. Frank Turek talks with Stephen C. Meyer and Doug Axe about a recent conference of Royal Society scientists discussing the problems with the theory of macro-evolution.

The MP3 file is here.

Summary:

  • about the Royal Society conference
  • the main topic was whether naturalistic mechanisms can produce new body plans and new organ types
  • no one disputes micro-evolution: beaks changing size, antibiotic resistance
  • many of the naturalistic scientists admitted the problems with current naturalistic theories, but they don’t want to embrace the need for a designer
  • none of the proposals that were debated solved the real problems with macro-evolution
  • Problem #1: the sudden origin of body plans in the fossil record
  • Problem #2: the origin of information (e.g. – in protein molecule)
  • Problem #3: need for favorable early mutations (for body plans)
  • Problem #4: the problem of epigenetics
  • Problem #5: the universality of the design intuition

Some of these problems have actually gotten worse for naturalistic evolution as our scientific knowledge has grown.

If you want the two best books on intelligent design, get Dr. Meyer’s “Signature in the Cell” and “Darwin’s Doubt”. I should note that Dr. Meyer is not a young Earth creationist, and has defended the Big Bang cosmology as a solid evidence for a Creator of the universe. Being in favor of an old universe and an old Earth is compatible with being opposed to evolution – because of scientific reasons.

Feminist presents sophisticated arguments for abortion to elite scholars in rigorous academic debate

Abortion rights activist takes on pro-life doctors in formal academic debate
Abortion rights activist takes on pro-life doctors in formal academic debate

I love to watch formal academic debates, with timed speeches, where scholars with published work get to interact with one another. Even if my side loses, I learn something, because I learn what I can and cannot press in a discussion with the other side. Debates between scholars helps me to tolerate listening quietly to people I disagree with. All good things.

But not everyone agrees with me about this. Some people just prefer to present their views to those who are easily manipulated and uncritical, so that they will change their minds because of stories and feelings, instead of reason and evidence.

Here’s a story about it from Life News:

Have you seen the video going around about kids meeting someone who is post-abortive? The video does not talk about the psychological consequences of having an abortion, or talk about how to help women and families who are post-abortive heal from their abortion. No, it normalizes abortion so that 10 and 11-year-olds grow up to think taking an innocent human life is okay–and that no one ever regrets their abortion.

And the actual video:

I noticed that Nathan Apodaca wrote a reasonable response to the content of the video, over at Human Defense initiative.

He writes:

The most common theme in the entire video is the host’s avoidance of the real issue: Can we kill the preborn? What is the preborn?

[…]The problem with the video is the spokeswoman for “Shout Your Abortion,” along with several of the teenagers in the piece, constantly do what philosopher Francis Beckwith aptly calls “Begging the question”; that is, they assume what they should be trying to prove.

Consider the first few conversations. We (the audience) are told indirectly that sometimes mistakes happen, that people can’t afford a child, and other issues influence the decision to get an abortion.

Poverty is obviously a problem, along with people who think they will not be able to afford a child, but a question never gets asked: why stop with abortion to alleviate these problems? Why not allow parents to kill their newborns and toddlers as well to alleviate any problems that may arise? The answer is most assuredly a firm “No, that’s different.”

Ah, but that is the question! Why are the preborn so different we may kill them if we so please? This never seems to occur to anyone in the video, but it does raise a further question which deserves an answer: if the preborn are also human, just like babies and toddlers, should we really be killing them, or should we protect them, just like toddlers and newborns?

OK, this is important.

In the debate over atheism, I always advise you to disregard everything that anyone says until we get the atheist to come to terms with the evidence for the origin of the universe and the fine-tuning – mainstream science. The same thing is the case with the abortion debate. I don’t want to hear any sob-stories about poor people, and so on, until I get a scientific answer to the question “what is the unborn?” Let’s decide what’s true based on what mainstream science tells us.

And guess what? Just like the atheism debate, mainstream science is completely on our side. The same rigorous experimental science that establishes the beginning of the universe, and the fine-tuning of the universe for life, also establishes that a new living human being is created at the moment of conception, with a different DNA signature than either the mother or the father. It’s a new human being! And this is the scientific view – the same view you see in textbooks on human development. (Lots of citations in that PDF, you should download it and share it – it came from the lady that Trump just appointed to the National Science Board)

But it’s not just science textbooks that agree that abortion takes the life of an unborn child, even pro-abortion scholars concede that, as Nathan explains:

Something else Amelia and her interviewees miss is the many times supporters of abortion have called abortion for what it is: the intentional killing of an innocent human being.

There are three separate links to citations by abortion defenders in that citation.

Another important point is that abortion defenders always point to something that unborn children can’t do, and use that as the basis for excluding them. But the truth is that their criteria excludes a lot of other people:

[…][O]ne of the teenagers makes the off-the-cuff remark that “Like your arm is incapable of complex thought, a baby in the womb isn’t, either.”

