The current and proposed spending of public dollars on fighting climate change is astronomical.
The Small Business Administration estimates that compliance with such regulations costs the U.S. economy more than $1.75 trillion per year — about 12%-14% of GDP, and half of the $3.456 trillion Washington is currently spending. The Competitive Enterprise Institute believes the annual cost is closer to $1.8 trillion when an estimated $55.4 billion regulatory administration and policing budget is included. CEI further observes that those regulation costs exceed 2008 corporate pretax profits of $1.436 trillion; tower over estimated individual income taxes of $936 billion by 87%; and reveal a federal government whose share of the entire economy reaches 35.5% when combined with federal 2010 spending outlays.
The winning approach isn’t whether or not the science is valid, let’s assume it is. The winning approach is arguing what we want to do about it. Conservatives need to argue the dinner table issues, the issues that matter to most Americans. In this video Ann Coulter demonstrates how to address the attacks from the left. She is facing charges of “hate speech,” and she turns the table and claims she isn’t engaging in “hate speech,” she is trying to have a “public policy debate.” That is the winning strategy.
Later in the same show, Nancy Pelosi shows how to argue against building “The Wall.” She simply argues that the $10 billion needed to build “The Wall,” would be BETTER spent on other programs that would provide a greater benefit to the American people. The American people happen to be the ones paying for it, and they are the ones that vote, so obviously to win the debate, they have to be convinced. Arguing science isn’t very convincing, arguing building hospitals, schools and roads is.
Take it from ultra-Conservative Ann Coulter and ultra-Liberal Nancy Pelosi, argue the public policy if you plan to win in the political arena. Science is nice, but the vote is what counts.
Please like, share, subscribe and comment.