"A socialist is likely to win the 2020 election. No, not Bernie Sanders."
By Catherine Rampell - Columnist covering economics, public policy, politics and culture
February 24 at 6:43 PM
"In some ways, in fact, Trump has proved himself a more successful socialist than Sanders is likely ever to be.
Many of Sanders’s core “socialist” agenda items, after all, are opposed by not only Republicans but also by moderate Democrats and even Democratic leadership. Trump, meanwhile, has brainwashed his supposedly free-market party into backing a command-and-control-style economy. When it’s commanded-and-controlled by Trump, anyway.
With nary a peep from his party, Trump has tried to prop up pet industries, such as coal, by government fiat. Indeed, other Republicans have since copied his strategy at the state level."
The command and control aspect of Trump makes him a worse threat than Bernie.
"Likewise, in a move that once would have had Republicans screaming bloody murder, Trump has slapped tariffs on virtually every major trading partner around the world to protect favored industries, such as steel. This not only failed to rejuvenate steel but also led to widespread retaliation, including tit-for-tat tariffs aimed at farm country, a key part of the Republican base."
Trump has told the DoD acquisition people how to award contracts by telling them to award to Microsoft, not Amazon.
A third farmer bailout is in his budget! SOCIALISM! The GOP raged against the auto bailout when Obama did it . . . Interesting hypocrisy, eh? The "Trump Bots" follow the Supreme Leader, the Dear Leader, their King in all he says and does.
"Conservatives, likewise, complain that Sanders and his socialist allies wish to bloat budget deficits. Under Trump, of course, this has already happened. The deficit in fiscal 2019 was a whopping 48 percent higher than it was in fiscal 2017, thanks to GOP policies. And while “Crazy Bernie” does intend to jack up tax rates to (partly) offset his spending, Trump has raised some taxes on Americans, too — he’s just done it more regressively, through taxes on imports rather than income.
Trump’s version of socialism soaks the poor, not the rich."
Trump proves MLK right that socialism is for the rich, rugged capitalism is for the poor.
Bernie needs to fight Trump on the definition of "Socialist" and he can win that argument.
Some see Bernie's plan for climate change repairs as possible, others do not. The Sanders climate fix is full of very difficult choices for certain.
"Bernie Sanders’s Green New Deal, explained"
The Vermont senator has finally put out his own plan to fight climate change. It’s big.
By Umair Irfan and Tara Golshan - on August 22, 2019 7:00 am
Bernie's plan has an aggressive, ambitious, almost silly time-line, and the cost is multi-TRILLIONS, ~$16.3 in fact. Is it a balanced plan, cost vs benefit?
"The plan generates money from various sources, including $6.4 trillion in revenue from selling energy via power marketing authorities, $2.3 trillion from income taxes from the new jobs created under the plan, and $1.2 trillion from reducing military expenses related to protecting oil shipping routes."
Is this going to get Congressional support?
"Sanders boldly claims his Green New Deal will “end unemployment” based on the sheer number of workers it will require; the campaign says their plan would create 20 million jobs. Currently roughly 6 million Americans are unemployed."
Every economist will tell you there is a number below which unemployment cannot go. I do not know if Bernie sees this or if the number has already been reached. We need to ask questions. Is this feasible? Do we really have enough breathing humans to employ? Will we need immigrants for this work?
"These jobs are closely tied to creating the green infrastructure required to reach 100 percent renewable energy for electricity and transportation and fully decarbonize. The plan lists jobs in:
Manufacturing, to build energy-efficient cars and boats
Energy efficiency retrofitting of homes
Renewable power plants to expand wind and solar power
Sustainable agriculture
Engineering, research, and development
The plan calls for a new version of the Civilian Conservation Corps, a Franklin D. Roosevelt-era public works program that put young unemployed men in the Great Depression to work doing forest management, flood control, conservation projects, and the development of state and national parks, forests, and historic sites."
Bernie needs to fight Trump on the definition of "Socialist" and he can win that argument.
"Bernie Sanders’s climate plan will take us nowhere"
By Editorial Board - August 25, 2019
Bernie needs bi-partisan support for his extreme plans. He cannot build it, and he is not really trying.
