Big govt, Economy & Investments, Politics

The Green New Deal Is Wrong for America

First they came for your wallet. Now Democrats want your car and your hamburgers — making summer cookouts a thing of the past.
But those aren’t the only liberties the left wants to abolish in the name of fighting climate change. Radical liberals led by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., and Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., also want to minimize air travel. It’s all outlined in their Green New Deal, a proposal to fend off a supposed climate apocalypse.

Never mind that China, the world’s largest polluter, emits more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than the U.S. and the EU combined or that the Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand, Vietnam and China are dumping more plastic waste and debris into the ocean than the rest of the planet is. Far-left lawmakers pushing the utopian Green New Deal don’t want to talk about that or the fact that China opens a new coal plant every week on average, illustrating that the Green New Deal isn’t really about protecting Mother Earth from the effects of climate change; it’s about giving Democrats and big-government socialists control over the entire U.S. economy — and our lives.

It’s a massive power grab under the guise of curtailing the alleged “cataclysmic” effects of climate change — a pseudoscience that is far from settled.

Many esteemed climatologists and meteorologists, including MIT professor emeritus Richard Lindzen, have opposed the hysteria surrounding climate change. They say the earth is entering a cooling phase and warn that enviro-alarmists shouldn’t overestimate carbon dioxide’s effects on the atmosphere. In a 2015 interview on my Boston Herald Radio show, Lindzen told me, “Not only has there been a hiatus in temperature increase, but we have fewer hurricanes than we traditionally have.”

When I asked about reports that sea levels were rising, he explained that they’ve “been rising since the end of the last ice age, at a fairly slow rate. That’s normal. And it was going on long before industrialization.” And when it comes to alarmist proclamations that we must reduce our carbon footprint or risk seeing the world come to an end, Lindzen said, “Climate scientists, until this latest hysteria, used to refer to warm periods, which was most of the earth’s history, as being climate optima. It has nothing to do with decarbonizing. We need carbon dioxide; it is essential to life on earth. And we don’t have any known replacement at the moment.”

Given that there are conflicting data on climate change, it’s unfathomable that any rational human, much less a lawmaker, would want to destroy the U.S. economy and the millions of jobs that go with it by supporting the infantile Green New Deal.

It’s also worth noting that even if there is catastrophic man-made climate change happening and America reduced its carbon footprint to zero — an impossible task in a modern industrialized economy — radical lawmakers still wouldn’t eliminate climate change, with China and the rest of the world polluting the atmosphere and oceans ad nauseam.
That’s all the more reason Americans should refuse to hand their cars, barbecues and airplane tickets — our entire way of life — over to a 29-year-old congresswoman with “big ideas.”
Just because an idea is “big” doesn’t make it good.

Adriana Cohen is a syndicated columnist with the Boston Herald. Follow her on Twitter @AdrianaCohen16. To find out more about Adriana Cohen and read her past columns, please visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at



Economy & Investments, Politics

Panera Gives up its Socialist Experiments

On February 15, Panera Bread will close its last “Panera Cares” restaurant located in Boston after concluding that the “pay what you want” model is not sustainable. The first such socialist storefront was opened in St. Louis, Missouri, in 2010, which offered “free” meals but suggested a donation “price.” “In many ways, this whole experiment is ultimately a test of humanity,” Panera founder Ron Shaich said in a TEDx talk later that same year. “Would people pay for it? Would people come in and value it?” Read more…

Here’s more from PJ Media…

Panera Bread has shuttered the last of its ideologically driven “pay what you want” restaurants. The socialist-tinged ventures were called “Panera Cares” and the higher-ups have finally figured out that “caring” is not synonymous with “viable business model.” On February 15, the final Panera Cares, located in Boston, will close.

