Consumer spending accounts for approximately two-thirds of the U.S. economy, and this helpful chart…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
Shattering the Decade of "New Normal" Economic Sluggishness

Consumer spending accounts for approximately two-thirds of the U.S. economy, and this helpful chart from the U.S. Senate's Joint Economic Committee illustrates why our economy suddenly turbocharged over the past two years from its decade of sluggishness that we were told was the "new normal":

[caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="439" caption="Turbocharging the U.S. Consumer Economy"][/caption]…[more]

October 15, 2018 • 11:46 am

Liberty Update

CFIFs latest news, commentary and alerts delivered to your inbox.
Jester's CourtroomLegal tales stranger than stranger than fiction: Ridiculous and sometimes funny lawsuits plaguing our courts.
Climate Alarmism Hurting Consumers, Tax Cuts Already Helping Them Print
By Timothy H. Lee
Thursday, January 11 2018
So tax cuts, which Nancy Pelosi labeled 'Armageddon' and every climate activist from Al Gore to Michael Moore maligned as a handout to the rich, are actually providing immediate benefit to middle- and lower-income Americans.

In America and across the world, class warfare and climate alarmism constitute two core elements of the extreme left's agenda. 

Unfortunately for them, those two crusades increasingly stand in tension with one another. 

Specifically, the left's Quixotic agenda for fighting climate change ends up disproportionately harming the poor, who pay the heaviest price to sustain the global warmist agenda.   Conversely, the tax cuts they labeled "Armageddon" are already bringing relief. 

Across the U.S., extremely cold temperatures have dominated the past week's news cycle.  And like clockwork, the dean of discredited climate alarmists Al Gore rushed to attribute those dangerous freezing temperatures towait for itglobal warming. 

"It's bitter cold in parts of the US," Gore tweeted on January 4, "but climate scientist Dr. Michael Mann explains that's exactly what we should expect from the climate crisis." 

Perhaps we should mark it as progress that even Al Gore no longer uses the term "global warming," but instead joins his fellow alarmists in pivoting to the term "climate crisis" due to the accumulation of inconvenient truths debunking two decades of alarmist predictions. 

Regardless of their sloganeering, the tragic fact is that their activist agenda disproportionately harms the very people whom their class warrior agendaminimum wage advocacy, income inequality obsession, etc.purports to help. 

That's because their climate policies, such as "green energy" mandates, solar and wind regulations and limits on nuclear, oil and gas, make energy more costly. 

According to a new report from the International Energy Agency (IEA), which defines households as "energy poor" if they allocate at least 10% of their income to energy costs, over 30 million Americans already qualify as energy poor.  And any environmental policy that makes energy even slightly more costly only exacerbates that problem. 

For example, limits on drilling for natural gas or mining coal drive the cost of heating one's home higher.  Limits on drilling for oil, or regulations that make petroleum transportation more costly, drive up the cost of filling up one's car to get to work.  Meanwhile, taxpayer subsidies to such "green energy" sources as solar and wind, which are already less reliable and efficient than gas, coal and oil, disproportionately benefit wealthier consumers at the expense of poor and middle-income consumers. 

To illustrate that dynamic, consider Europe, where environmental policies such as even larger subsidies and more restrictive drilling and coal mining limitations have made consumer energy costs even higher than in the U.S. 

According to the IEA, fully 30% of Germans allocate at least 10% of their income to energy costs, while up to half of all Greeks qualify as "energy poor" under its definition.  In the United Kingdom, electricity costs have jumped 35% over the past decade, whereas incomes have only risen 4% during that same period. 

And keep in mind that income in those countries are already lower than Americans' median income. 

Meanwhile, here's another inconvenient truth for climate change alarmists and class warriors who falsely slurred Congressional tax reform legislation signed by President Trump. 

In Washington, D.C., one of the cities hardest-hit by the last week's freeze, power company Pepco just announced plans to pass tax savings to nearly 300,000 D.C. customers beginning this quarter: 

The tax savings are the result of federal tax reductions under the new Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which was signed into law on Dec. 22, 2017, and became effective on Jan. 1, 2018.  The decrease in the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent reduces the amount of federal income tax Pepco will have to pay. 

"The tax law will result in lower bills for our customers and lower taxes for Pepco," said Dave Velazquez, President and CEO, Pepco Holdings, which includes Pepco.  "We are pleased to provide these savings to our customers, while at the same time ensuring we are making prudent investments in the local power grid to maintain the safe, reliable, and affordable service our customers have come to expect." 

Ultimately, the Public Service Commission of the District of Columbia will determine how the tax benefits will be provided to customers. 

And Pepco is only one of many power companies across the region and the nation announcing upcoming rebates or reductions as a result of the tax reform bill. 

So tax cuts, which Nancy Pelosi labeled "Armageddon" and every climate activist from Al Gore to Michael Moore maligned as a handout to the rich, are actually providing immediate benefit to middle- and lower-income Americans.  Conversely, their climate alarmism agenda costs consumers more. 

Hopefully, more people both here in America and across the globe take note of that dynamic before even more unnecessary damage is done in the name of the climate crusade. 

Question of the Week   
Between 1946 and 2016, what percentage of U.S. Supreme Court decisions have split evenly (4-4)?
More Questions
Quote of the Day   
 
"With the confirmation of Justice Kavanaugh, for the first time in generations there is a majority of justices on the Supreme Court who, to varying degrees, practice originalism and textualism. This means that the Court can systematically begin to restore the Constitution to its original meaning. This constitutional restoration does not mean that the Constitution's original meaning is the best choice…[more]
 
 
—John Yoo and James C. Phillips
— John Yoo and James C. Phillips
 
Liberty Poll   

During a campaign season, particularly one as intense as the current midterm cycle, do you respond to telephone political polling?