thetennesseestar--2020-11-02--Commentary: Michigan Has One More Chance to Reject the Political Establishment – It Might Not Come A

Commentary: Michigan Has One More Chance to Reject the Political Establishment – It Might Not Come Again

Joe Biden is not merely a presidential candidate ; he is a vehicle for returning the establishment elite to power .
Michiganders of both parties rejected the establishment in 2016 .
In doing so four years ago , the voters shocked Hollywood , labor bosses , left-wing journalists , and other political elites who thought we fit neatly into one of their ideological boxes .
People across the Midwest correctly recognized that the political class had long ago ceased to be responsive to our needs , and so we revolted .
Not much has changed since then .
Despite constant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden is a charter member of the political elite .
The Delaware politician has spent his entire career in government — 36 years in the Senate and eight as vice president .
Yet , he trades heavily on his “ Scranton Joe ” upbringing , complete with the story about him becoming a civil rights activist in Delaware — something he alone remembers .
Despite all his folksy posturing , Biden is just an empty vessel who will put elites back in control .
His vice-presidential choice , ranked as the most liberal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Minutes , comes from the other left coast , California .
Others in his orbit — the people who will be making policy if Biden is elected — cut their teeth in left-wing politics .
But it ’ s not just the people Biden surrounds himself that should give us all pause .
Look who is financing his campaign .
“ Scranton Joe ” is raking in twice as much money from billionaires as the President .
Wall Street is even more firmly behind him , pouring five times as much cash into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Biden is also the consensus choice of a media establishment , which has spent four years launching the most unrelenting , coordinated attacks on a presidential administration in American history .
Their preferred narrative is rigorously enforced by thousands of Silicon Valley hall monitors intent on choosing to suppress news that is unfavorable to Biden .
Just like his contrived “ Scranton Joe ” persona , Biden ’ s record from four decades in Washington is rarely discussed .
Yet , it is marked by mistakes at every turn .
His fingerprints @ @ @ @ @ @ @ jobs shipped overseas , redistributed wealth from hard working middle-class taxpayers to groups favored by progressives , and sent more of our young people to fight seemingly endless wars around the globe .
Despite efforts to paint Joe Biden as a grandfatherly man who will govern from the middle , the people spending millions to ensure his victory know their man .
They understand that Biden will never lift a finger to stop the flow of jobs to China and cheap goods back to America .
After all , he was a key @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spent more than 30 years on Capitol Hill advancing the cause of “ free trade.
” He supported NAFTA 26 years ago over the objections of rank-and-file union members .
He pushed to help China , first by granting our biggest strategic competitor “ most favored nation ” trade status , and then by pulling out all the stops to get the communist regime into the World Trade Organization .
Taken together , these policies resulted in the loss of tens of millions of jobs , and the death of entire American industries @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of President Trump .
He has held China accountable for its actions and negotiated a new deal , the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement ( USMCA ) two years ago , with the ringing endorsement of the AFL-CIO .
Manufacturing is coming home , thanks to this President .
Just as the business elites crave a return to globalization and surrender to China , the foreign policy bureaucracy craves a return to endless war .
As a senator , Joe Biden voted for the Iraq War .
As vice president , he never met a foreign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s no wonder that Robert Gates — who served as Defense Secretary in both the Obama and Bush Administration — said that Biden has “ been wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades.
” In contrast , President Trump opposed the Iraq War as a private citizen , and as President he has brought thousands of troops home from war zones while refusing to get American soldiers involved in any new open-ended interventions .
Instead , he focused on delivering for our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and projecting peace through strength .
As we did in 2016 , Michiganders have another chance to the coastal elites “ no.
” We don ’ t have to go back to business as usual , with policies like the Green New Deal , single-payer healthcare , and job-killing taxes and red tape .
You may not like how Donald Trump tweets or punches back against his critics .
You may not care for his brash New York persona .
But if you look at his actions , he is clearly making @ @ @ @ @ @ @ choice is clear .
David Safavian is the general counsel at the American Conservative Union Foundation and the Deputy Director of its Nolan Center for Justice .
Photo “ Joe Biden Michigan ” by Kelly Kline CC BY-SA 2.0 .