The website Eater gives Panera Cares’ history and provides the company’s motivation behind the now-defunct mission:

The chain opened its first donation-based community cafe in St. Louis, Missouri, in 2010. Under the model championed by the company’s founder Ron Shaich, the restaurant operated like a typical Panera, but offered meals at a suggested donation price, with the goal of raising awareness about food insecurity. “In many ways, this whole experiment is ultimately a test of humanity,” Shaich said in a TEDx talk later that year. “Would people pay for it? Would people come in and value it?” It appears the answer is a resounding no.


Big govt, Economy & Investments, Politics

AOC’s “Green New Deal” Spends Us Back to the Stone Age

Democratic socialist Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY) doesn’t merely dislike facts. She also dislikes fiscal sanity, which will cost taxpayers to the tune of $7 TRILLION if her “Green New Deal” is not stopped. The 29-year-old former bartender is calling for “national, social, industrial and economic mobilization at a scale not seen since World War II” to bring about “the country’s near-total economic transformation” in “approximately ten years.” Part of the deal includes eliminating ALL fossil-fuel powered electricity and ALL gas-powered cars. In addition, the plan promises a job for every American. Memo to AOC: socialism has been tried…time and again. It has failed. History is a curious thing, isn’t it?

Here’s more from The Daily Wire…

To Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, everything oughta be free. Health care — free. College — free. Heck, the federal government oughta’ give everybody a job, too, and a pile of free money to boot, according to the New York democratic socialist.

Ocasio-Cortez has put forward a draft proposal for a massive government program she calls the “Green New Deal” (yes, she’s right up there with President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who created the “New Deal” during the Depression). And now we’re finding out the price tag for the program: $7 trillion.

The 29-year-old former bartender, who has been a House member for one month, told fellow representatives in a letter that her plan calls for a “national, social, industrial and economic mobilization at a scale not seen since World War II,” Fox News reports.

“Next week, we plan to release a resolution that outlines the scope and scale of the Green New Deal,” Ocasio-Cortez said in the letter, adding that the country’s near-total economic transformation should take approximately ten years.


Big govt, Economy & Investments, Issues, Politics

Harris Under Fire for Plan to Abolish Private Health Care Plans

Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA), who announced her presidential candidacy this past weekend, has already found herself in controversy after calling for the abolition of private health care plans in favor of “Medicare for All.” Although the Left wing is increasingly calling for unaffordable, single-payer health care, the episode is nonetheless reminiscent of the lies former President Barack Obama spun along the lines of “If you like your health care plan, you can keep it,” which was key to Congress shoving ObamaCare down Americans’ throats. In short, Kamala’s plan can be dubbed Obamacare 2.0.

Here’s more from Fox News…

Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., came under fire on Tuesday for calling for private health care plans to be abolished — the latest plank is what is becoming an increasingly left-wing platform from the California Democrat.

Harris, who announced her 2020 bid for the White House last week, was asked by CNN host Jake Tapper Monday night if people could keep their current health care plan under her “Medicare-for-All” plan. She indicated that people could not, suggesting she wants to move toward a single-payer system rather than a mere expansion of Medicare.

“Well, listen, the idea is that everyone gets access to medical care. And you don’t have to go through the process of going through an insurance company, having them give you approval, going through the paperwork, all of the delay that may require,” Harris told Tapper.


Big govt, Economy & Investments, Politics

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Crippling Tax Proposal

When it comes to resolving issues surrounding income inequality, Democrats want it both ways.
They say they want a fairer and more equal system of wealth distribution, while the face of their party, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a far-left “democratic socialist,” is calling for a 70 percent marginal tax rate for the top income bracket. Borrowing from Mafia terminology, that’s what was colloquially known in the Prohibition era as a good old-fashioned shakedown. The only difference is that today, in 2019, the rising star of the Democratic Party, widely known as AOC, wants big government to do the pilfering.