No one bothers to defend this view though, and it is just asserted as if it settles the debate. The problem is, so what? Why does complex thought grant us a protection against being intentionally killed, instead of being protected because we are human in the first place? He never expands on this concept.

And how much complex thought is necessary in order to be protected from being killed? We never get an explanation. Some people, like the sleeping, the mentally ill, and someone in a medically induced coma may happen to not be capable at a given point in time to exercise complex thought; but it seems ludicrous to think they can be justifiably excluded from the community of human beings with a right to not be killed.

I have a whole post about the different criteria that pro-abortion people use to exclude the unborn from the right to life, and in every case, they end up excluding other people who even they would admit have the right to life.

The argument that seems to be the most convincing to the children is the “pro-lifers are stinky poopyheads” argument, also known as the ad hominem fallacy in formal logic.

Nathan responds:

This claim is a flat out lie, and is painfully obvious to anyone paying the slightest bit of attention. Pro-lifers regularly step up to help those in need. In north San Diego county alone, there are more pro-life resource centers for women (and men) in need than abortion clinics. In my own hometown, Escondido, two pro-life pregnancy resource centers provide healthcare to those who need it. There are even pro-lifers opening up housing and adoption referrals for women who choose to keep their babies, but are homeless and in need of a place to stay. “Shout Your Abortion”, the organization the host represents, does none of this, and doesn’t help women who decide not to have an abortion find support.

[…]This isn’t all. Consider the following: groups and affiliates like the Obria Group, CareNet, LifeLine, Heartbeat International, and the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA) connect people in need to thousands of care centers; many of whom operate with no tax dollars or government subsidies whatsoever.

Slave owners used similar “arguments” against abolitionists who didn’t like them owning slaves: calling them names, to make other people not want to oppose slavery. Well, I guess if your audience is a bunch of children, then this might be persuasive to them.

How well is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s socialism working out in socialist Venezuela?

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has some ideas about proper economic policy
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez says Socialism loves you, and has a wonderful plan for your life

Well, it looks like young people are getting more and more exciting about the prospect of voting in socialism. We have a $22 trillion debt, we’re running $1 trillion plus deficits, and now’s the time for the government to take over the economy and give everybody free everything!!! Well, trouble is, that’s actually been tried… in Venezuela.

The Daily Wire reports:

Once considered the wealthiest country in Latin America, Venezuela has become a socialist hellhole where girls as young as 14 are selling their bodies in exchange for a few bucks a “service” and heterosexual men are prostituting themselves out on the gay sex market. These desperate souls are trying to escape the economic policies advocated here in United States by the Left’s increasingly mainstream Bernie Sanders/Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wing.

A Fox News report from journalist Hollie McKay exposed the socialism-induced horror show on the trail from Venezuela to neighboring Colombia. “Thousands upon thousands of Venezuelans pour into Colombia over the crowd cross-country bridge, their faces gaunt, carrying little more than a backpack. Rail-thin women cradle their tiny babies, and beg along the trash-strewn gutters. Teens hawk everything from cigarettes to sweets and water for small change,” McKay reports.

Malnourished girls and women are selling anything they can, including their bodies, breast milk, and hair, to survive, reports McKay. Females as young as 14 are receiving a reported seven dollars on average “per service”; a woman’s hair might be sold in exchange for a measly $10-30.

And as desperate Venezuelans hand over their papers and identification to “pimp types,” sex trafficking has become the norm. Men are selling themselves, too: straight men, some being trafficked, are performing gay sex acts in exchange for money.

Well, is it really that bad to let strangers with STDs rape you in exchange for food? That sounds like a sex-positive socialist paradise to me!

But wait! There’s more socialist paradise:

Last year, The Daily Beast reported that starving Venezuelans had resorted to killing pets and zoo animals for food while dictator Nicolas Maduro and his fellow chubby elites maintained access to everything they need. “One morning in August at the metropolitan zoo in the torrid city of Maracaibo, workers were shocked to find the bones of a buffalo and some wild pigs inside their cages with clear signs of mutilation. Thieves allegedly stole the meat to eat what they could and sell the rest on the local market,” said the report.

Back in Venezuela, suicide is up, particularly with children and teens, health care is basically nonexistent since an estimated 55% of the nation’s medical professionals have fled the country, and at least 70% of the population are estimated to be suffering from acute malnutrition and starvation.

Wow, talk about animal rights. They’re so far ahead of us that they stopped keeping animals in cages! Yay, animal rights. And think of how good all these suicides are for the overpopulation problem? Venezuela has global warming on the run. After all, dead people can’t drive cars and emit greenhouse gasses. Everything is awesome when socialists rule. We should definitely elect people who want us to be like Venezuela. And Cuba. And North Korea.

