In our latest Liberty Update we explain how Texas highlights the peril of the stubborn "green" energy…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
Image of the Day: "Green" Energy Hogs Taxpayer Subsidies

In our latest Liberty Update we explain how Texas highlights the peril of the stubborn "green" energy agenda.  Economist Stephen Moore continues his fantastic work by illustrating how "green" energy, not fossil fuels, irrationally hogs taxpayer subsidies:

[N]ow the left is recirculating its myth that fossil fuels require massive taxpayer subsidies. In psychology, this is called "projecting" - when you accuse someone else of deviant behavior that applies to yourself. In reality for every kilowatt of power generated, wind gets about 10 times more taxpayer subsidies and solar gets 50 to 100 times more handouts than fossil fuels":

 

[caption id="" align="alignleft" width="545"] "Green" Taxpayer Subsidy Hogs[/caption]…[more]

March 01, 2021 • 10:27 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.
'Defund the Police' and the Damage Done Print
By Byron York
Wednesday, November 18 2020
Now an incoming Democratic administration will include in its ranks the same variety of progressives who have done so much damage in Minneapolis and elsewhere.

Remember the debate over the meaning of the phrase "defund the police"? Repeated over and over on the progressive left, it seemed pretty clear  it meant that cities should no longer fund, and thus effectively abolish, their police forces. But some Democrats worried that embracing such a radical proposal might hurt them politically, so they suggested that it actually meant re-directing some, but not all, funds from police to things like mental health treatment and affordable housing. Nothing too radical.

Every time Democrats thought they had limited the political damage done by a literal interpretation of "defund the police," some progressive voice would mess it all up. For example, in June, The New York Times published an op-ed headlined, "Yes, We Mean Literally Abolish the Police." It meant what it said.

In the recent campaign, many Republicans sought to tie their Democratic opponents to efforts to defund the police. It drove House Democrats running in fairly conservative districts nuts. 

"The No. 1 concern that people brought to me in my race, that I barely won, was defunding the police," said Virginia Democratic Rep. Abigail Spanberger on a conference call with Speaker Nancy Pelosi. "And I've heard from colleagues who say, 'Oh, it's the language of the streets, we should respect that.' We're in Congress. We are professionals. We are supposed to talk about things in the way where we mean what we are talking about. If we don't mean we should defund the police, we shouldn't say that." Another House Democrat, Rep. Vicente Gonzalez of Texas, recently said it more succinctly: "Defund police, open borders, socialism  it's killing us."

But that's just politics. The tragic thing is, the cause of defunding the police is killing real people. Look at a new report in The Washington Post from Minneapolis, one of the nation's centers of anti-police activism: "Minneapolis violence surges as police officers leave department in droves."

"Homicides in Minneapolis are up 50 percent," the paper reported, "with 75 people killed across the city so far this year. More than 500 people have been shot, the highest number in more than a decade and twice as many as 2019. And there have been more than 4,600 violent crimes  including hundreds of carjackings and robberies  a five-year high."

Remember that on June 26, the Minneapolis City Council voted unanimously to abolish the city's police department and create something called the Department of Community Safety and Violence Prevention, which would provide "public safety services prioritizing a holistic, public health-oriented approach."

It was, to put it bluntly, a crazy idea. But that's what the council did. Since that time, the effort has faltered and all but collapsed. But the police got the message. Officers began retiring in record numbers. While the city has budgeted for 888 officers, more than 100 have retired this year  according to the Post, more than double the normal rate. More are in the process of leaving. The number of officers available to patrol the streets has decreased dramatically. And that means less response to reports of crime. And that means more crime.

"The police are not as much a presence as they used to be," one community activist told the Post, which added that "sometimes when neighbors call 911, officers are delayed in responding or don't come at all." Last week the police chief went to the city council to plead for more money. "Our city is bleeding," he said. "At this moment, I'm trying to do all I can to stop that bleeding."

Now  get this  the same council that voted unanimously to abolish the police force voted to give nearly $500,000 in emergency funding to allow for the hiring of temporary officers to get the city through the end of the year. After that, who knows what will happen.

The Minneapolis council is a case study of progressive Democratic governance in action. President Trump spent part of his campaign warning against it. He lost. Republican congressional candidates also warned against it and did better, although not well enough to win control of the House. Now an incoming Democratic administration will include in its ranks the same variety of progressives who have done so much damage in Minneapolis and elsewhere. That will be the new reality of the Biden administration.


Byron York is chief political correspondent for The Washington Examiner.
COPYRIGHT 2020 BYRON YORK

Question of the Week   
Which of the following is responsible for the planning and execution of the Inaugural Ceremonies of the President-elect and Vice President-elect of the United States?
More Questions
Quote of the Day   
 
"Two decades before being accused of misconduct against women while he was New York governor, a younger Andrew Cuomo was the subject of a sexual harassment complaint from a government official who claimed that Cuomo -- serving at the time in Bill Clinton's cabinet -- also hounded her with 'a series of attacks and dirty tricks.'Susan Gaffney filed the 2000 complaint against Cuomo while he was secretary…[more]
 
 
—Susan Katz Keating, Just the News Chief National Security Correspondent
— Susan Katz Keating, Just the News Chief National Security Correspondent
 
Liberty Poll   

California Governor Gavin Newsom and New York Governor Andrew Cuomo are entangled by multiple controversies, with serious calls for both to be removed from office. Which one is more likely to be removed?