In the evolving landscape of Arizona high school sports, one organization stands as a relic of a bygone era, clinging to monopolistic control and outdated practices: the Arizona Interscholastic Association (AIA).
The origins of the AIA are important to note due to the group’s strong initial connection with three of the most pervasive forces for the center-left in Arizona K-12 politics: The Arizona School Administrators, the Arizona School Board Association, and the Arizona Educators Association, the local teachers’ union affiliate. In addition to sharing space, it is apparent that the AIA shares similar views as these three organizations in the protection of its monopoly of Arizona high school sports.
Like its original policy partners, the AIA has become synonymous with overreach, authoritarianism, and a childlike resistance to change. As more Arizona athletes and their families opt for alternatives such as Canyon Athletic Association (CAA) schools and independent prep schools, the AIA increasingly finds itself at an existential crossroads.
Its response? Double down on draconian policies that dash the dreams of student-athletes and undermine the dedication of coaches who are often underpaid and overworked. The systemic problem of AIA overreach in the decisions of Arizona families is bad enough that there are lawyers in our state that specialize in AIA conflict and dispute resolution, a troubling realization for an organization that claims to work on behalf of Arizona kids.
A Culture of Overreach and Punishment
The AIA’s authoritarian style is most evident in its relentless enforcement of rules that punish rather than promote the best interests of student-athletes. Consider the tragic case of Desert Edge High School in Goodyear, where the football and track programs were placed on probation due to a social media post by a successful coach who dared to advocate for his school’s athletic and academic quality when asked by a parent that was already seeking a transfer for their child.
The incident led to a harsh punishment that barred Desert Edge from playoff participation in both football and track. It took two hard working and dedicated coaches to fall on their sword to assuage the feckless AIA amid complaints from neighboring schools, who embrace a robust and shameful snitch culture to make up for the inadequacies of their own teams.
Why should the coaches that pour their souls into their athletic programs be barred from advocating for their schools? What harm is done by high school coaches explaining to prospective student-athletes and families the benefits of their program and school amid a generational shift that poses a long-term threat to public school enrollment in Arizona?
This decision not only penalized the coaches and players who had worked tirelessly to excel but also showcased the AIA’s ruthlessness in quashing any perceived challenge to its control. It is the duty of the AIA and its senior leadership to explain what they are so afraid of when parents and student-athletes vote with their feet and elect to make moves in their best interests, as opposed to the members that make up the AIA’s Soviet-style politburo, who would prefer to handcuff each and every kid to their assigned school to preserve its membership base and grow its payroll with additional bureaucrats.
The AIA’s overreach was most recently witnessed in its unfair and controversial decision regarding the Williams Field High School boys’ volleyball team, which had its state championship vacated after the AIA deemed the team ineligible due to an unsanctioned scrimmage shortly before playoffs commenced.
Never mind the fact that these young men were challenging themselves by taking the time out of their day to train against a better team in preparation for the playoffs, the AIA’s Stalinist approach takes precedence. Even though Williams Field High School self-reported the incident, it still took a legal battle by parents to allow the players to compete.
By allowing Williams Field to play, the AIA wasn’t exhibiting any kindness. Instead they did so as a legal strategy, before ultimately deciding to strip the team of its well-deserved title and expunge the team’s participation from the record books. If that isn’t reminiscent of Stalin, what is?
Valley Christian High School has also found itself in the AIA’s crosshairs, with investigations into alleged bylaw violations concerning student-athlete participation in non-AIA activities. The school’s basketball and baseball programs were subject to scrutiny simply for engaging in activities that promote player development and community service, which included a single Valley Christian basketball player living his dream to try out for the Italian national team and the audacity of the young men of Valley Christian’s baseball program who dared to engage in community service during a mission trip to the Dominican Republic, where the AIA struck down the chance for the team to scrimmage against Dominicans. Unless you happen to be privy to the inside baseball of the AIA’s autocrats, the logic and transparency behind such decisions is sorely lacking.
