Recognizing that voters are increasingly skeptical of extreme climate regulations, dark money groups have stepped in with millions of dollars to alter the conversation.
The goal of these groups, as reported in recent news, is to help climate activists “talk like humans” and present their ideas in a way that doesn’t alienate voters.
Essentially, these groups advise activists on how to sound less radical by softening the rhetoric and framing their climate agenda as more palatable and less divisive. But there’s an obvious catch: this is a messaging campaign, not a policy shift.
If you must teach someone to talk like a human, the message is probably not the problem — it’s the policy, isn’t it?
Beginning with the mythical “new ice age” predicted in the 1970s, the climate alarmists have tried for half a century now to convince us that humans are negatively impacting the climate and that the only solution is for us to diminish the very things — food, energy, and transportation, to name a few — that have brought progress not just to the United States but everywhere around the globe.
The problem is that folks just aren’t buying it, or at least aren’t buying the radical solutions proposed by far-left government officials, out-of-work politicians desperate to make a buck, and the NGOs and think tanks that provide financial backing to them all.
Now, since voters aren’t buying what they’re selling, they want dark money groups to help activists disguise their radical agenda by using softer language, subbing out phrases like “climate change” and “warming” to “extreme weather” and “overheating.”
It seems more than a little ironic that the same voices on the left who accuse energy companies of peddling “fake news” and “climate denialism” to protect their profits are now using a web of dark money to fund a communications strategy that relies on concealment and manipulation. Talk about hypocrisy.
Their problem, of course, lies in the reality that their policy “solutions” do not resonate with the public and do not deliver as advertised. Solutions that actually work and are truly affordable wouldn’t require these kinds of deceptive tactics to gain public support. But their approach is the furthest thing from in touch with what an endless numbers of pre-election surveys and exit polls showed is voters’ most pressing concern today — the economy.
Just look at the adverse economic consequences that came from President Joe Biden’s radical energy policies.
Within hours of assuming office, Biden canceled the Keystone Pipeline, killing thousands of union jobs. He conducted a regulatory assault on energy companies, limited drilling permits and access, supplied nearly $500 billion in tax dollars to green energy initiatives, and pushed policies that made fossil fuel production more difficult and expensive. Gas prices spiked, and utility bills soared for millions of Americans, hitting the middle class especially hard.
And that’s not all. Of course, nearly every good purchased or consumed is shipped by trucks and trains which run on fossil fuels. Driving up the cost of fuels drives up the price of shipping, which, in turn, drives up the prices of the goods being shipped. That is exactly what Biden’s radical energy policies did. Add to that the fact that, even as fuel prices moderated in recent months, prices for consumer goods have remained stubbornly high, and it’s no wonder the Biden policies became so unpopular.
While the administration justified these policies as steps toward a cleaner, greener future, the main effect felt by average American families was a squeeze on their household budgets and a heightened sense of financial instability.
No amount of dark money will bring the climate alarm movement’s views into line with the mainstream, and no amount of softer language will allow them to change the conversation in a manner that convinces the public to give up their gasoline-powered cars and gas stoves.
There is a fundamental disconnect between the radical Biden policies and the needs of average Americans living out here in “flyover country.” Until they can address the true economic consequences of their climate agenda, they will continue to lose elections and legislative policy battles. And that’s welcome news for us all.
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.
Americans of all persuasions have reached a rough consensus in favor of cutting government spending. We all, with the possible exception of hard-left Democrats, know that our present course is unsustainable and will lead to fiscal ruin.
Yet so far, no politician in a position to do so has been able to accomplish the feat. Ronald Reagan’s heart was in the right place, but he wasn’t able to get a reluctant Congress to go along without giving up his dream of ending the Cold War.
Most presidents and congresses since have been MIA in fiscal discipline. Donald Trump, although successful in many policy initiatives, failed utterly in this most critical area of all.
But now there is suddenly hope arising from an unexpected quarter – Argentina. Javier Milei, their new president, has shown after one year that it is in fact possible to reduce the size and scope of the state. It takes clear vision and resolve, not just bluster and campaign slogans that melt under populist pressure to spend.
Milei’s political persona is brash and flamboyant. He sported a chainsaw during his presidential campaign to dramatize his zeal for cutting spending. But he is a serious economist, a former university professor who has published over 50 academic papers. He fully understands the relationship between free-market principles and economic growth.
He doesn’t pander. During his campaign, he was candid about the effect of the large cuts in spending he contemplated including the termination of tens of thousands of jobs, the elimination of government agencies, and the loss of regulatory protection many would experience.
Here’s the key. Unlike most politicians who make extravagant promises, he did what he said he would. The International Monetary Fund confirms that in his first year, he cut government spending by an astonishing 30%, he eliminated or downsized 12 government ministries, he canceled 80% of public infrastructure projects, and he reduced the public payroll by 20%.