Perhaps the youngest member of Congress — who, at 29 years of age, has never built a business or created a single job in the private sector outside of her campaign for office in New York’s 14th Congressional District — can explain to the American people how the government’s sucking 70 percent of a taxpayer’s hard-earned marginal income would be “fair” or “equal.” If the true goal is to achieve income “equality,” there would need to be a more equitable marginal tax cap, one not exceeding 50 percent, as taxpayers’ being forced to pay a disproportionately high tax rate versus what they earn would be definitively unequal — especially given the fact that the wealthy are already contributing the lion’s share of taxes while nearly half the country doesn’t pay any income tax at all.

That said, even if one puts aside the moral or amoral aspects of the 70 percent income tax AOC is thunderously proposing to media outlets en masse, the broader question is: Do these types of exorbitant taxes on the rich even work? One need not travel far back in history to see that a “supertax” imposed on the rich in France in 2012 under former President Francois Hollande’s Socialist regime was a total disaster.

Not only did scores of businesses flee France to avoid its exorbitant taxes — or they swiftly sought tax havens abroad, causing significant capital flight — but also many wealthy French citizens earning over 1 million euros, who were subjected to Hollande’s 75 percent supertax, packed their bags, causing a mass exodus to the U.K., Belgium and other countries whose taxes were less crushing.

Most notably, France’s supertax damaged the country’s overall economy by shrinking its tax base, not widening it.
Forbes reported, “As a result of a reduced labor supply and discouraged investment in France following the 75 percent top marginal income tax rate announced in September 2012, French revenues for 2013 came in at only 16 billion euros, a 14 billion euro shortfall below the French government’s expected 30 billion in tax collections.”
That compelled the French government to scrap its supertax plan altogether in 2015 — something Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ought to consider before pushing her ill-conceived 70 percent marginal income tax.
History has a funny way of repeating itself.

Adriana Cohen is a syndicated columnist with the Boston Herald. Follow her on Twitter @AdrianaCohen16. To find out more about Adriana Cohen and read her past columns, please visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at



Big govt, Economy & Investments, Politics

White House Releases US-Mexico NAFTA Draft

The White House is moving ahead with its overhaul of the North American Free Trade Agreement regardless of being unable to reach a deal with Canada for now. A draft of the deal inked thus far between the Trump Administration and Mexico has been submitted to Congress ahead of the Oct. 1 deadline for submission under the “Trade Promotion Authority law.” This comes despite Canada’s best efforts to slow-walk the agreement. According to President Trump, the talks with our northern neighbor have completely broken down. “We’re not getting along at all with their negotiators,” he said. Which means simply that they may get left out in the cold this winter.

Here’s more from Washington Examiner…

The White House will give Congress the full text of its bilateral trade agreement with Mexico on Friday evening, the first step toward getting Congress to approve it.

The deal will be submitted even though the administration has so far been unable to get Canada to reach a new trade deal of its own. Canada’s absence will likely make obtaining congressional approval harder, due to lawmakers’ fears that it could disrupt the North American Free Trade Agreement.

The Trump administration is under pressure to get the deal approved quickly. Oct. 1 is the deadline for submitting the text under the terms of the Trade Promotion Authority law, which is why the White House is about to submit it, according to several press reports.

Any later and the deal would have to be renegotiated with Mexico’s incoming president, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, a leftist.


Economy & Investments, Politics

Trump’s Economy a Win for Blue-Collar America

Blue-collar workers are winning across America even in the manufacturing industries, which are seeing a renaissance after being run into the ground under the Obama administration. According to The Washington Post: “Blue-collar jobs are growing at their fastest rate in more than 30 years, helping fuel a hiring boom in many small towns and rural areas that are strong supporters of President Trump ahead of November’s mid-term elections.” The message to DC is that incentivizing private industry is a win-win-win scenarios both companies, employees and for federal tax revenues. It’s economics 101 at work.

Here’s more from Breitbart…

President Donald Trump has shifted the economy so that once-disregarded blue-collar manufacturing workers are now recovering jobs faster than coastal service-sector employees, the Washington Post acknowledged Sunday.
“Blue-collar jobs are growing at their fastest rate in more than 30 years, helping fuel a hiring boom in many small towns and rural areas that are strong supporters of President Trump ahead of November’s mid-term elections,” said the Post, under the headline “Under Trump, the jobs boom has finally reached blue-collar workers. Will it last?”

