Kamala Harris’ Energy Policy Catalog Is Full Of Whoppers

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

The catalog of Vice President Kamala Harris’s history on energy policy is as thin as the listing of her accomplishments as President Joe Biden’s “Border Czar,” which is to say it is bereft of anything of real substance.

But the queen of word salads and newly minted presumptive Democratic presidential nominee has publicly endorsed many of her party’s most radical and disastrous energy-related ideas while serving in various elected offices — both in her energy basket-case home state of California and in Washington, D.C.

What Harris’s statements add up to is a potential disaster for America’s future energy security.

“The vice president’s approach to energy has been sophomorically dilettantish, grasping not only at shiny things such as AOC’s Green New Deal but also at the straws Americans use to suck down the drinks they need when she starts talking like a Valley Girl,” Dan Kish, a senior research fellow at Institute for Energy Research, told me in an email this week. “To be honest, she’s no worse than many of her former Senate colleagues who have helped cheer on rising energy costs and the fleeing American jobs that accompany them. She doesn’t seem to understand the importance of reliable and affordable domestic energy, good skilled jobs or the national security implications of domestically produced energy, but maybe she will go back to school on the matter. No doubt on her electric school bus.”

During her first run for the Senate in 2016, Harris said she would love to expand her state’s economically ruinous cap-and-trade program to the national level. She also endorsed then-Gov. Jerry Brown’s harebrained scheme to ban plastic straws as a means of fighting climate change.

Tim Stewart, president of the U.S. Oil and Gas Association, told me proposals like that one would lead during a Harris presidency to the “Californication of the entire U.S. energy policy.” “Historically,” he added, “the transition of power from a president to a vice president is designed to signal continuity. This won’t be the case, because a Harris administration will be much worse.”

But how much worse could it be than the set of Biden policies that Harris has roundly endorsed over the last three and a half years? How much worse can it be than having laughed through a presidency that:

— Cancelled the $12 billion Keystone XL Pipeline on day one.

— Enacted what many estimate to be over $1 trillion in debt-funded, inflation-creating green energy subsidies.

— Refused to comply with laws requiring the holding of timely federal oil and gas lease sales.

— Instructed its agencies to slow-play permitting for all manner of oil and gas-related infrastructure.

— Tried to ban stoves and other gas appliances.

— Listed the Dunes Sagebrush Lizard as an endangered species despite its protection via a highly-successful conservation program.

— Invoked a “pause” on permitting of new LNG export infrastructure for the most specious reasons imaginable.

— Drained the Strategic Petroleum Reserve for purely political reasons.

As Biden’s successor for the nomination, Harris becomes the proud owner of all these policies, and more.

But Harris’ history shows it could indeed get worse. Much worse, in fact.

While mounting her own disastrous campaign for her party’s presidential nomination in 2020, Harris endorsed a complete ban on hydraulic fracturing, i.e., fracking. She later conformed that position to Biden’s own, slightly less insane view, but only after being picked as his running mate.

Consider also that while serving in the Senate in early 2019, Harris chose to sign up as a co-sponsor of the ultra-radical Green New Deal proposed by New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez. It is not enough that the Biden regulators appeared to be using that nutty proposal and climate alarmism as the impetus to transform America’s entire economy and social structure: Harris favors enacting the whole thing.

As I have detailed here many times, every element of climate-alarm-based energy policies adopted by the Biden administration will inevitably lead the United State to become increasingly reliant on China for its energy needs, in the process decimating our country’s energy security. By her own words and actions, Harris has made it abundantly clear she wants to shift the process of getting there into a higher gear.

She is an energy disaster-in-waiting.

David Blackmon is an energy writer and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.

Related Topics:#DailyCaller #DavidBlackmon feature KamalaHarrisEnergyPolicy

Up Next

House Passes Bipartisan Resolution Establishing Trump Assassination Attempt Task Force

Don't Miss

Estonia’s solution to Canada’s stagnating economic growth

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Florida COVID grand jury finds ‘profound and serious issues’ in vaccine regulation, oversight

John Stossel / 1 hour ago

Why Students Are Miserable: The Coddling of the American Mind

Business / 2 hours ago

Trudeau reversed Chrétien’s legacy and rapidly expanded federal bureaucracy

Business

Trudeau reversed Chrétien’s legacy and rapidly expanded federal bureaucracy

Published on January 8, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Ben Eisen and Jake Fuss

Over the next weeks and months, there will be much discussion about Justin Trudeau’s legacy as prime minister. To provide some context, it’s worth comparing Trudeau’s fiscal record with that of another long-serving Liberal prime minister—Jean Chrétien.

In the early 1990s Canada’s federal finances were in shambles. Thanks to years of large budget deficits (and high interest rates), debt interest payments were consuming one-third of all federal revenue and the country stood at the brink of a full-blown fiscal crisis. Paul Martin, Chrétien’s finance minister, recognized the gravity of the threat and famously promised to eliminate the deficit “come hell or high water.” And that’s exactly what the Chrétien government did, thanks primarily to reductions in federal spending.

How’d they do it?

The government launched a program review, which examined all dimensions of spending in search of savings. The review led to a substantial reduction in federal government employment, which shrunk by nearly 15 per cent. While there were many components to the federal reforms of the 1990s, this reduction in the size of the federal bureaucracy clearly helped Chrétien and Martin eliminate the federal deficit.

Fast-forward to the present day and Justin Trudeau, who does not share his Liberal predecessors’ commitment to balanced budgets. Federal government employment has increased rapidly in recent years, with the Trudeau government adding more bureaucrats (in absolute and percentage terms) than were reduced during the Chrétien/Martin reform era.