What the examples of Desert Edge, Williams Field, and Valley Christian cumulatively demonstrate is the fact that if the AIA can’t put their fingerprints all over an event and milk it for money while offering their papal-like blessing, then we have evidently reached the Armageddon of amateur athletics.
A Monopoly Built on Exploitation
Beyond punitive actions, the AIA has exploited its position to secure financial gain at the expense of Arizona families and student-athletes. One glaring example is the AIA’s concessionary monopoly on photography at state tournaments, where it has barred local newspaper photographers from prime locations, instead reserving these spots for a single private company to dig deeper into the pockets of Arizona families. This coming from the same organization that dragged its feet for two years at the idea of children retaining the rights to their Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL), a concept that should be automatically ubiquitous for all Americans of all ages without exception.
The association’s lack of care for student welfare was also evident in a 2012 lawsuit brought against the AIA under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The lawsuit alleged that the AIA discriminated against a student-athlete with a disability by refusing to allow a sign language interpreter during tennis matches. The case was settled, with the AIA agreeing to policy changes and training to ensure compliance with the ADA. However, the incident underscores the AIA’s long history of prioritizing its rigid rules over the needs of individual students, even for common sense rights like the right of a deaf student-athlete to have access to a sign language interpreter.
With evidently little to do other than riding the coattails of the real legwork done by coaches and school athletic directors, the AIA generates its own work by targeting and investigating children and their families for making the best available choices to them. Is such an organization worthy of the voluntary participation of most Arizona schools?
The AIA has repeatedly targeted families and students who exercise their right to choose the best educational and athletic opportunities available. Longtime AIA Executive Director David Hines has been at the forefront of this campaign, having advocated for policies that would make student-athletes who dare to transfer schools ineligible for postseason play—a clear attempt to deter families from seeking better options for their children. Such policies punish students for seeking opportunities that align with their aspirations, while further entrenching the AIA’s fear-driven monopoly over high school sports in the state.
The AIA’s thirst for crony capitalism extends to its launch of AZPreps365, a news service it manages as part of its public relations strategy, as well as shady long-term partnerships it has entered with private entities. The fact that the AIA employs a Business Development Officer, in addition to a Chief Technology Officer, a General Manager of AIA Sports Properties, a Director of Media Services, an Account Executive, and 3 senior-level directors in the Executive Office tells Arizonans all we need to know about the “no-show job” racket that is the AIA.
A Monopoly on the Brink of Collapse
The AIA’s authoritarian grip on Arizona high school sports is not unbreakable. As more families and school districts explore alternatives, the organization risks becoming increasingly irrelevant. The growth of the Canyon Athletic Association is but one bright spot. The emergence of private, independent prep schools and specialized sports academies, particularly in soccer and basketball, offers a free-market alternative that prioritizes student-athlete development over bureaucratic control. Even football is not immune from a challenge by entrepreneurial Arizonans seeking to do right by kids instead of the system.
Indeed, the AIA’s monopoly could crumble with the exit of one major school district or a coalition of competitive districts seeking greener pastures. The defection of districts like Chandler, Mesa, Tempe, Scottsdale, which frequently dominate in terms of their playoff appearances and championships in the AIA’s top-tier divisions, would suffice on its own to force the AIA to do an about-face. The departure of East Valley powerhouse districts from the AIA would reorient a significant amount of the talent outside of the scope of the AIA, rendering it less and less relevant for NCAA recruiting and hitting the organization’s purse strings directly.
The time is ripe for a new era in Arizona high school sports—one that values competition, opportunity, and the well-being of student-athletes over the preservation of an outdated and authoritarian institution.
As families continue to seek alternatives, the AIA must either reform or face obsolescence. Parents of AIA schools would be justified in contacting their school board members to contest their district’s future participation in a league that frequently puts the dictums of adults over the dreams of student-athletes.
Arman Sidhu is a lifelong Arizonan and is a former Student-Athlete, Teacher, Coach, Athletic Director, and Principal. His views are solely his own.