by David Safavian
Joe Biden is not merely a presidential candidate; he is a vehicle for returning the establishment elite to power.
Michiganders of both parties rejected the establishment in 2016. In doing so four years ago, the voters shocked Hollywood, labor bosses, left-wing journalists, and other political elites who thought we fit neatly into one of their ideological boxes. People across the Midwest correctly recognized that the political class had long ago ceased to be responsive to our needs, and so we revolted. Not much has changed since then.
Despite constant reminders of his blue-collar roots, Joe Biden is a charter member of the political elite. The Delaware politician has spent his entire career in government — 36 years in the Senate and eight as vice president. Yet, he trades heavily on his “Scranton Joe” upbringing, complete with the story about him becoming a civil rights activist in Delaware — something he alone remembers.
Despite all his folksy posturing, Biden is just an empty vessel who will put elites back in control. His vice-presidential choice, ranked as the most liberal member of the Senate according to 60 Minutes, comes from the other left coast, California. Others in his orbit — the people who will be making policy if Biden is elected — cut their teeth in left-wing politics.
But it’s not just the people Biden surrounds himself that should give us all pause. Look who is financing his campaign. “Scranton Joe” is raking in twice as much money from billionaires as the President. Wall Street is even more firmly behind him, pouring five times as much cash into his campaign as Donald Trump’s.
Biden is also the consensus choice of a media establishment, which has spent four years launching the most unrelenting, coordinated attacks on a presidential administration in American history. Their preferred narrative is rigorously enforced by thousands of Silicon Valley hall monitors intent on choosing to suppress news that is unfavorable to Biden.
Just like his contrived “Scranton Joe” persona, Biden’s record from four decades in Washington is rarely discussed. Yet, it is marked by mistakes at every turn. His fingerprints are on policies that shipped American manufacturing jobs shipped overseas, redistributed wealth from hard working middle-class taxpayers to groups favored by progressives, and sent more of our young people to fight seemingly endless wars around the globe.
Despite efforts to paint Joe Biden as a grandfatherly man who will govern from the middle, the people spending millions to ensure his victory know their man. They understand that Biden will never lift a finger to stop the flow of jobs to China and cheap goods back to America. After all, he was a key architect of the whole system. He spent more than 30 years on Capitol Hill advancing the cause of “free trade.” He supported NAFTA 26 years ago over the objections of rank-and-file union members. He pushed to help China, first by granting our biggest strategic competitor “most favored nation” trade status, and then by pulling out all the stops to get the communist regime into the World Trade Organization. Taken together, these policies resulted in the loss of tens of millions of jobs, and the death of entire American industries.
Compare the Biden record with that of President Trump. He has held China accountable for its actions and negotiated a new deal, the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) two years ago, with the ringing endorsement of the AFL-CIO. Manufacturing is coming home, thanks to this President.
Just as the business elites crave a return to globalization and surrender to China, the foreign policy bureaucracy craves a return to endless war. As a senator, Joe Biden voted for the Iraq War. As vice president, he never met a foreign quagmire he didn’t like. It’s no wonder that Robert Gates — who served as Defense Secretary in both the Obama and Bush Administration — said that Biden has “been wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades.”
In contrast, President Trump opposed the Iraq War as a private citizen, and as President he has brought thousands of troops home from war zones while refusing to get American soldiers involved in any new open-ended interventions. Instead, he focused on delivering for our veterans, rebuilding our military at home, and projecting peace through strength.
As we did in 2016, Michiganders have another chance to the coastal elites “no.” We don’t have to go back to business as usual, with policies like the Green New Deal, single-payer healthcare, and job-killing taxes and red tape.
You may not like how Donald Trump tweets or punches back against his critics. You may not care for his brash New York persona. But if you look at his actions, he is clearly making the lives of Michiganders better. The choice is clear.
– – –
David Safavian is the general counsel at the American Conservative Union Foundation and the Deputy Director of its Nolan Center for Justice.
Photo “Joe Biden Michigan” by Kelly Kline CC BY-SA 2.0.


thetennesseestar--2020-11-02--Commentary: Illegal Immigration is Costing Michiganders Jobs

