A Center-Right Response to Climate Change

“And I’m like, ‘You try! You do it’,” Ocasio-Cortez exclaimed. “‘Cause you’re not. ‘Cause you’re not. So, until you do it, I’m the boss. How ’bout that?”  – Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez 

The Freshman Congresswoman laid down the gauntlet to her critics after vocal bipartisan criticism surfaced. The official details of the proposal have been taken down, so it is possible, if not likely, that the key bullet points have changed. Ignoring the more dubious items like cow flatulence and ending airplane traffic that spawned a litany of viral memes, there are opportunities to make meaningful changes to combat climate change that a broad coalition of voters can get behind. To responsibly address climate change, we must address the economic costs and opportunities for working and middle-class citizens to transition and embrace green alternatives via taxes, free market principles and access, and cost-efficient technologies.

In 2010, President Obama attempted to push a carbon tax bill through Congress. At the time, it faced broad opposition due to new taxes and energy costs consumers/taxpayers would be forced to absorb. The idea, in that form, would be traded and sold as a Wall Street commodity, and not something average Americans would benefit from. Taxing carbon emissions disproportionately affects lower-income constituents because, for the most part, they cannot afford most new technologies. Energy-efficient refrigerators and fuel-efficient hybrids are not realistic purchases for people living paycheck-to-paycheck. To make carbon taxes remotely plausible, there needs to be a revenue-neutral offset for sales and income tax rates so that taxpayers are not out additional income. If the tax burden is not revenue neutral, the burden will be indirectly shouldered by the lowest income bracket. But, if income and other tax rates are offset, and taxpayers can potentially come out ahead by taking the initiative, you create the opportunity for meaningful change of habits that benefit our environment. Using the LEED Certifications from the US Green Building Council, we can propose several tax incentives that most taxpayers can readily qualify for that are both green and fiscally responsible.

First, we should provide meaningful tax breaks for property owners based on the energy efficiency of their buildings. When construction jobs are applying for LEED certification, one of the main focal points is the level of energy efficiency. Creating the incentive for homeowners or landlords to improve the energy efficiency of their property through insulation and other materials lowers energy costs and carbon output. These incentives can also apply to renters living in energy efficient complexes.

Second, we should provide tax breaks on the use of local raw materials and hydrologically efficient vegetation. This cuts down on the transportation costs for shipping materials, and it lowers water bills. The reality is most people want to be environmentally-friendly, but the dedication to this cause is directly related to the additional costs associated with this.

The dirty little secret about most environmental policies is the companies and industries that most environmental activists target are strong supporters of most climate change policies. Corporations like Exxon Mobil, Dow Chemical, General Electric, and hundreds more were all sponsors and supporters of the Paris Climate Accord. The biggest misnomer of the entire debate is these corporations are actively opposing these agreements. In most cases, these corporations are equipped for these policy changes, and are more interested in protecting their market share of their industry. This presents an opportunity to remove industrial barriers that prevent startup companies from entering the market place. Our capitalistic system is built on the competition. Removing the barriers of entry into the industries where customers have choices will spur new innovations. There is a market demand for cleaner technologies, and the only way to feed this demand is to remove the bureaucratic red tape that keeps these products from reaching the marketplace.

We live in an era of constant technological breakthroughs: smartphones, drones, video game consoles that function as entertainment hubs. Through universal Wi-fi access and 4G technologies, you can use an app to access, communicate, or purchase anything you want with a simple click of the button. The app’s viability is completely dependent on the convenience and affordability it provides. Leveraging this mentality is the key to making incremental, sustainable progress for combating climate change. Most people, regardless of party affiliation, will choose the greenest alternative if it is cost-competitive. In the last 15 years, we witnessed an explosion of green cost-competitive products, which lead to the average American having a smaller carbon footprint each year. To continue this trend, it is important to free up our markets so that new ideas and new businesses can enter and compete to make the fundamental changes that we need. 

This article was originally published on 1 March 2019.

Similar Read: Human Extinction (Brought to You by Capitalism)

Luke’s Consciousness from Night 1 of the Debates

My thoughts… 

Instead of 2 nights of 10 candidates, they should move to 4 nights of 5 candidates. Too many candidates on one stage muddles the message and it feels more like a spelling bee or an 80s dating show. People committed to watching two nights will watch four. 

Single-payer is the dividing line for the party and candidates. Removing the option for private policies is the sticking point.

Elizabeth Warren does not want to be labeled as raising taxes on the middle-class by supporting Medicare for All, even though the sponsor, Bernie Sanders, says it will require an increase in taxes. 

Kudos to Jake Tapper for making each candidate answer about raising middle-class taxes. 