A recent report from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) suggests that the ongoing illegal immigration surge at the southern border will reduce the federal deficit by a staggering $897 billion over the next decade.
At first glance, this figure might seem like a silver lining to this national crisis. However, a closer examination reveals a more complex and concerning picture and reveals this report to be another example of the government trying to conceal the truth from American citizens.
While the CBO projects an increase in revenues of $1.175 trillion and an increase in mandatory spending and spending on net interest of $278 billion over the next 10 years, these numbers fail to capture the full scope of the situation. The report’s limitations and glaring omissions paint an incomplete picture that may lead to misguided policy decisions if Congress does not understand the actual fiscal impacts of the border crisis. By publishing such an incomplete report, CBO is playing a role in covering up the Biden-Harris border crisis and not giving Congress the information it needs to fix the problem.
One glaring omission is the exclusion of discretionary spending impacts. The CBO acknowledges that the immigration surge will likely put pressure on many programs funded through discretionary appropriations. In fact, CBO estimates that increased discretionary funding as a result of the border surge could total around $200 billion over the 2024-2034 period. This substantial sum is mentioned but not factored into the deficit reduction calculation because, as CBO says, “no clear basis exists for projecting how the immigration surge will affect [congressional] funding decisions.”
Moreover, the report “does not include estimates of the surge’s effects on state and local budgets.” The CBO itself admits that “[r]esearch has generally found that increases in immigration raise state and local governments’ costs more than their revenues, and CBO expects that finding to hold in the case of the current immigration surge.” New York City alone spent $4.3 billion from July 2022 to March 2024 to accommodate immigrants and comply with existing housing policies. Extrapolating this to other cities over a decade paints a sobering picture of the financial burden on local communities.
The state of Texas was forced to take action on its own. First with Operation Lone Star (OLS), a response to the border crisis triggered by the Biden-Harris administration’s failure to enforce federal laws along the border. OLS has cost Texans about $11 billion and that’s just to secure the border. That does not include costs to the state’s health care, education, and criminal justice systems — which increase with the addition of aliens who have been let in by the Biden-Harris administration. The CBO report does not adequately assess or include these costs and they can be found in every state.
The revenue calculations assume lower tax compliance rates among the population who entered the nation via the border crisis. This raises questions about the accuracy of the projected $1.2 trillion in additional revenue.
Beyond the fiscal impacts, the report hints at broader economic consequences. The illegal immigration surge is expected to lead to lower productivity, reduce average wage growth (particularly for non-college educated workers), higher interest rates, and increased medical and food prices. These factors could have far-reaching effects on the American economy and the well-being of citizens.
Perhaps most concerning is the CBO’s own admission that its “estimates of the budgetary effects of the immigration surge are highly uncertain.” The report lists numerous “[m]ajor sources of uncertainty,” including the number of aliens who have entered the country, the duration of the border crisis itself, the changing immigration status of individuals, and their impact on productivity. Essentially, many metrics crucial to the estimate are shrouded in uncertainty and the authors of the report knew it and still published these estimates that claim mass illegal immigration is good for the deficit.
Making policy decisions based on such questionable projections, where the political left has clearly put its thumb on the scale, could have disastrous consequences and exacerbate existing problems. We must demand a more comprehensive analysis that accounts for all costs — both seen and unseen. Not a report that is politically appealing to the left’s narrative on illegal immigration.
The border crisis is not just about numbers on a balance sheet. As we debate immigration policy, we must consider not just the potential fiscal benefits but also the hidden costs and societal impacts. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated there were 74,702 fentanyl overdose deaths in the United States last year — a drug we know flows in through our open southern border.
Human trafficking and smuggling into the United States is a booming multi-billion dollar business for Mexican cartels. We must end this crisis now. When comparing the fiscal impacts to the human toll, money seems secondary and that is true, but understanding the monetary effects is important to solving the larger problem.
The CBO report should be seen as deficient and, overall, as a liability since it does not give Congress the information it needs to take action. The future of our nation depends on getting this right.