Related posts

Study: raising children without a father causes harm to the children

Lets take a closer look at a puzzle
Lets take a closer look at a puzzle

I thought it might be a good idea to take a look at a recent research paper on father absence. My purpose in posting this study is to remind people to think about what children need when making relationship decisions. Fathers are more of a necessity for children than a nice-to-have.

The paper about a large-scale study was posted at NCBI NIH.

The abstract says:

The literature on father absence is frequently criticized for its use of cross-sectional data and methods that fail to take account of possible omitted variable bias and reverse causality. We review studies that have responded to this critique by employing a variety of innovative research designs to identify the causal effect of father absence, including studies using lagged dependent variable models, growth curve models, individual fixed effects models, sibling fixed effects models, natural experiments, and propensity score matching models. Our assessment is that studies using more rigorous designs continue to find negative effects of father absence on offspring well-being, although the magnitude of these effects is smaller than what is found using traditional cross-sectional designs. The evidence is strongest and most consistent for outcomes such as high school graduation, children’s social-emotional adjustment, and adult mental health.

I was curious to see what specific problems fatherlessness causes for children, according to this redo of previous studies.

The conclusion explains:

The body of knowledge about the causal effects of father absence on child well-being has grown during the early twenty-first century as researchers have increasingly adopted innovative methodological approaches to isolate causal effects. We reviewed 47 such articles and find that, on the whole, articles that take one of the more rigorous approaches to handling the problems of omitted variable bias and reverse causality continue to document negative effects of father absence on child well-being, though these effects are stronger during certain stages of the life course and for certain outcomes.

We find strong evidence that father absence negatively affects children’s social-emotional development, particularly by increasing externalizing behavior. These effects may be more pronounced if father absence occurs during early childhood than during middle childhood, and they may be more pronounced for boys than for girls. There is weaker evidence of an effect of father absence on children’s cognitive ability.

Effects on social-emotional development persist into adolescence, for which we find strong evidence that father absence increases adolescents’ risky behavior, such as smoking or early childbearing. The evidence of an effect on adolescent cognitive ability continues to be weaker, but we do find strong and consistent negative effects of father absence on high school graduation. The latter finding suggests that the effects on educational attainment operate by increasing problem behaviors rather than by impairing cognitive ability.

The research base examining the longer-term effects of father absence on adult outcomes is considerably smaller, but here too we see the strongest evidence for a causal effect on adult mental health, suggesting that the psychological harms of father absence experienced during childhood persist throughout the life course. The evidence that father absence affects adult economic or family outcomes is much weaker. A handful of studies find negative effects on employment in adulthood, but there is little consistent evidence of negative effects on marriage or divorce, on income or earnings, or on college education.

Despite the robust evidence that father absence affects social-emotional outcomes throughout the life course, these studies also clearly show a role for selection in the relationship between family structure and child outcomes. In general, estimates from IFE, SFE, and PSM models are smaller than those from conventional models that do not control for selection bias. Similarly, studies that compare parental death and divorce often find that even if both have significant effects on well-being, the estimates of the effect of divorce are larger than those of parental death, which can also be read as evidence of partial selection.

Right now, we’re living in a time where people think that it’s ok to do whatever they feel like doing. People seem to treat relationships as if they are meant to provide the grown-ups with satisfaction, and the needs of the children are often neglected. Any kind of warning or appeal to evidence is dismissed by those who want to bend and break the rules.

Well, when you take a look at the studies, you actually find that there are rules about how to go about relationships in order to achieve results. It seems to me that children’s needs ought to be an important consideration when making relationship decisions. Men shouldn’t have babies with bad mothers, and women shouldn’t have babies with bad fathers. It ought to be an important criterion for choosing a mate and conducting a relationship: are we making decisions protecting children and giving them what they need?

And it turns out that there are studies that tell you how to prepare for making a stable commitment, too. Like this one, which found that the number of premarital sex partners reduces relationship stability and quality. This is just an example, there are many more studies that provide a lot more information about how to do things right.

I think today, people want to make decisions about what to do based on feelings. If it feels good, do it. But this approach doesn’t work anywhere in life. It doesn’t work when choosing a major, when choosing a job, when choosing how to spend money. It just never works. Nothing useful is ever achieved by putting feelings above reason and evidence.

People shouldn’t be surprised when they break the rules and then get negative outcomes. It just takes a little reading first to find out what is likely to work and what isn’t. There are real victims to bad decisions. There are mistakes that can’t be fixed with happy talk and a positive attitude. We seem to have gotten addicted to the idea that every damaging mistake can be fixed by making everyone around say happy words about the mistake. But the truth is that when you make bad decisions, the damage exists independently of what people say about it.

It’s not the mean people making moral judgments that causes fatherless kids to have higher anxiety or be more violent or get pregnant earlier or abuse drugs. It’s the fatherlessness. The only hope that children have to avoid the consequences of bad decisions by parents is for the moral people to set boundaries and teach moral wisdom with evidence.