The results already speak for themselves. Argentina has a balanced budget for the first time in 10 years. The first quarterly surplus appeared in April. Significantly, inflation has been reduced from an intolerable 25% monthly in 2023 to about 2% per month currently. Argentina’s credit ratings are starting to improve. Output is beginning to expand.
Once Argentina’s banks ceased printing money to cover chronic deficits, economic pain was bound to ensue. Massive debt is still out there. As Milei warned, unemployment is up and the poverty rate has jumped to nearly 50%.
Yet Argentines seem willing to stick with the program. The amazing drop in inflation (they have their money back) and the belief that the pain will be worth the gain seems to be keeping up morale. Milei’s approval rating is 55% and rising, with few signs of widespread discontent.
It helps that deregulation has already produced benefits. The Milei government has improved everyday life by slashing red tape around things like air travel, divorce, and satellite Internet. A housing boom has developed with rent deregulation. Rents have stabilized and mortgages are once again available. The poverty rate is already falling.
The left is not impressed, of course. Al-Jazeera calls Milei’s presidency a “disaster.” The BBC worries that he is “influencing” America’s new policy makers, asserting that “taking inspiration from Milei to reduce the size of government doesn’t make any sense.” The New York Times frets about the hardships being forced on Argentines.
The tantrum on the left is understandable. Argentina, once a wealthy nation, has been brought low by decades of autocratic, collectivist economic governance. Milei convinced voters that Argentina should not follow Cuba, Venezuela, and other failed economies down the “soak the rich” path.
He preached not more government but less, not more trade barriers but fewer, not higher taxes but lower. If Argentina succeeds, leftists have some serious explaining to do.
The incoming American administration seems interested in learning from Argentina’s experience. “The deficit was the root of all evils – without it, there’s no debt…no inflation,” Milei counsels.
There is no secret sauce either, just the basic sound economic principles that are the known roots of prosperity. We don’t need more study at this point, just the steely determination to do the right thing.
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.
Congressman David Schweikert (R-AZ-01) offered his fellow Congress members a gift in his weekly speech on Thursday. The former Arizona State Treasurer and nation’s de facto accountant presented solutions to the problems “that directly contribute to rising costs and decreasing wages in America.” In a press release last week, Schweikert shared video of his speech in which he points out the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for November reflected a 2.7 percent price increase from November of last year, indicating continuing inflation while wages continue to stagnate.
The Arizona Republican stressed the need for Congress to pursue a modernized immigration approach based on talent and merit in 2025, which promotes both productivity and wage growth while simultaneously offsetting declining birth rates and population decline.
Schweikert explained, “Here’s the reality: if the president is looking at you in the camera, and telling you [we have] the best economy ever—that’s not factual—but why don’t you feel it? It’s because much of America is poorer today than the day President Biden took office. If you live in the Phoenix-Scottsdale area—my home—if you don’t make 27 percent more today than the day President Biden took office, you are poorer.
Having someone telling you, ‘Oh, the economy is great,’ and yet, you’re having trouble paying for things… The reason we made this board, functionally, for you to maintain your purchasing power. If you are an average American in my district, these numbers are substantially higher because I am from a district with some of the highest inflation in America. If you are not making $1,115 more a month—because that’s what you have to be [making] from four years ago—your purchasing power… you’re poorer.
And I think that’s the reason that voters turned and said, ‘Okay, I see these Democrats running lots of ads saying crazy things,’ but yet, it turns out the voters are actually really smart. They would look at their checking account. They’d look at the cost of their kids’ clothes. They’d look at the grocery store and try to figure out why in the last week of the month they were losing their minds under stress.”
WATCH:
The congressman stressed the incoherence of current immigration policy, which invites foreign nationals into the U.S., educates them in our institutions, and then ships them back to their home countries rather than encouraging skilled legal immigrants to become citizens. In the release, Schweikert notes, “When wages go up, we actually take in more tax receipts and then begins the cascade event of changing society and the economy for the future and the better.”
Regarding reforming the tax code to favor research and development and immigration laws to favor talent-based immigration, he posited, “One of our economists is trying to model what would happen if you said we’re going to do expensing of research and development because we know that pops economic growth. But if you also did talent-based immigration at the same time, you may get a multiplier effect. This is thinking like an economist. This is what we have to do to get ourselves out of this hole.”
Noble Predictive Insights (NPI) released its Arizona Public Opinion Pulse (AZPOP) results on Thursday, offering the closest to a full exit-poll that has been generated in the state so far after the election. Conducted in the last pre-Thanksgiving week of November, the survey spoke to 988 registered voters in Arizona and among other things asked voters specifically, “WHY they voted the way they did.”
The pollsters asked voters to express their reasoning for voting for President-elect Donald Trump versus Vice President Kamala Harris and for Congressman and Senator-elect Ruben Gallego instead of Kari Lake in particular.