This November , Michigan voters would be wise to recognize the connection between their top concern — the economy — and illegal immigration .
Study after study shows that illegal immigration puts downward pressure on wages and takes away Americans ’ job opportunities .
That doesn ’ t seem to bother Democrats .
Joe Biden ’ s immigration plans , which Democratic senators including Gary Peters support , would put the screws to America ’ s working class .
His agenda includes an amnesty for 11 million illegal immigrants already here .
In addition , Biden wants to suspend all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ office and relax the rules for claiming asylum .
These policies would effectively roll out a welcome mat for millions more illegal immigrants .
The Democrats ’ idea for “ fixing ” immigration is , essentially , to allow anyone from anywhere to enter for any reason at any time — and stay for as long as they want .
This approach has already wreaked havoc on Americans ’ wages and employment prospects .
Harvard University ’ s George J. Borjas , arguably the nation ’ s foremost scholar of immigration , noted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have dropped out of high school typically made about $ 25,000 a year .
Total immigration , legal and illegal , over the previous 20 years led to a 25 percent increase in the size of the low-skilled labor force .
Those additional competitors for employment opportunities depressed the earnings in this bottom group — who are disproportionately minorities — by $ 800- $ 1,500 a year .
That ’ s real money to Americans who are playing by the rules and trying to earn a living .
In fact , curbing illegal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to effectively raise the minimum wage — a policy Democrats claim to support .
As Borjas wrote , “ because a disproportionate percentage of immigrants have few skills , it is low-skilled American workers , including many blacks and Hispanics , who have suffered most from this wage dip.
” In addition to depressing wages , illegal immigrants consume public services they don ’ t pay for .
One study comparing the cost of total services consumed to taxes they paid pegged the cost of illegal immigration to federal , state and local @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Americans intuitively understand this problem .
A Zogby poll of 2020 battleground states , including Michigan , found that by a 2-1 margin , voters prefer an immigration approach that welcomes fewer new residents , tightens border security , and more strictly enforces existing laws .
Republican Senate candidate John James gets it .
He is opposed to amnesty and citizenship for those who came here illegally .
He ’ s a supporter of Kate ’ s Law , which would require additional fines and prison time for illegal aliens deported for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ United States .
And he would crack down on so-called “ sanctuary cities ” — those locales that refuse to cooperate with the federal government in deporting illegal aliens .
Incumbent Sen. Gary Peters , by contrast , has opposed punitive measures against law-defying sanctuary cities .
And he has voted against the approach of Kate ’ s law to returning criminal illegal immigrants .
A Republican Senate may be the last best hope we have of preventing a massive new wave of illegal immigration .
That ’ s why it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year .
Jim Riddell lives in Shiawassee County and supports legal , controlled immigration .
Photo “ Workers ” by Daniel Lobo .

by Jim Riddell
This November, Michigan voters would be wise to recognize the connection between their top concern — the economy — and illegal immigration. Study after study shows that illegal immigration puts downward pressure on wages and takes away Americans’ job opportunities.
That doesn’t seem to bother Democrats. Joe Biden’s immigration plans, which Democratic senators including Gary Peters support, would put the screws to America’s working class. His agenda includes an amnesty for 11 million illegal immigrants already here. In addition, Biden wants to suspend all deportations during his first 100 days in office and relax the rules for claiming asylum.
These policies would effectively roll out a welcome mat for millions more illegal immigrants. The Democrats’ idea for “fixing” immigration is, essentially, to allow anyone from anywhere to enter for any reason at any time — and stay for as long as they want.
This approach has already wreaked havoc on Americans’ wages and employment prospects.
Harvard University’s George J. Borjas, arguably the nation’s foremost scholar of immigration, noted that as of 2016, individuals who have dropped out of high school typically made about $25,000 a year. Total immigration, legal and illegal, over the previous 20 years led to a 25 percent increase in the size of the low-skilled labor force. Those additional competitors for employment opportunities depressed the earnings in this bottom group — who are disproportionately minorities — by $800-$1,500 a year.
That’s real money to Americans who are playing by the rules and trying to earn a living. In fact, curbing illegal immigration is one of the surest ways to effectively raise the minimum wage — a policy Democrats claim to support.
As Borjas wrote, “because a disproportionate percentage of immigrants have few skills, it is low-skilled American workers, including many blacks and Hispanics, who have suffered most from this wage dip.”
In addition to depressing wages, illegal immigrants consume public services they don’t pay for. One study comparing the cost of total services consumed to taxes they paid pegged the cost of illegal immigration to federal, state and local government at $116 billion in 2017.
Americans intuitively understand this problem. A Zogby poll of 2020 battleground states, including Michigan, found that by a 2-1 margin, voters prefer an immigration approach that welcomes fewer new residents, tightens border security, and more strictly enforces existing laws.
Republican Senate candidate John James gets it. He is opposed to amnesty and citizenship for those who came here illegally. He’s a supporter of Kate’s Law, which would require additional fines and prison time for illegal aliens deported for criminal acts who try to reenter the United States. And he would crack down on so-called “sanctuary cities” — those locales that refuse to cooperate with the federal government in deporting illegal aliens.
Incumbent Sen. Gary Peters, by contrast, has opposed punitive measures against law-defying sanctuary cities. And he has voted against the approach of Kate’s law to returning criminal illegal immigrants.
A Republican Senate may be the last best hope we have of preventing a massive new wave of illegal immigration. That’s why it’s important for Michiganders to vote strategically this year.
– – –
Jim Riddell lives in Shiawassee County and supports legal, controlled immigration.
Photo “Workers” by Daniel Lobo.