With an honest and complete assessment, we can get good legislation like the Secure the Border Act signed into law, force strong executive actions from future presidents, and keep Americans safe. These policies will ensure our nation knows who is coming in, and what the impacts of that are to U.S. citizens. But we need the CBO and Washington to stop playing politics with vital information.
You’ve seen “Black Women for Kamala” and even “White Dudes for Kamala,” but don’t expect to see “Parents for Kamala Harris and Tim Walz.”
Vice President Kamala Harris is squarely against parental control of what young children are taught about sex, gender and homosexuality in school. On Tuesday, she chose a running mate — Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz — a former schoolteacher who shares her extreme, anti-parent views.
Harris and Walz are out of line with what most Americans think. Not just Republicans; a majority of Hispanic and Black Democrats don’t want gender ideology in elementary school classrooms, according to Pew Research and You/Gov polls.
On July 25, Harris promised the American Federation of Teachers convention that she opposes the wave of state laws that bar preschool and elementary school teachers from indoctrinating children about sexual orientation and gender choices. Harris also opposes book bans, suggesting she’s OK with giving young children books that encourage them to question their own gender identity.
“We want to ban assault weapons. They want to ban books,” she railed. At issue are books for the youngest readers, like “I Am Jazz,” that tell little girls they can be boys, and little boys that they can be girls. Jazz “had a girl’s brain in a boy’s body. … Jazz was transgender.”
Parental rights and the innocence of young children are at stake in this election, warns Terry Schilling, president of the American Principles Project, which launched an $18 million ad campaign across seven swing states. Schilling calls Harris an “extremist.”
All people, regardless of their sexual orientation, deserve respect. But parents need the final say on what their children are taught.
Harris has a history of bashing lawmakers who side with parents. At a June 23, 2023, pride rally, she called them “extremists.”
Who’s extreme here? You decide.
An AFT report deplores a Henrico County, Virginia, parent for questioning the appropriateness of “I’m a Gay Wizard,” a book in the school library, which depicts two boy characters having oral sex.
Former President Donald Trump vows to cut federal funding for any school or program that tries to push gender ideology and other “inappropriate racial, sexual, or political content on our children.”
On June 18, Harris posted a picture of herself hugging a tall man in drag, dressed in a metallic bikini and stilettos, on Facebook, adding the message, “Our LGBTQI+ children should not fear who they are.”
Of course they shouldn’t. All children deserve respect.
But this battle isn’t about inclusion. Inclusion is a good thing. This is about indoctrination. According to the AFT, “Books that normalize sexual identity confusion can help young people realize that they are not alone in their struggle for identity clarity and confirmation.” What the AFT goes on to say is that “the lack of candid conversations in families” about “nonheterosexual identity development” must be offset by teachers bringing it up.
Sorry, most parents don’t want the AFT — or local school authorities — replacing family. Harris apparently does. So does her new running mate.
Minnesota parents who opposed “Call Me Max,” a book about a transgender boy, being read aloud in kindergarten asked why they should let a teacher plant seeds of doubt in their kindergarteners about their sexual identity. Several states have banned the book from classrooms, but amazingly, California’s state education department recommends it for kindergarteners, first graders and second graders.
On May 22, Walz signed a law barring parental groups from removing books or materials from Minnesota school libraries based on content, calling the parental efforts “regressive.” The bill mimics legislation already passed in California and other blue states that leaves educators, not families, in charge.
Walz also championed legislation to provide tampons in all boys’ bathrooms, in case a transgender needs one. That’s pushing an agenda.
Meanwhile, Harris mocks parents, exclaiming, “Book bans in this year of our Lord 2024.”
The choice in November is between California values — extremely liberal Harris values — or the values your family chooses.
Meanwhile, the real emergency in education is being ignored. Fewer than one-third of fourth graders are proficient in reading, and barely one-third are proficient in math.
Blame the AFT. Its website is all about immigration rights, transgender rights, banning firearms, and other political issues. Not a word about pedagogy — how to teach reading and math effectively.