The latest AZPOP tells us why voters made their choices. Trump captured a majority of Independents, while the economy topped voter concerns (27%).
Of all concerns that dominated the presidential election, the outlet found, as many polls prior to the election did, that the economy predominated being the most important issue in voters’ decision with 27% of respondents. This was followed by immigration, “Threats to Democracy”, and the “candidate’s background or policy record.”
The economy (27%) was most impactful on voice choice, followed by immigration & threats to democracy. Trump’s GOP made immigration a signature issue. DEMs own the positive & negative aspects of the economy. Translation: The top issues were great for REPs.https://t.co/ztoJQLTfmtpic.twitter.com/idIuThEz4W
“Trump’s GOP has made immigration a signature issue for the party, and Democrats – the party in power – own both the positive and negative aspects of the economy. Translation: The two top issues were great for Republicans.“
Republicans and Independents both were motivated first by the economy and then by immigration, while Democrats were motivated by the perceived “threats to Democracy,” followed by the economy and abortion.
David Byler, NPI Chief of Research explained, “Republican and Democratic candidates ran like they were living in different universes. Democrats cared about abortion and threats to democracy much more than immigration. Republicans saw immigration and the economy as crises caused by the Biden Administration.”
“We saw this same pattern in the pre-election polling. But the election proved that the GOP argument – about the economy, immigration, and dissatisfaction with how Biden governed – won the day.”
The exact same share of Republicans and Independents (31%) said the economy was most important, and immigration came in second place – though immigration was important to more Republicans (24%) than Independents (17%).
The pollster also observed that a potentially fatal flaw in Harris’ campaign was her deep integration within the deliberately named Biden-Harris Administration, which precluded her making a clean-break from an extremely unpopular presidency among Arizona voters.
“As Biden’s VP, most voters (56%) view Harris as an extension of the Biden administration rather than a new politician forging a different path (33%). Arizonans disapproved of Biden’s job performance for most of his tenure as President – which suggests he may have been a liability for the Harris campaign.”
Most voters (56%) view Harris as an extension of the Biden administration. Arizonans disapproved of Biden’s job performance for most of his tenure as President – which suggests he may have been a liability for the Harris campaign.
Mike Noble, NPI Founder & CEO noted, “Hindsight is 20/20, but this might be one of the biggest mistakes of the 2024 Democratic process for replacing Biden. They chose someone who was part of the Biden Administration, knowing that he had a poor approval rating. Harris could be tied to Biden in a way that almost nobody could.”
Turning to the Senate race, the results took on a different character entirely. Rather than addressing particular issues or positions as they did in the presidential race, the pollsters’ questioning yielded more emotionally driven responses related to Kari Lake’s favorability, thus not offering a similar distinction in the Senate race. The outlet wrote, “This AZPOP asked voters who had an unfavorable view of Lake (53%) WHY they disliked her, and allowed them to select multiple reasons.”
Based on the narrow breadth of the question and its scope being limited to those who voted against Lake, Noble Predictive Insights found a majority of Gallego supporters either did so because she “denied her 2022 loss in the governor race,” because the respondent “did not like her personally,” or because she “imitated Trump without offering new ideas.”
The National Retail Federation (NRF) and Prosper Insights & Analytics have released a new survey indicating the hottest selling toys and gifts for the holiday season.
In a press release, NRF Vice President of Industry and Consumer Insights Katherine Cullen introduced the survey saying, “The holiday season is in full swing and while many consumers have made progress on their shopping lists, most shoppers will make the majority of their purchases over the coming weeks. Whether shoppers are looking to spread out their purchases or seeking the best deals, retailers are ready to help consumers with all their shopping needs this holiday.”
According to the survey, the NRF forecasts that 2024 holiday spending will increase by approximately 2.5-3.5% and total between $979.5 billion and $989 billion.
In the category of toys, the survey found real-world toys like Legos, Hot Wheels, and other toy cars reigning supreme over video games and video game consoles for boys. For girls, it found Barbie and other dolls standing tall with Legos, followed by cosmetics and beauty products.
For adults, the survey found that the top five gift-giving categories will be clothing (54%), gift cards (44%), toys (36%), books, video games, movies, series and other media (31%), as well as food and candy (30%).
For gift cards, the most popular are those for restaurants at 30%, department stores at 25%, bank-issued gift cards at 25%, and coffee shop gift cards at 22%.
Prosper Insights & Analytics Executive Vice President of Strategy Phil Rist explained that most shoppers will find their gift inspirations online. He said, “Younger shoppers continue to embrace social media for gift ideas, with those between the ages of 18-24 more likely to find inspiration through platforms such as TikTok (28%) and Instagram (27%). These shoppers are also more likely than any other age group to purchase jewelry, with 30% planning to gift these items.”