thetennesseestar--2020-11-02--Commentary: BidenCare Equals Disaster for America’s Healthcare

The future of our nation hangs in the balance and the direction of our healthcare system is one of the main differences at stake in the 2020 Presidential election this week .
In the final Presidential debate , the distinctions between President Trump ’ s vision vs. former Vice President Biden ’ s vision for our nation could not be clearer .
This truly is America vs. Socialism .
To understand that difference watch President Trump and former Vice President Biden ’ s responses on how they view healthcare and the proper role of the federal government .
President Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ individual mandate and continue to move away from Obamacare and instead implement free market reforms that put individual Americans back in control of their healthcare , as it should be in a free society .
Joe Biden ’ s own words in the debate were , “ What I ’ m going to do is pass Obamacare with a public option – to become BidenCare…providing competition for insurance companies.
” You can call it a public option , Medicare for All , single payer or BidenCare – but they all lead to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government takeover of your healthcare .
Joe Biden claims he doesn ’ t want to eliminate private insurance – but his policies will do just that .
The BidenCare public option is an accelerated onramp to socialized single payer healthcare .
Under Biden ’ s plan he ’ s going to have taxpayer subsidized government-run plans that unfairly undercut private health insurance – further destabilizing the market and actually forcing Americans to shift to government plans as their prices are artificially low through government subsidies .
And remember , who pays for those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Congress support BidenCare because they want to destabilize the private market and drive private insurance under – further forcing Americans onto a government-run plan .
Their goal is to make the government option so heavily subsidized that they force businesses to stop offering health insurance and incentivize Americans off their private insurance .
Private industry can not compete with massive taxpayer subsided government plans that don ’ t have to operate in the real marketplace .
And , we all know that the private sector left to compete in the free market always @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and at a better price .
The government should not be in the business of competing with the private sector .
And , how can we trust the former Vice President when he says no one will lose their insurance ?
How did that work out when he and President Obama promised all Americans – if we like our doctor , we can keep our doctor ?
It didn ’ t .
The government-run health insurance public option takes us down the same old road to a government-run socialized healthcare system .
As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 180 million Americans on private health insurance and many Americans like their private health insurance and do not want a government-run system .
Single payer Medicare for All as pushed by socialists including Senator Kamala Harris , Senator Bernie Sanders , Senator Elizabeth Warren , Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and others will terminate all private insurance – kicking 180 million Americans off their health insurance .
We also need to examine the math .
Lanhee Chen at the Hoover Institution estimates that the public option would require massive tax hikes on most Americans including @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2,000 a year in inflation adjusted dollars .
BidenCare is going to cost $ 750 billion over the next 10 years and the eventual single payer Medicare for All healthcare system is going to cost whopping $ 32 trillion over the next 10 years .
President Trump is spot on when he says , “ When he [ Biden ] says public option , he ’ s talking about socialized medicine and healthcare .
When he talks about a public option , he ’ s talking about destroying your Medicare and your Social @ @ @ @ @ @ @ down.
” President Trump also pointed out that Bernie Sanders ’ home state of Vermont took socialized medicine for a spin and couldn ’ t do it because they discovered that it would bankrupt them .
President Trump couldn ’ t be more right when he says Medicare for All will harm seniors as it will have younger and healthier Americans directly competing for access for the same limited healthcare resources .
If you are a senior your chances of survival will plummet under socialized healthcare .
Just look at seniors in Great @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is limited because of their age and the costs associated with their care .
Spending will shift to those younger patients and those deemed more worthy of care vs. seniors in their later years .
And , it ’ s not just seniors whose healthcare is struggling in Great Britain .
According to Sally Pipes at the Pacific Research Institute – British patients are waiting six to nine months for care , have long wait lines , horrible survival rates for cancer compared to the U.S. and many patients are routinely denied treatment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as they call it , “ limited clinical value.
” Medicare for All and its younger cousin BidenCare will lead to lower quality outcomes and rationing of care – just like every other socialized healthcare system .
It simply doesn ’ t work .
All Americans need to do is look to Great Britain and Canada .
BidenCare and Medicare for All or whatever you want to call it , will be a total disaster with long lines , rationed care and poorer quality outcomes .
With the election next week – we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President Trump ’ s vision of continued free-market reforms for healthcare or if they foolishly embrace total government takeover of healthcare and the end of the free market system that has given us the best healthcare in the world .
Patsy Writesman is a nationally recognized health care speaker , consultant and owner of ManageHealthCareCosts.com .
Background Photo “ Health Care ” by agilemktg1 .

