Sen-Elect Jim Banks Stuns Dana Bash with Mass-Deportation Plan: Not ‘That Complicated’

CNN’s Dana Bash appeared stunned as Senator-elect Jim Banks (R-IN) said Republicans will secure the border and carry out a mass deportation operation of illegal aliens, as they promised and the American people voted for.

Banks, who is finishing out his term as a U.S. congressman before moving to the Upper Chamber in January, predicted at the top of the segment on CNN’s Inside Politics that Trump would carry out executive actions on day one to secure the border.

“One of the top issues in your campaign was immigration and the border. What is the first thing that you want the president-elect to do?” Bash asked.

Banks responded:

I have no doubt Donald Trump is going to be inaugurated on January 20. He’s going to hop in a car, drive down Pennsylvania Avenue, swing the door open of the Oval Office, and he’s going to immediately sign executive orders to go back to the effective Trump policies like Remain in Mexico, allow us again to to build the wall at the southern border, and then end catch-and-release. And that’s the perfect Trump formula to begin the process to secure the border.

Banks emphasized that, unlike in his first term, Trump will “have backup in the Congress to support him to do it” and that the GOP-controlled Congress will give Trump funding to complete the border wall and support border patrol agents.

Trump Transition Takes Shape and What Susie Wiles Brings to the White House; Guest Matt Boyle

Bash asked Banks about a comment he made Thursday to the Indy Star, detailing what a mass deportation process of some 15 million illegal aliens would look like.

“Do you see all undocumented immigrants as sort of–should they all be kicked out of the country?” she asked Banks.

He responded:

Some conservative estimates say that there are at least 15 million illegals who have came into the country on Joe Biden’s watch. It’s my hope that we depart every single of one them that we can and it starts with deporting violent criminals who are in the United States, who came here illegally, who have committed violent crimes.

Banks added that another priority is to increase penalties for businesses that hire illegal aliens, saying this will disincentivize many illegal aliens to be in the United States if they cannot be employed, which will lead to self-deportations. Banks added that GOP majorities in both the House and Senate will enable Congress to fund this deportation effort.

Bash followed up with essentially the same question, asking if there should be exceptions for some illegal immigrants based on factors like age and marriage status.

“The American people spoke loud and clear on Tuesday. They gave this President and Republicans a mandate to do everything that we can,” Banks firmly repsonded. “The goal should be to deport every illegal in this country that we can find.”

Banks told Bash, “I don’t think this is that complicated,” when she asked how the process could play out in Indiana.

“I spoke with a local sheriff in Indiana earlier today, who’s ready–local law enforcement is ready to go, to do what it takes to help with the mass deportation effort,” he said, again predicting that cracking down on illegal employment will largely disincentivize many illegal aliens to be in the United States, and result in them leaving the country on their own volition.

Originally Posted At www.breitbart.com

zerohedge
Economics , News , Politics , Science
November 22, 2024
2 views

Utility Companies Are Not On Our Side

Authored by Linnea Leuken & H. Sterlin Burnett via RealClearPolitics,

When electric power was a novel idea and just beginning to be adopted in urban centers, the industry had a Wild West feel to it as multiple companies strung wires, opened power plants, and sold electricity on an unregulated market. Competition was fierce, but state and local governments concluded that the inefficiencies and redundancies endangered the public and imposed higher costs.

So states set up service territories with monopolistic or oligopolistic service providers, who were entrusted with providing reliable power and sufficient reserve for peak periods in return for being guaranteed a profit on rates proposed by the utilities but approved or set by newly established state public utility commissions (PUCs). These commissions were charged with ensuring public utilities served the general public universally within their territory, providing reliable service at reasonable rates.

Much has changed since then. Politicians began to supplant engineers to decide, based on self-interested calculations, what types of power should be favored and disfavored, and what types of appliances and modes of transportation Americans could use. As the 21st century dawned, a new consideration entered the picture: Climate change.

