In addition to universal healthcare, Bernie Sanders wants to nationalize energy, do away with nuclear, and compete with private industry at the taxpayers’ expense.
February 10, 2020
By: Bobby Casey, Managing Director GWP
The privileged political class have some great societies regressing; while in economically freer countries, you see immense progress.
Nationalization has never carried a great connotation. Nationalism is a pretty cultish concept. National Socialists… well we all know how that turned out.
I’d mentioned Elizabeth Warren’s plan to nationalize corporations.
There’s been a lot of talk about nationalized healthcare.
Net neutrality made a strong appearance for making internet services a public utility.
Here’s the thing: these are all major power grabs and these are all part of a pattern akin to failed socialist models.
Now Bernie Sanders is looking to nationalize energy as part of a larger Green Agenda. He wants to get the US off fossil fuels, so he will simply subsidize the energy providers HE thinks should win:
“A Sanders administration would pour funding into the four existing “power marketing administrations” that are overseen by the Energy Department, as well as the Tennessee Valley Authority and one newly created entity, to vastly expand their solar, wind and geothermal power production. Those organizations currently provide power from hydroelectric dams to 33 states, and would be able to sell the increased green energy to local utilities nationwide — creating a sort of “public option” that would compete with the coal, natural gas and nuclear plants owned by privately owned power generators.”
The goal is to be on 100% renewable energy PLUS get off nuclear by around 2030. Currently, sixty nuclear power plants are responsible for over 50% of carbon free energy, yet Sanders is saying that he would not renew nuclears’ operating licenses, but rather allow them to expire.
This all stems from the belief (not fact) that the free market isn’t moving fast enough to save the planet from certain doom. But the free market moves as fast as the consumer base can bear.
A closer examination of environmental policies indicates that many of them are not as “green” as they’d have to believe. The amount of land required to harness enough wind and solar alone is hardly environmentally sound. That wind turbines are not recyclable poses a major issue. The fact that electric cars still rely on coal based electricity and their batteries are the size of half the car is certainly a concern.
I know we are not supposed to look at the price tag — because who can put a price on saving the world — but, $2 trillion dollars is a 50% increase from our current spending. Americans who are already fed up with the reckless waste and spending in Congress now, couldn’t possibly be persuaded to sign on to another $2 trillion in green agenda spending.
When asked about universal healthcare, people loved it… up until they were presented the cost. The support quickly shrunk. This is true on a state level and on a national level.
The same is true for environmentalism. Do people generally support good stewardship of the earth? Sure! Are they willing to pay the taxes associated with this $2 trillion agenda? Unlikely.
Energy analysts, however, caution that Sanders’s 2030 plan would require a federal infrastructure investment not seen since the construction of the interstate highway system. To get close to Sanders’ 100 percent clean energy goal by 2030, researchers estimate the U.S. would need to add about 800 GW of wind and solar resources — about 25 times the amount the federal government expects to be built this year — along with ample amounts of battery storage and transmission. The Sanders camp forecasts that would cost about $2 trillion.
Sanders makes a distinction with his plan in that he is not necessarily “taking over” private energy companies, he’s starting new ones meant to “compete” with the private sector.
The private sector relies on voluntary patronization. They can only charge actual users of their services. The federal government doesn’t answer to any of that. They can just give away energy and undercut the private sector at the taxpayer’s expense.
Here’s the worst part: the private industry players will be forced to pay taxes and basically FUND their competition.
All this nationalization talk should make people take pause. Nationalization is a common practice among developing countries, while privatization is typical of developed countries. When I think about federal control over corporations, banking, energy, healthcare, and food, I can’t help but look at the failed examples around the world.
Venezuela nationalized its railway, oil production, cement industry, steel, rice processing and packaging, six supermarkets, glass manufacturing, and is looking to nationalize food production as well.
Never mind all the nationalized industries around the world. Even in the US, there’s the good ole TSA: nationalization of airport security. Puerto Rico has its commonwealth run utility company, PREPA, which is in horrible disrepair.
Why are so many US politicians trying to emulate the failed policies of undeveloped nations?
Businesses are there to serve and get paid. If people are dissatisfied, then they will show it. One simple example is with the proliferation of more plant-based foods, gluten free foods, and keto/paleo friendly foods. Businesses are absolutely listening and paying attention to demand.
Businesses should not have to please the government with the rate in which they are innovating. If the private sector couldn’t find a way to make sustainable energy profitable, the government volunteering for that undertaking guarantees an operational loss.
If people who KNOW the industry can’t get there from here efficiently, why do politicians think ignorant bureaucrats will do any better?
I’m concerned for the US. These politicians are coming for major sectors of the economy. If you’re in the US, it might be time to look at other options.