After Walz’s selection Tuesday, both the AFT and National Education Association rushed to applaud the pick.
Parents: If you care about your children’s innocence and their future, don’t elect AFT toady Harris and her anti-parent running mate in November.
Betsy McCaughey is a contributor to The Daily Caller News Foundation and a former lieutenant governor of New York and chairman of the Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths. Follow her on Twitter @Betsy_McCaughey. To find out more about Betsy McCaughey and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.
There are many ways the United States can fail in the areas of border security and immigration policy. Over the past three-and-a-half years, the Biden administration has managed to implement most of those failed policies. A Harris administration would almost certainly make those policy failures complete.
President Joe Biden entered the White House in 2021 with a clear objective to be the anti-Donald Trump president and undo Trump administration policies across the board. Nowhere did this undoing process have greater impact – and create more chaos – than at the U.S.-Mexico border.
On his first day in the Oval Office in 2021, Biden suspended the program formally known as Migrant Protection Protocols. It required immigrants seeking asylum in the United States to remain in Mexico while their cases made their way through U.S. immigration courts. That was the first green light to potential immigrants around the world – and, more importantly, to those who prey on them – that if they could set foot on U.S. soil and make a claim of asylum, they could likely remain in the United States indefinitely. The border became wide open.
Word spread through WhatsApp and other social media networks. Cartels and human traffickers used the policy change as a marketing strategy to compel desperate migrants to hand over their life savings and make the dangerous journey to the border. Immigrants were coached not to evade but instead to actually seek out law enforcement officials and request asylum — no matter how frivolous their claim.
In case axing the Remain in Mexico policy did not deliver a message that was abundantly clear, Biden followed up in April 2022 by rescinding Title 42, the Trump policy initiated during the pandemic that allowed the federal government to rapidly expel illegal immigrants apprehended at the border and block them from seeking asylum. The results were completely predictable.
According to Customs and Border Protection data, there were 73,994 “encounters” along the Southwest border in December 2020. One year later, that monthly figure was 179,253. In December 2022, the number rose to 252,315. Last December, there were 301,982 encounters.
In his zeal to appease progressives and burnish his anti-Trump credentials, Biden failed to consider – or worse, recognized and accepted – the consequences of incentivizing mass illegal immigration. Vice President Kamala Harris, whom Biden tasked with stemming illegal immigration’s “root causes” in March 2021, declared on NBC’s Meet the Press in September 2022: “We have a secure border in that that is a priority for any nation, including ours and our administration.” It was a lie.
Now that she is a presidential candidate, Democrats want you to believe Harris had nothing to do with immigration or the border. The American people know better. They also know that four more years of Biden-era immigration, economic, defense, energy and other policies will be a national disaster.
The Biden administration’s CBP numbers tell the story – 2.5 million encounters at the Southwest border in fiscal year 2023. That is why Gallup reported last month that “significantly more U.S. adults than a year ago, 55% versus 41%, would like to see immigration to the U.S. decreased.” That is the highest level for anti-immigration sentiment since immediately after the 9-11 attacks.
There are two related tragedies here. The first is for the migrants who have endured physical abuse, rape and murder to try to make asylum claims in the United States. Contrary to what the Biden administration and immigrant advocates would like you to believe, illegal migration is not a victimless crime, not to mention the crimes committed by some migrants in this country.
The second tragedy is that anti-immigration sentiment is rising at a time when our economy needs immigrant workers the most. Due primarily to demographics but also to cultural changes in the U.S. workforce, the United States simply does not produce enough native-born workers to fulfill the needs of the agriculture, healthcare and construction industries, to name a few.
The United States needs legal, orderly immigration policies that recognize both our security and economic interests. Unfortunately, the Biden administration’s catastrophic failures on border security and immigration have understandably soured the American people on even sensible reforms. A Harris administration would only make those failures worse.
Dennis E. Nixon is a contributor to The Daily Caller News Foundation and chairman and CEO of IBC Bank, based in Laredo, Texas. He has been deeply involved in border, trade and immigration policy for five decades.