According to the Post:

Rural employment grew at an annualized rate of 5.1 percent in the first quarter. Smaller metro areas grew 5.0 percent. That’s significantly larger than the 4.1 percent growth seen in large urban areas that recovered earlier from the Great Recession, according to an analysis by the Brookings Institution’s Metropolitan Policy Program of a separate set of Labor Department data released on Wednesday.

In the past year, the economy has added 656,000 blue-collar jobs, compared to 1.7 million added in the services sector.


Economy & Investments, Politics

Bernie Sanders and Amazon Fight It Out

Amazon isn’t keen on Sen. Bernie Sanders’ call for its employees to submit videos of poor working conditions as part of a pressure campaign against the Internet mega-retailer. Socialists want to levy taxes against Amazon at a rate of 100 percent. “Amazon founder Jeff Bezos’ wealth increases by $275 million every single day,” Sanders wrote along with a video in his effort to drum up popular support for his tax plan. Amazon is disputing Bernie’s betrayal of its business practices, saying that in the United States “the average hourly wage for a full-time associate in our fulfillment centers, including cash, stock, and incentive bonuses, is over $15/hour before overtime.”

Here’s more from PJ Media…

WASHINGTON — Amazon hit back at Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-Vt.) call for employees of the retail giant to submit stories of poor working conditions, charging in a company blog post that the senator “continues to make inaccurate and misleading accusations against Amazon.”

In May, Sanders posted a video online highlighting the company’s wealth in juxtaposition to workers’ salaries, including news clips that detailed CEO Jeff Bezos hauling in within the span of 10 seconds what the average Amazon employee makes in a year as well as the company spending $13 million on lobbying last year.

“Amazon founder Jeff Bezos’ wealth increases by $275 million every single day,” Sanders wrote along with the video. “Meanwhile, Amazon workers have to rely on food stamps and public assistance just to survive.”

Last week, Sanders sent out an email to supporters asking them to sign a petition that declares in part, “I don’t believe that ordinary Americans should be subsidizing the wealthiest person in the world because you pay your employees inadequate wages.”