by Patsy Writesman
The future of our nation hangs in the balance and the direction of our healthcare system is one of the main differences at stake in the 2020 Presidential election this week. In the final Presidential debate, the distinctions between President Trump’s vision vs. former Vice President Biden’s vision for our nation could not be clearer. This truly is America vs. Socialism.
To understand that difference watch President Trump and former Vice President Biden’s responses on how they view healthcare and the proper role of the federal government.
President Trump and Republicans in Congress already eliminated the individual mandate and continue to move away from Obamacare and instead implement free market reforms that put individual Americans back in control of their healthcare, as it should be in a free society.
Joe Biden’s own words in the debate were, “What I’m going to do is pass Obamacare with a public option – to become BidenCare…providing competition for insurance companies.” You can call it a public option, Medicare for All, single payer or BidenCare – but they all lead to the same place – a total and complete government takeover of your healthcare.
Joe Biden claims he doesn’t want to eliminate private insurance – but his policies will do just that. The BidenCare public option is an accelerated onramp to socialized single payer healthcare. Under Biden’s plan he’s going to have taxpayer subsidized government-run plans that unfairly undercut private health insurance – further destabilizing the market and actually forcing Americans to shift to government plans as their prices are artificially low through government subsidies. And remember, who pays for those subsidies? American taxpayers.
Democrats in Congress support BidenCare because they want to destabilize the private market and drive private insurance under – further forcing Americans onto a government-run plan. Their goal is to make the government option so heavily subsidized that they force businesses to stop offering health insurance and incentivize Americans off their private insurance. Private industry cannot compete with massive taxpayer subsided government plans that don’t have to operate in the real marketplace. And, we all know that the private sector left to compete in the free market always creates a better product, move efficiently and at a better price. The government should not be in the business of competing with the private sector.
And, how can we trust the former Vice President when he says no one will lose their insurance? How did that work out when he and President Obama promised all Americans – if we like our doctor, we can keep our doctor? It didn’t. The government-run health insurance public option takes us down the same old road to a government-run socialized healthcare system.
As President Trump points out there are currently 180 million Americans on private health insurance and many Americans like their private health insurance and do not want a government-run system.
Single payer Medicare for All as pushed by socialists including Senator Kamala Harris, Senator Bernie Sanders, Senator Elizabeth Warren, Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and others will terminate all private insurance – kicking 180 million Americans off their health insurance.
We also need to examine the math. Lanhee Chen at the Hoover Institution estimates that the public option would require massive tax hikes on most Americans including the middle class – upwards of $2,000 a year in inflation adjusted dollars. BidenCare is going to cost $750 billion over the next 10 years and the eventual single payer Medicare for All healthcare system is going to cost whopping $32 trillion over the next 10 years.
President Trump is spot on when he says, “When he [Biden] says public option, he’s talking about socialized medicine and healthcare. When he talks about a public option, he’s talking about destroying your Medicare and your Social Security and this whole country will come down.”
President Trump also pointed out that Bernie Sanders’ home state of Vermont took socialized medicine for a spin and couldn’t do it because they discovered that it would bankrupt them.
President Trump couldn’t be more right when he says Medicare for All will harm seniors as it will have younger and healthier Americans directly competing for access for the same limited healthcare resources. If you are a senior your chances of survival will plummet under socialized healthcare. Just look at seniors in Great Britain and how their access to care is limited because of their age and the costs associated with their care. Spending will shift to those younger patients and those deemed more worthy of care vs. seniors in their later years. And, it’s not just seniors whose healthcare is struggling in Great Britain. According to Sally Pipes at the Pacific Research Institute – British patients are waiting six to nine months for care, have long wait lines, horrible survival rates for cancer compared to the U.S. and many patients are routinely denied treatment due to the lack of resources or as they call it, “limited clinical value.”
Medicare for All and its younger cousin BidenCare will lead to lower quality outcomes and rationing of care – just like every other socialized healthcare system. It simply doesn’t work. All Americans need to do is look to Great Britain and Canada. BidenCare and Medicare for All or whatever you want to call it, will be a total disaster with long lines, rationed care and poorer quality outcomes. With the election next week – we will find out if Americans vote for President Trump’s vision of continued free-market reforms for healthcare or if they foolishly embrace total government takeover of healthcare and the end of the free market system that has given us the best healthcare in the world.
– – –
Patsy Writesman is a nationally recognized health care speaker, consultant and owner of ManageHealthCareCosts.com.
Background Photo “Health Care” by agilemktg1.