Our federal system is aptly called the laboratory of democracy. Rather than learning everything from the school of hard knocks, states can look to the experience of others with initiatives like charter schools, right-to-work laws, and taxation levels. Unfortunately, there are some slow learners out there.
The IRS recently released its annual report of the net migration of people and money between states. Once again, the high tax-and-spend states lost out. California was the biggest income loser ($23.8 billion) in 2022, followed by New York (14.2), Illinois (9.8), New Jersey (5.3), and Massachusetts (3.9).
Florida gained $36 billion in migrating revenues. Texas realized $10.1 billion, followed by South Carolina, Tennessee, and North Carolina. Arizona gained $3.7 billion in gross adjusted income (AGI), mostly from the 57,857 people who migrated from California, compared to 25,677 moving from Arizona to California.
Who knew people prefer to live where housing is affordable, power is reliably available, and crime is taken seriously by authorities? California not only fails on these tests, but its gas taxes are the highest in the nation, which means gasoline costs $1 to $2 a gallon more and electricity bills are 2 to 3 times higher than states without California’s climate mandates. Temperatures don’t seem to be coming down much so far.
California’s median priced home is about double that of most states and the state tax on middle income earners is 9.3%, more than most states assess their millionaires. Governor Gavin Newsom can prattle on about the “California Dream” but Californians aren’t feeling it. They’re leaving if they can.
Moreover, it’s getting worse. California lost nearly 3 times as much income to other states in 2022 as it did in pre-COVID 2019. Even though housing costs discouraged many from moving, New York lost 1.8% of the total state AGI, 3.1% in 2021, and 2.5% in 2020.
Florida and Texas were among the beneficiaries, seeing 150 to 200% more income being transferred from high spending states than before the pandemic.
California, New York, Illinois, and other states have created a “doom loop” by their foolhardy fiscal policies. Fewer workers and less total income result in lower tax revenues. The tax-and-spenders must raise tax rates to maintain their social programs and promises to unions and to finance their rising debt. Rinse and repeat.
Most enterprises, faced with falling revenues and climbing expenses, would update their business model. But the high-tax states aren’t interested in changing their ways. California is moving forward with yet more climate mandates and boondoggles like the infamous “train to nowhere.” Illinois rejected fiscal discipline and instead passed a budget with $1.1 billion in tax increases. New Jersey, hemorrhaging jobs, went ahead anyway with reimposing a 2.5% surtax on corporate incomes.
Rather than pursuing modest reforms or spending cuts, the blue states are instead trying to force other states to help them pay for their high taxes. They love the state and local tax (SALT) deduction, which requires taxpayers from Florida, Arizona, and other frugal states to pay part of the state tax bill for high earners from high-tax states. They are insistent that Congress remove the $10,000 cap on the deduction, which would further incentivize their excessive spending.
The cap raises about $80 billion a year of relief for federal taxpayers. The Brookings Institution found that if the SALT cap were eliminated, 57% of the benefit would go to the top 1% of earners. Still, the tax-and-spenders claim Congress “screwed” them by instituting the cap, thereby supposedly creating much of their fiscal woes.
States have become more careless in managing their pension fund obligations also. Raising benefit levels is popular, while funding can be deferred. Unsurprisingly, the result is chronic underfunding. New York has assets that would fund only 48% of future legal obligations according to standard accounting procedures and New Jersey is at 29%.
Future shortfalls will eventually result in public bankruptcies and destitute pensioners. Still states resist reforms, apparently assuming the feds would not ultimately deny requests for bailouts in such desperate circumstances.
States must be accountable for their own actions. They should not be allowed to exploit each other to cover for their moral and financial shortcomings.
Dr. Thomas Patterson, former Chairman of the Goldwater Institute, is a retired emergency physician. He served as an Arizona State senator for 10 years in the 1990s, and as Majority Leader from 93-96. He is the author of Arizona’s original charter schools bill.
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’sGreen 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:
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.
David Blackmon is a contributor to The Daily Caller News Foundation, 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.