Beto is trying the Goldilocks approach, but it appears he is provoking both sides instead of uniting them.

Bernie has the healthcare debate cornered in this debate. He will say what others won’t and it shows he is the most comfortable saying it.

Delaney has the policy that is most likely to get through both Houses of Congress, but he is likely to become the Dems John Kasich – possible crossover support, but will not find a receptive audience in a segmented primary. 

The red-state/blue-state Dems divide when it comes to public health care for illegal immigrants. Red-state Dems have had to appeal to Trump-leaning voters, and they view Trump’s landmines very differently. 

Steve Bullock is extremely uncomfortable answering questions about gun violence. Red-state Dems do NOT want to answer questions about guns and are hiding behind changing issues. 

Based on the answers provided on climate change, immigration, and health care, President Obama is a borderline blue dog Democrat. 

These candidates throw out the term ‘trillions’ like Oprah with new cars. 

Tim Ryan, Bullock, Hickenlooper, and Delaney are running for the Hillary 2008 voters, who turned to Trump. Bernie, Warren, Buttigieg, and Beto are running for the Obama 2008 voters. It’s Midwest blue-collar working-class union voters versus coastal cosmopolitan upscale liberals. 

Buttigieg is what Beto was supposed to be. Beto had the perfect foil in Ted Cruz, he doesn’t have that luxury in a large primary. 

Watching an entirely White stage debate reparations was interesting because most of the candidates were not comfortable discussing it. 

Delaney embraced TPP! I never expected to see a presidential candidate do that, especially since Trump opposes it too. Delaney has fully embraced the DLC mantle, but that group has not been relevant for more than a decade. He has potential to get Never-Trump former Republicans. 

It will be interesting to see how effective Warren, Sanders, and Biden will be able to combat the potential issue of ageism. 

Warren and Sanders elevated themselves from the rest of the stage when it comes to seizing the progressive mantle. They need to face Biden in the next debate. Delaney has unabashedly seized the moderate mantle. It will get him new donors, but being the moderate candidate has too low of a ceiling to win. Klobuchar reminds me of another former MN presidential candidate, Tim Pawlenty. Solid resume, but in a giant field, she won’t have the dedicated support to make a dent. Beto won’t make it to the Iowa caucus. Buttigieg is a wildcard. He has potential, but he doesn’t have the stage presence Warren or Sanders command. 

Similar Read: Luke’s Consciousness From Night 2 of the Debates

Trump’s Tax Bill Might Destroy the Middle-Class

Inside the numbers… According to a recent WSJ Poll, only 24% of Americans believe this is tax bill is a good idea and 41% think it’s a bad idea; 63% of Americans think it’s designed for corporations and the wealthy, and only 7% think it’s designed for the middle-class, which has been a Republican talking point over the past few weeks.

As this recent poll states, this tax plan is highly unpopular.

Without going into grave policy detail… this tax plan will absolutely benefit corporations and wealthy individuals more than the middle-class. It will increase wage inequality and shrink the middle-class, sending more households to the lower class and fewer to the upper class. Also, this tax plan repeals the individual mandate in the Affordable Care Act. According to the CBO (Congressional Budget Office), a nonpartisan group of economists, roughly 13 million people will lose their health insurance due to repealing the mandate.

What Republicans are not telling us, excuse me, what they’re not admitting, is that they know trickle down economics doesn’t work. They also know that corporations likely won’t hire more employees or increase wages when these tax cuts are signed into law, instead, they’ll reinvest in their businesses, buy back stock, and give out record bonuses to their top management and c-suite executives. While this tax bill adds $1.5 trillion to our national debt, they’re already planning on proposing huge cuts to entitlement programs in 2018_ all while 6-7-8 figure earners, as well as select groups like real estate developers and private equity professionals, benefit from these massive tax cuts.

With all that being said, Republican’s brilliantly designed this bill to have an immediate positive impact on most middle-class households [short-term]. But considering the personal tax provisions are set to expire in 10 years, it’s important to note that the business tax cuts will not. Therefore, the positive impact for corporations and the wealthy [in the long-term] is astounding and much greater. For example, in 2027, two-thirds of middle-class households will see a tax increase in their personal income taxes, and none of them will see a tax cut.

By design, this middle-class tax honeymoon will surely last long enough to surpass the 2018 mid-terms and 2020 presidential election. However, can Democrats capitalize on recent big wins in Virginia, New Jersey, and most recently Alabama, and pick up enough seats to challenge Trump and maybe win the White House? IF Democrats can somehow win the House and Senate, and the White House in 2020, can such a massic tax bill be easily reversed, or amended to thwart such a negative long-term impact on lower and middle-class households?