Specifically, from 2015/16 to 2022/23, federal government employment (as measured in fulltime equivalents) increased by 26.1 per cent. By comparison, the Canadian population increased by 9.1 per cent over the same period.

Just as the reduction in federal employment contributed to the deficit reduction in the 1990s, the growth in federal employment has helped fuel the Trudeau government’s unending string of budget deficits since 2015/16. Incidentally, if during its nine years in power the Trudeau government had simply held the rate of growth in federal employment to the rate of population growth, federal spending would be $7.5 billion lower than it is today.

According to the Trudeau government’s latest projections, the federal deficit will reach an eye-popping $48.3 billion this fiscal year. And thanks to years of record-high spending under Trudeau, total federal debt will eclipse $2.15 trillion. Consequently, the federal government will spend $53.7 billion this year on debt interest payments—or $1,301 per Canadian.

Canadian history is clear—it’s difficult to predict the policy orientation of any premier or prime minister based on their political stripe. Prime Ministers Chrétien and Trudeau prove this point. Chrétien reduced federal employment with an eye on eliminating the federal deficit. Trudeau reversed this legacy by rapidly growing the federal bureaucracy. This is one important reason for the divergent fiscal outcomes between the two governments.

Under Prime Minister Chrétien, Canadians saw a string of balanced budgets. Under Prime Minister Trudeau, an unending series of deficits and massive debt accumulation, which Canadians must pay for today and for many years to come.

Ben Eisen

Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute

Jake Fuss

Director, Fiscal Studies, Fraser Institute

Business

Government has inherent bias for more government

Published on January 8, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Jason Clemens and Jake Fuss

One of the authors of this op-ed resides in a municipality, which recently launched an online survey to gauge the preferences of residents with respect to its upcoming budget, which is laudable, but the questions illustrate a problem within government: a bias for more government.

The City of Coquitlam in British Columbia asked respondents whether it should increase, decrease or simply maintain the same level of spending in 2025 for policing, recreation, water and sewage, infrastructure and others items. The problem: there wasn’t a single question on whether residents prefer tax reductions.

Moreover, there was no discussion or context about how increased spending for these activities must come from taxpayers in the form of either having more taxpayers (city population increases) and/or higher tax rates for those residing in the city. What’s clear from the survey is that the municipal government prefers to spend more.

And this bias towards more government within government is not restricted to this local municipality. Other municipalities, provincial governments and certainly the Trudeau federal government have favoured more spending.

Under Prime Minister Trudeau federal spending has reached never-before-seen levels, even after adjusting for inflation. Consider, for instance, that per-person federal spending (excluding interest costs) will reach $11,901 this fiscal year (inflation-adjusted), well above previous levels of per-person spending including during the 2008-09 financial crisis and both world wars. The rationale is that Ottawa is delivering services demanded by Canadians.

But is that true? Are Canadians demanding national pharmacare, national dental benefits and a national daycare program? The answer depends on whether the costs of those programs are included in the discussion.

A 2022 poll asked Canadians about their support for all three programs. Support ranged from 69 per cent for national daycare, to 72 per cent for dental care, to 79 per cent for pharmacare. Here’s the problem, though. The questions were asked without respondents considering any costs. In other words, the respondents were asked whether they support these programs assuming they don’t affect their taxes.

But of course, taxpayers must pay for government spending, and when those costs are included, Canadians are much less supportive. In the same poll, when increased spending is linked with an increase in the GST, support plummets to 36 per cent for daycare, 40 per cent for pharmacare and 42 per cent for dental care.

And these results are not unique. A 2020 poll by the Angus Reid Institute found 86 per cent support for a national prescription drug program—but that support drops by almost half (47 per cent) if a one-percentage point increase in the middle-class personal income tax rate is included.

One explanation for the dramatic change in support rests in another poll, which found that 74 per cent of respondents felt the average Canadian family was overtaxed.

So it’s convenient for governments to avoid connecting more spending with higher taxes.

This internal government support for more government also shows up in our tax mix. Canadian governments rely on less visible taxes than our counterparts in the OECD, a group of high-income, developed countries. For instance, Canadian governments collect 6.8 per cent of the economy (GDP) in consumption taxes such as the GST, which are quite visible and transparent because the cost shows up directly on your bill. That ranks Canada 31st of 38 OECD countries and well below the OECD average of 10.0 per cent.

Alternatively, we rely on personal income tax revenues to a much greater degree and, because these taxes are automatically deducted from the paycheques of Canadians, they are much less apparent to workers. Canada collects 12.3 per cent of the economy in personal income taxes, ranking us 6th highest for our reliance on personal income taxes and above the OECD average of 8.3 per cent.

And a complying media aids the push for more government spending. According to a recent study, when reporting on the announcement of three new federal programs (pharmacare, dental care and national daycare) the CBC and CTV only included the cost of these programs in 4 per cent of their television news coverage. Most of the coverage related to the nature of the new programs, their potential impact on Canadians, and the responses from the Conservative, NDP and Bloc Quebecois. Simply put, the main television coverage didn’t query the government on the cost of these new programs and how taxpayers would pay the bill, leaving many viewers with the mistaken impression that the programs are costless.

Indeed, it’s interesting to note that the same study found that 99.4 per cent of press releases issued by the federal government related to these three programs excluded any information on their costs or impact on the budget.

The inherent bias within government for more government is increasingly clear, and supported by a lack of skepticism in the media. Canadians need clearer information from government on the potential benefits and costs of new or expanded spending, and the media must do a better job of critically covering government initiatives. Only then can we realistically understand what Canadians actually demand from government.