thetennesseestar--2020-11-02--Most Americans Have Heard of Biden Family Allegations, More than Half Believe Them

Nearly three quarters of Americans are aware of the controversy surrounding Joe Biden and his family 's overseas business deals , and a majority of those who know about the allegations believe them to be true , according to a Just the News-Scott Rasmussen poll taken on the final week of the election .
A total of 72 % of the 1,200 likely voters surveyed between Oct. 29 and Oct. 31 said they had `` seen , read , or heard '' news stories `` concerning allegations that Joe Biden had lied and was selling influence to China and Ukraine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' Among the likely voters familiar with the allegations , 53 % said they believed that Biden `` was selling influence to China and Ukraine ? ''
Men were slightly more likely than women to believe the allegations , the poll found .
Among those who have not heard the allegations and do n't already support Trump , most say it would not change their support , which overwhelmingly leaned toward Biden , the polls found .
Only 1 percent of the likely voters said learning about the Biden allegations would make them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ while nearly 30 percent said they would vote for neither major candidate or did n't know .
You can view the poll results here .

Nearly three quarters of Americans are aware of the controversy surrounding Joe Biden and his family's overseas business deals, and a majority of those who know about the allegations believe them to be true, according to a Just the News-Scott Rasmussen poll taken on the final week of the election.
A total of 72% of the 1,200 likely voters surveyed between Oct. 29 and Oct. 31 said they had "seen, read, or heard" news stories "concerning allegations that Joe Biden had lied and was selling influence to China and Ukraine for the benefit of his family?"
Among the likely voters familiar with the allegations, 53% said they believed that Biden "was selling influence to China and Ukraine?" Men were slightly more likely than women to believe the allegations, the poll found.
Among those who have not heard the allegations and don't already support Trump, most say it would not change their support, which overwhelmingly leaned toward Biden, the polls found.
Only 1 percent of the likely voters said learning about the Biden allegations would make them more likely to vote for Trump, while nearly 30 percent said they would vote for neither major candidate or didn't know.
You can view the poll results here.


thetennesseestar--2020-11-02--Tennessee’s Economic Recovery Triggers End to Federal Unemployment Benefit

