Michael O'Sullivan
Ah, election season. During this holiday season, politicians suddenly have new ideas about how to make our lives better. This year, attention has been focused on our venerable American economy, which is currently in either good or bad shape, depending on who you ask. But it's election season, so voters have the final say and experts can surprise. That's why today we have Both Presidential candidates are proposing economic policies that have economists frowning and voters cheering.
A recent Wall Street Journal poll of the economic policy ideas of both campaigns provides a good illustration of the wide gap between experts and ordinary people. The Wall Street Journal asked 750 registered voters what they thought. They then commissioned the Clark Center at the University of Chicago to conduct interpretations by 39 “leading academic experts.” These policies include tax-free tips and Social Security income, tariffs on imported goods, price-gouging penalties, free money for first-time homebuyers or parents of newborns, and price caps on various pharmaceuticals.
Experts hate this approach because it goes against their preferred economic theory. However, the general public's frame of reference mainly comes from the reality of daily life, with an average of 63% agreeing. The sharpest contrast is tax cuts, with nearly 80% of voters in favor and about 90% of economists opposed. Makes you wonder if we live in a parallel universe.
At this point, much can be said about economic philosophy and the lessons of history. But instead, let's consider this: About half of the country votes conservative, which means they generally don't like big government. But according to the survey, about three-quarters of people all voters economic policies that are conducive to the more government spending. That means about half of conservative voters are willing to put their principles on hold to help people get through tough times.
I realize I'm playing too fast with the numbers, but it does look like a society in financial distress – relatively small numbers start to make sense for many families. Maybe that's why nearly 8 in 10 American adults are living paycheck to paycheck and more than 20 million households are behind on their utility bills. Here, even the most staunch Jeffersonian would be tempted to turn to Uncle Sam for help.
But we have that nasty one free lunch myth. Milton Friedman described it as “the belief that government can spend money in a certain way without sacrificing anyone.” It doesn’t take more advanced math to know that the relief that comes with more government spending only comes at the cost of more problems. The piper always gets paid.
But what if there was a way to help people? No More government spending? what if we could Give Some people don't do something first take Other people's money? This will undoubtedly bring tears of joy to ill-informed voters and enlightened pundits alike.
If 20 million households are behind on their utility bills, and many are living paycheck to paycheck, there must be many more households that are not behind on their utility bills but are still struggling. We know that average electricity bills in the United States have been rising steadily, up nearly 30% since 2019 alone. make a choice between.
So, here's an idea: What if we simply lowered the cost of electricity? It helps everyone and doesn't require more government (i.e. taxpayer) funds. It just requires governments to stop forcing a premature “transition” that will only make energy more expensive and unreliable.
If we want to get crazy, Uncle Sam could take some of the big money he has invested in wind and solar (neither of which are up to par) and invest it in something with a better return, like natural gas from a reliable source, price Cheap, reliable and pretty clean. Or maybe adding some chips to nuclear power would be safer and cleaner than you think. If Uncle Sam really cared about investment returns, he would rebalance his investment portfolio. At least it won't be like this new Expenditure – This will reduce energy costs faster.
Imagine if a presidential candidate stood up and said, “Everybody, listen — this is what we're going to do. We're going to put a few hundred dollars in everyone's pocket. Every month. Forever.
Please tell me the nearest polling place.
Michael O'Sullivan is Project Director and Chief Operating Officer blue energy countrya nonprofit dedicated to educating young people about energy realities. He is also a popular podcast host and advocate for smart energy choices.
This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and provided via RealClearWire.
Relevant