Big govt, Economy & Investments, Politics

A Business Lesson for Socialists

As a career academic who teaches entrepreneurship, I am very familiar with the anti-business sentiment that pervades so much of higher education and the public discourse about policy in this country. It is a spreading plague grounded in infuriating ignorance.
So when I run across articles like “A Time to be Bold,” in Jacobin magazine, I want to pull my hair out.
The article, proclaiming the advantages of socialism over capitalism, features sweeping generalizations like these:
–“Capitalism is the chief source of human suffering today and a system that promotes the worst of human behaviors.”
–“Because a small number of people own the productive assets of society, most people have to seek out these businesses for work.”
–“Socialists believe that people should care about and care for each other. Capitalist markets, on the other hand, divide.”
The authors insist that society’s ills can be resolved with state ownership of all private property, redistribution of all wealth and collective decision-making about what to build, make, produce and sell.
What a prescription for disaster! (And how many times do we have to see these ideas fail?)
The article is constructed on one flawed assumption after another.
First, the authors seem to be equating business with huge multinational corporations. But most businesses in the U.S. are small. The U.S. has approximately 28 million firms. Of those, about 21 million — nearly 80 percent — employ no one but the owner(s). Of the remaining 7 million companies, the vast majority employs fewer than 20 people. Further, most businesses in the U.S. aren’t incorporated, but of those that are, fully 80 percent are small, closely held corporations owned and operated by families.
Second, millions of people — not a small handful — own their own businesses and the property in them. Hundreds of thousands more start new businesses every year.
Third, most entrepreneurs fund their startups with savings — not daddy’s trust fund.
Fourth, it takes a lot to grow an idea into a successful business of any size — much less a multinational corporation. A lot of what? Not money. Not power. Satisfied customers.
Far from being exploited victims, we as the consuming public weigh in on what we want from businesses every single day. Don’t think so? I’ll bet that wired-telephone manufacturers, camera filmmakers, newspapers, bookstores and record companies would love to have the business they had in the 1980s. But they don’t.
Why? Because inventors and entrepreneurs have developed something new. And we — the public — decided we liked it better.
What you get with “democratic socialism” is a state bureaucracy or some “people’s collective” deciding what products and services are available. Why should I have to settle for what the majority wants, if I want a niche product?
But this isn’t just a question of a handful of disgruntled connoisseurs. Virtually all radically successful innovations (automobiles, the internet, smartphones) started as niche products, precisely because “most people” wanted what already existed. The companies that had become successful producing the status quo had no incentive to change. But some entrepreneur thought, “I want something different. Maybe others do, too.”
Not only do entrepreneurs have to spend their own money to fund their ideas but they also then have to persuade you to part with your hard-earned cash for their product. If it’s completely new, that task is even harder; why try Y when you’ve always used X? But if Y is good, people start to buy it. Small numbers, at first. Then more. And eventually, lots of people want this new thing.
That’s how innovation works. That’s how new businesses become big businesses.
Democratic socialism — like all collectivist systems — kills innovation, precisely because the objective is to produce what “the majority” already wants.
So, how do we get the things no one’s ever heard of?
We don’t.
Under the socialists’ dream, you can kiss entrepreneurship and disruptive innovation goodbye. Top-down economic decision-making is structurally and systemically antithetical to innovation not only because it is majoritarian (at best) or authoritarian (at worst) but also because it is not user-centric. That’s the kiss of death for both startups and established businesses. Once you think you know what your customers need better than they do, you’re already dying, whether you know it or not.
The reason American businesses are so much more responsive to our needs than government is because businesses know (even if socialist writers don’t) that the public does control business; make customers unhappy and in no time, they have gone to your competition, and you’re out of money.
Of course, this assumes that the public has competitors to choose from.
Governments, by contrast, have no competition and no incentive to satisfy the public. They extract money from you by force (it’s called taxation) and assume that the money will never run out. That isn’t true, as citizens of Detroit, the state of Illinois or Venezuela can tell you with painful clarity.
The key is not to have businesses run like government (or, God forbid, by government). The key is to make government as responsive as the best-run businesses.
(Note that I said “the best-run businesses,” not ALL businesses or BIG businesses.)
This is the polar opposite of what the collectivists are clamoring for. But I’m right, and they’re wrong. How can I be so sure?
Because entrepreneurship produces what the people want. And collectivism fails every time.

To find out more about Laura Hollis and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at



Big govt, Economy & Investments, Politics

Canadians Boycott American Food Products

In an ironic twist, Canadians attempting to boycott American-made foods are facing a dilemma: A LOT of Canadian food products are made in America. This is resulting in quite an epiphany for the #TradeWarriors to our north who are determined to play petty politics rather than rationalize a deal with President Trump. The unfortunate boycott attempt is part of an effort to retaliate against new tariffs levied on Canadian steel and certain other exports to the U.S. What may end up being a principled victory for Canada could, in the end, result in higher costs for food imported from other countries and in the black market trade.

Here’s more from Hot Air…

A funny thing happened along the way as Canadians decided to start a boycott against American-made groceries. It turns out that so many Canadian food products are made in America that consumers don’t even realize how much is actually coming from their neighbors to the south.

A perceived one-two punch to Canadians delivered from the Trump administration has the “Canada-nice” reputation in jeopardy. The usually easy-going Canadians are downright angry about the tariffs levied on Canadian steel and other products. Then, adding insult to injury, President Trump mocked Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau as “very dishonest and weak” at the G-7 summit in his own country.

A hashtag-worthy movement began as Canadians began calling for consumers to #BuyCanadian, #BoycottUSProducts, and #BoycottUSA.