Under the banner of combatting global warming, utilities were at first encouraged and then coerced into adopting plans and policies aimed at achieving net zero emissions of carbon dioxide. The aim of providing reliable, affordable power – the rationale for the electric utilities’ monopolies in the first place – was supplanted by a controversial and partisan political goal. Initially, as states began to push renewable energy mandates, utilities fought back, arguing that prematurely closing reliable power plants, primarily coal-fueled, would increase energy costs, compromise grid reliability, and leave them with millions of dollars in stranded assets.

Politicians addressed those concerns with subsidies and tax credits for renewable power. In addition, they passed on the costs of the expanded grid to ratepayers and taxpayers. Effectively, elected officials and the PUCs, with a wink and a nod, indemnified utilities for power supply failures, allowing utilities to claim that aging grid infrastructure and climate change were to blame for failures rather than the increased percentage of intermittent power added to the grid at their direction.

Today, utilities have enthusiastically embraced the push for renewable (but less reliable) resources, primarily wind and solar. PUCs guarantee a high rate of return for all new power source (wind, solar, and battery) installations, which has resulted in the construction of ever more and bigger wind, solar, and battery facilities. The costlier, the more profitable – regardless of their compromised ability to provide reliable power or the cost impact on residential, commercial, and industrial ratepayers.

A new report from The Heartland Institute demonstrates the significant financial incentives from government and financiers for utilities to turn away from affordable energy sources like natural gas and coal, and even nuclear, and instead aggressively pursue wind and solar in particular. All of this is done in the name of pursuing net zero emissions, which every single major utility company in the country boasts about on their corporate reports and websites. Reliability and affordability come secondary to the decarbonization agenda.

Dominion Energy is a good example, as they are one of the most aggressive movers on climate-focused policy. Dominion CEO Robert Blue speaks excitedly about government-forced transitions to a wind- and solar-dominated grid in interviews. During one interview with a renewable energy podcast, he said:

“[S]ometimes the government needs to focus on outcomes. We’re trying to address a climate crisis, and we are going to need to move quickly to do that.” In the same interview, he expressed enthusiasm about federal policy that would achieve a government-directed transition.

And why wouldn’t he? Dominion, like most utilities, is granted government tax credits and guarantees on returns for investing in large, expensive projects like offshore wind, the most expensive source of electric power. The bigger the project, the bigger the profit with guaranteed returns.

Also, onshore wind companies have received special “take limits” from the Fish and Wildlife Service to kill protected bald eagles and golden eagles, while prosecuting oil companies if birds are injured or killed on their sites.

Net zero policies are not the environmental panacea that climate change activists proclaim. Industrial-scale wind and solar use substantially more land than conventional energy resources, disrupting ecosystems and destroying wildlife habitats in the process.

And despite recent technological advances, wind and solar are still not dispatchable resources, meaning they cannot provide consistent power at all times needed. Refuting claims made by environmentalists and utilities that wind and solar are the cheapest sources of electric power, costs have risen steeply as the use of wind and solar has increased. Customers of Duke Energy in Kentucky, for example, are paying 78% higher rates in the wake of coal-fired plant closings.

Politicians and utilities are pushing for even more electrification for appliances and vehicles despite the fact that Federal Energy Regulatory Commission officials have repeatedly warned in recent years that adding more demand for electric power while replacing reliable power sources with intermittent renewables is destabilizing the power system.

It appears that the utilities prioritize short-term profits over grid reliability or keeping costs reasonable – and the government officials who are supposed to keep them in check are only encouraging them. It doesn’t need to be this way. The U.S. grid was not always this way. Only in recent years, with the obsessive pursuit of net zero, have rolling black and brownouts become so common.

Today, utility companies are sending lobbyists to conservative policymakers in order to convince them that the utilities have our best interests in mind. Their track record tells another story. Meanwhile, Americans have less reliable electricity at higher costs.

Linnea Lueken (llueken@heartland.org, X: @LinneaLueken) is a research fellow with the Arthur B. Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy at The Heartland Institute.

Tyler Durden
Fri, 11/22/2024 – 06:30