From realistic climatologist Bjorn Lomborg, writing in The Wall Street Journal this week, a jarring…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
Statistic of the Day: Going Carbon-Free Would Cost Every American $11,300 PER YEAR

From realistic climatologist Bjorn Lomborg, writing in The Wall Street Journal this week, a jarring analysis of the cost of imposing the Biden/Pelosi/Schumer/AOC carbon-free "Green New Deal" agenda for every American annually:

 

A new study in Nature finds that a 95% reduction in American carbon emissions by 2050 will annually cost 11.9% of U.S. gross domestic product. To put that in perspective: Total expenditure on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid came to 11.6% of GDP in 2019. The annual cost of trying to hit Mr. Biden’s target will rise to $4.4 trillion by 2050. That’s more than everything the federal government is projected to take in this year in tax revenue. It breaks down to $11,300 per person per year, or almost 500 times more than what a majority of Americans…[more]

October 15, 2021 • 12:33 PM

Liberty Update

CFIFs latest news, commentary and alerts delivered to your inbox.
Dear Liberals: Income Isn’t “Distributed,” It’s Earned Print
By Timothy H. Lee
Thursday, April 14 2011
In the real world, every dollar redistributed by government must first be removed from the private productive sector via taxes or borrowing.

Of all the canards nurtured by liberals, perhaps the most corrosive is their persistent reference to income as “distributed” or “taken.” 

What explains that bizarre mindset?  It’s as if liberals believe in some sort of mystical, heartless roulette wheel in the sky that arbitrarily “distributes” cash from a massive pile to various powerless dependents. 

But that isn’t how it works.  Wealth isn’t “distributed.”  It is earned.  And if someone wants more of it, then nobody is stopping them from going out and actually earning it instead of wailing that they want more “distributed” to them. 

Of course, the entire fallacy serves a dual role for liberals.  It simultaneously clouds their understanding of basic economic principles, while also serving as a tool to advance their grievance agenda.  Stated differently, it leads them to pursue counterproductive social policies, and it in turn constitutes a tool to mislead others into supporting those policies. 

For example, think of the “stimulus,” and the strangely resilient liberal notion that it somehow paved a path to economic recovery.  If one is under the illusion that some enormous stash of dollars sits idly in the sky simply waiting to be plucked, then it naturally follows that federal bureaucrats can simply reach up and benevolently “distribute” those dollars to a helpless populace.  You know, snag a few dollars floating around unused, build a bridge to nowhere or hire another census worker to double-count homeless people, and voila – you have economic “stimulus.” 

But that obviously isn’t how things work.  In the real world, every dollar redistributed by government must first be removed from the private productive sector via taxes or borrowing. 

That’s why it’s so astonishing to hear the Obama Administration and liberals stubbornly contend that the “stimulus” created jobs, as if dollars recycled by the inefficient machine that is the federal government didn’t mean fewer dollars for job creation in the private economy.  Give us a trillion dollars, they promised in a February 2009 White House memorandum, and we’ll cap unemployment at 8% in October 2009 and have it down to 6.5% by today.  Instead, unemployment rose above 10%, remained above 9% for a post-World War II record number of consecutive months and still stands at almost 9%. 

In comparison, Ronald Reagan’s agenda aimed to create wealth rather than recklessly “distribute” it.  The result?  In the same two-year period as Obama’s “stimulus,” unemployment plummeted from 10.4% to 7.2% following the effective date of Reagan’s tax cuts in January 1983.  Economic growth exploded, whereas today it plods along lethargically.  The real-world results speak volumes. 

The notion that income is “distributed” also allows liberals to wage a dishonest campaign of envy and class warfare.  As Obama unveiled his latest budget proposal this week – how many versions does that make, anyway? – he predictably played the class warfare card by demonizing “the wealthiest 2%.” 

But here’s what Obama didn’t say.  The so-called “rich” actually pay more in income taxes than their proportional income.  According to the most recent IRS data, the top 1% earned 20% of the nation’s income but paid 38% of all income taxes.  The top 5% earned 35% of the nation’s income but paid 59% of the nation’s income taxes, which means the top 5% pays more income taxes than the remaining 95% combined.  The top 10% earned 46% of the nation’s income, but paid 70% of American income taxes, and the top 25% earned 67% of income but paid 86% of income taxes.  The bottom 50% paid just 3% of income taxes, while earning 13% of income. 

Obama also didn’t mention that most small businesses, which create the majority of new jobs in America, are also taxed as “individuals” under our tax code.  Worse, most small business income would fall victim to Obama’s proposal to “tax the rich,” meaning fewer dollars for job creation. 

Unless and until we elect officials who understand that wealth is created rather than “distributed,” our current state of political acrimony and inferior economic growth will persist.  And the sooner American voters coalesce around that reality, the sooner we’ll return to maximal prosperity. 

Quiz Question   
What is the estimated current real monthly dollar cost of inflation on basic needs to average American households?
More Questions
Notable Quote   
 
"Just as inflation can cause more inflation, one of the biggest drivers of today's budget deficits are yesterday's budget deficits. The federal government is currently spending more than half a trillion dollars a year on interest payments for money borrowed in the past -- money that already has been spent. That's more than we spend on any cabinet agency except the Department of Defense -- and the…[more]
 
 
—Kevin D. Williamson, Author and Roving Correspondent for National Review
— Kevin D. Williamson, Author and Roving Correspondent for National Review
 
Liberty Poll   

Which is the current greatest day-to-day concern to your family?