"As with practically every grandiose program Mr. Sanders proposes, we are left wondering what the democratic socialist would actually do as president. Nothing resembling his climate plan could pass Congress, even with a strong Democratic majority. Mr. Sanders typically retorts that he will lead a political revolution. But he will not change the fact that the nation is ideologically pluralistic."
Bernie wants to offer proven boondoggles like mass transit in America, fast trains. Trains are a non-starter, a DOA idea. You cannot force Americans onto mass transit ideas, they will not go.
"On climate policy, the key is to get the most bang for the nation’s buck. The task is so large that direct government spending on projects such as power plants is a recipe for unconscionable waste. Mr. Sanders’s promise to divert national wealth into proven boondoggles such as high-speed rail is another red flag."
We can be certain a stubborn Bernie Sanders has not real plan for climate change.
Fareed explains some details . . .
"Bernie Sanders’s magical thinking on climate change"
By Fareed Zakaria - Columnist focusing on foreign affairs, Columnist
February 13, 2020
"Under President Barack Obama, the United States reduced emissions more than any other country. It did it through many paths, but the biggest one was — fracking.
U.S. carbon emissions fell almost 15 percent from 2005 to 2016. According to Carbon Brief, the single largest cause was the shift from coal-fired power plants to natural gas ones, making up 33 percent of the reduction. Adoption of solar power accounted for 3 percent. (Natural gas has much lower rates of carbon emission than does coal. It also produces much less pollution than coal, saving thousands of lives in the United States every year.)
Nevertheless, Sanders is opposed to natural gas. He opposes all new fracking and seeks to ban it nationwide within five years. He also intends to rapidly shut down all gas plants.
Natural gas accounts for about 30 percent of the energy consumption in the United States today. Wind and solar are under 5 percent. So the plan would require an exponential jump in renewables — in just a few years."
This is an article which deserves our attention in full, meaning read it all.
"And even if that happened, it would be extremely difficult to replace gas as a source for electricity. Talk to any electric utility company and they will explain. Because solar and wind are intermittent sources, they require a backup source to provide electricity to homes, offices and factories 24/7. That raises the costs associated with solar and wind.
Sanders has a solution: storage. If we had the means to store electricity on a massive scale, such as batteries, there would be no need for backup power. But we are not even close to having the kind of storage capacity we would need to make this work. One example: The Clean Air Task Force, an energy policy think tank, calculated that for California to reach 100 percent electricity from renewables, it would need 36.3 million megawatt-hours of energy storage. It currently has 150,000 megawatt-hours of storage. In other words, the state would need to increase storage by 24,000 percent in a matter of years. Batteries are getting cheaper, but not quickly enough.
There is another path to clean energy, a source that has zero carbon emissions and provides a continuous flow of electricity: nuclear power. It generates about 20 percent of the electricity in the United States. It is the largest source of power in France and provides 40 percent of power in Sweden, two countries with carbon emission rates that are among the lowest per person in the industrialized world."
Alternative power has issues, current sources have issues, so how do we balance the costs vs benefits logically, reasonably, smartly?
"But Sanders opposes nuclear power. In fact, he plans to shut down all of the country’s nuclear power plants within 10 years. Fears about nuclear power, which Sanders clearly shares, are largely based on emotional reactions to the few high-profile accidents that have taken place over the past few decades. Such anxiety also ignores the millions of people who die each year because of fossil fuels. Our World in Data, an Oxford University publication, released a comprehensive accounting of the safest sources of energy, considering all harmful effects, including accidents. Nuclear energy was 250 times safer than oil and more than 300 times safer than coal.
Let me be clear. Natural gas and nuclear power have drawbacks and costs. There is no perfect energy solution on hand today. But I believe we do face a global emergency and need every means possible to reduce emissions — now. Not tomorrow, not in theory. Now."
Can Sanders help us reduce the impact of climate change by magic? Not if he loses, and it looks like not if he wins.
"The Sanders green energy “plan” is based on magical thinking. It presumes that we can reduce emissions in electricity and transport to zero in 10 years while simultaneously shutting down the only two low-emission, always-available sources of power that together provide nearly 60 percent of our country’s electricity. And that makes me wonder: Is the real problem that Sanders will lose — or that he might win? "
