Actually, you can. Currently, Joe's dreams will cost about $50,000 for each and every American family.
National Review (4/28/21) reports: "As Phil Klein notes, Joe Biden’s two big spending proposals (one on infrastructure and one on social programs), combined with the 'COVID relief' package he already passed, amount to $5.95 trillion in new spending — more than the entire pre-pandemic federal budget. Unfortunately, unlike the Bionic Man from the TV show that debuted back when Biden arrived in the Senate, the Six Trillion Dollar Man will not be 'better, stronger, faster.' Biden’s seemingly inexhaustible supply of things his dad told him does not seem to have included the old fatherly staple, 'Joey, money doesn’t grow on trees.' How do we put $5.95 trillion in context? I previously estimated the scale of Biden’s spending spree on a per-person and per-household basis. Now that we have updated figures, we can do that again.The 2020 Census found 331,449,281 people in the United States — including children. Biden’s spending, if passed, would amount to $17,951.46 for every man, woman, and child in the country. The most recent Census estimate puts the number of U.S. households around 128,451,000 (that’s 2.58 persons per household if you’re keeping score). Biden’s new spending — remember, this is in addition to the existing federal, state, and local budgets — comes to $46,321.17 for each and every household in the United States. That is over 70 percent of median household income. Biden wants to blow through 70 percent of the typical family’s annual income just in spending proposed in his first 100 days in office. Nothing remotely like this has ever been done in American history. If you were setting out to purposely bankrupt the country, I’m not sure what you would do differently."
|
|
Which, by the way, is about $50,000 more than anyone is personally willing to pay for Joe's Green New Deal...
American Energy Alliance (4/28/21) release: "As the Biden Administration attempts to make good on all of its recent proclamations with respect to global warming and renewable energy, the American Energy Alliance today released the results of a nationwide survey conducted in February of 1,000 voters (3.1% margin of error). The topline results of the survey, conducted by MWR Strategies, are included here. The results indicate that voters want and expect minimal federal involvement in the energy sector. This sentiment is driven partly by cost considerations, partly by lack of trust in the government’s competence or its intentions, and partly by a strong and durable belief in the efficacy of private sector action. Specific response sets include: Voters don’t want to pay to either address climate change or increase the use of renewable energy. There continues to be limited appetite to pay to address climate change. When asked what they would be willing to pay each year to address climate change, the median response from voters was 20 dollars. That is very similar to answers we have received to this question over the last few years, which suggests that climate change – despite the rhetoric – has stalled as an issue for most Americans."
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Given the unclear long-term investment performance of ESG funds and the diversity of opinions on social issues, pension investment decisions should only be guided by the funds’ prime directive: to meet its financial obligations to current and future retirees."
– Wayne Winegarden,
Pacific Research Institute
|
|
|
|
|
|
