Breitbart Business Digest: Nobel Laureates Back Kamala, But Voters Trust Trump to Fix the Economy

Trump’s Economic Revolution vs. Harris’s Elitist Rearguard

William F. Buckley famously said he’d rather trust the government of the United States to the first 400 names in the Boston phone book than the faculty of Harvard University.

That sentiment was brought to mind by the arrival, just two weeks ahead of the presidential election, of a letter from 23 Nobel prize-winning economists backing the policies and candidacy of Kamala Harris. The illustrious group represents more than half of the living U.S. recipients of the Nobel Prize for economics, according to CNN.

“While each of us has different views on the particulars of various economic policies, we believe that, overall, Harris’ economic agenda will improve our nation’s health, investment, sustainability, resilience, employment opportunities, and fairness and be vastly superior to the counterproductive economic agenda of Donald Trump,” the letter said.

The American people, of course, overwhelmingly disagree. As we detailed earlier this week, most polls show that Donald Trump is very strongly favored over Harris on economic issues. The past couple of days have seen even more polls affirming this.

12 Days to Go: Panic Sets In for Democrats and Media Elite with John Nolte

Trump Is Preferred on Taxes, Small Business, and Tariffs

CNBC’s All America Economic Survey found that Trump leads Harris by a margin of 42 percent to 24 percent on the question of which candidate would make them better off financially. Trump has actually gained ground on this question since it was asked in the March survey, when 39 percent said they’d be better off if Trump won, and 23 percent said they’d be better off with Joe Biden.

The numbers are not much different when confined to the battleground states, where 44 percent chose Trump and 29 percent chose Harris.

The survey also asked who would be better as “strengthening the economy in your community.“ Forty-six percent chose Trump and 38 percent chose Harris. In the battleground states, Trump gets 49 percent of registered voters and Harris 41 percent. (Interestingly, eight percent of voters nationally say neither would be good for the local economy but only four percent of battleground state voters agree. Nationally, four percent say they aren’t sure and in battleground states two percent aren’t sure.)

On business taxes, Trump is up eight points nationally, with 47 percent support to Kamala’s 38 percent. In battleground states, Trump is even further ahead, at 52 percent to Kamala’s 38 percent. On helping small business, the numbers are basically the same. Nationally 47 percent say Trump would be better and 38 percent say Harris would be. In battleground states, Trump gets the same share, and Harris gets 39 percent.

On individual taxes, Trump is also dominant nationally but not as far ahead in the battlegrounds. In the national poll, Trump leads with 48 percent saying he would be better on the issue of personal taxes, and 38 percent saying Harris would be. In the battleground states, Trump is only ahead by three percentage points, 45 percent to 43 percent.

Perhaps the most entertaining part of the CNBC poll, however, is the question on tariffs. Harris has made decrying Trump’s tariff proposals a major focus of her campaign, misleadingly claiming that they would be a “national sales tax.” And it was the only policy singled out by those economic grandees in their letter. “His policies, including high tariffs even on goods from our friends and allies and regressive tax cuts for corporations and individuals, will lead to higher prices, larger deficits, and greater inequality,” they wrote.

So how do American voters feel about tariffs? Nationally, 54 percent say they think Trump will do a better job on “dealing with tariffs on goods from other countries.“ Harris gets support from just 32 percent of voters. In the battlegrounds, it’s only a little tighter, with Trump at 50 percent and Harris at 38 percent.

Inflation Is Still the Top Issue

The latest Economist/YouGov polling tells a similar story. It found that just 34 percent said the economy would get better if Harris was elected, and 43 percent said it would get worse. For Trump, 44 percent said the economy would get better, and 38 percent said it would get worse.

That poll also finds that inflation is the top issue for voters, with 25 percent naming it as their most important. After that is immigration, at 13 percent, and jobs and the economy, at 11 percent. When asked who will be better on inflation, 46 percent of voters say Trump will be, and 39 percent say Harris will be. On “jobs and the economy, Trump is ahead with 45 percent to Harris’s 40 percent.

According to CNBC’s poll, which also found that inflation is the top issue, voters who say inflation and the cost of living and the economy overall are the top issues favor Trump by 13 points.

“Even as the data show inflation has theoretically been slowing down, it has become more important in people’s minds over the course of the last three quarters, not less important,” Jay Campbell, partner at Hart Research, the Democratic pollster for the survey, told CNBC.

The Financial Times polling had shown Harris was ahead in the economy—making it one of the only polls finding that result. (We discussed a similar finding by the Associated Press’s poll earlier this week.) But now Trump has taken the lead in that poll, even if only slightly. Trump now gets 44 percent versus Harris’s 43 percent. A month ago, Trump had 41 percent, and Harris 42 percent in that poll.

The FT poll also shows Trump expanding his lead among voters on the critical question of financial well-being. Forty-five percent of respondents now believe they would be better off financially under Trump’s leadership, a gain of five points compared to the previous month. In contrast, 37 percent favor Harris on this issue.

When it comes to the economy, Harris may have the Nobel laureates in her corner, but Trump’s got the American people.

Originally Posted At www.breitbart.com

Stay Updated with news.freeptomaineradio.com’s Daily Newsletter

Stay informed! Subscribe to our daily newsletter to receive updates on our latest blog posts directly in your inbox. Don’t let important information get buried by big tech.

Current subscribers:

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