Because of progress made lowering Tennessee ’ s unemployment rate , 3,000 Tennesseans receiving unemployment payments through the federal Extended Benefits program no longer will receive those funds beginning Nov. 7 .
The U.S. Department of Labor administers the Extended Benefits program based on each state ’ s unemployment metrics .
Tennessee crossed the threshold of economic recovery earlier this month , triggering the end of the program , the Tennessee Department of Labor & Workforce Development ( TDLWD ) announced Friday .
Tennessee saw only 7,770 new unemployment claims last week – fewer than any week since the spike @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New and continuing unemployment claims continue to fall .
The Extended Benefits program was available to claimants who exhausted benefits through Tennessee ’ s unemployment program and also exhausted the additional 13 weeks of benefits available through the federal Pandemic Emergency Unemployment Compensation , which was funded by the Coronavirus Aide , Relief and Economic Security ( CARES ) Act .
“ There hasn ’ t , at the federal level after the CARES Act , been any movement on additional unemployment insurance benefits , ” TDLWD Commissioner Jeff McCord said in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time being , and naturally over time , the best strategy is to return to work.
” Claimants receiving the Extended Benefits program payment must complete certifications to receive final payments for the weeks ending Oct. 31 and Nov. 7 .
Claimants may reapply for Pandemic Unemployment Assistance to determine eligibility .
Benefits under another federal unemployment program , Pandemic Unemployment Assistance ( PUA ) , also are running out for some claimants .
Funded with CARES Act money , PUA benefits are available to claimants for a maximum of 39 weeks , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Claimants who have received PUA benefits since the beginning of the program now are running up on the end of the 39-week period .
More than a quarter million jobs are listed on Jobs4TN.gov , and specialists at American Job Centers across the state are available at no cost to assist with searches for work .
“ There are tens of thousands of jobs .
We have employers across the state who are looking for people looking to hire , ” McCord said .
Vivian Jones reports on Tennessee and South Carolina for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appeared in the Detroit News , The Hill , and publications of The Heartland Institute .

by Vivian Jones
Because of progress made lowering Tennessee’s unemployment rate, 3,000 Tennesseans receiving unemployment payments through the federal Extended Benefits program no longer will receive those funds beginning Nov. 7.
The U.S. Department of Labor administers the Extended Benefits program based on each state’s unemployment metrics. Tennessee crossed the threshold of economic recovery earlier this month, triggering the end of the program, the Tennessee Department of Labor & Workforce Development (TDLWD) announced Friday.
Tennessee saw only 7,770 new unemployment claims last week – fewer than any week since the spike in March caused by COVID-19 shutdowns. New and continuing unemployment claims continue to fall.
The Extended Benefits program was available to claimants who exhausted benefits through Tennessee’s unemployment program and also exhausted the additional 13 weeks of benefits available through the federal Pandemic Emergency Unemployment Compensation, which was funded by the Coronavirus Aide, Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act.
“There hasn’t, at the federal level after the CARES Act, been any movement on additional unemployment insurance benefits,” TDLWD Commissioner Jeff McCord said in a recent news conference. “For the time being, and naturally over time, the best strategy is to return to work.”
Claimants receiving the Extended Benefits program payment must complete certifications to receive final payments for the weeks ending Oct. 31 and Nov. 7. Claimants may reapply for Pandemic Unemployment Assistance to determine eligibility.
Benefits under another federal unemployment program, Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA), also are running out for some claimants. Funded with CARES Act money, PUA benefits are available to claimants for a maximum of 39 weeks, with all benefits expiring Dec. 26. Claimants who have received PUA benefits since the beginning of the program now are running up on the end of the 39-week period.
More than a quarter million jobs are listed on Jobs4TN.gov, and specialists at American Job Centers across the state are available at no cost to assist with searches for work.
“There are tens of thousands of jobs. We have employers across the state who are looking for people looking to hire,” McCord said.
– – –
Vivian Jones reports on Tennessee and South Carolina for The Center Square. Her writing has appeared in the Detroit News, The Hill, and publications of The Heartland Institute.


thetennesseestar--2020-11-02--Commentary: COVID-19 Lockdowns Have Created a New Feudalism

On February 28 , the idea of locking down and smashing economies and human rights the world over was unthinkable to most of us but lustily imagined by intellectuals hoping to conduct a new social/political experiment .
On that day , New York Times reporter Donald McNeil released a shocking article : To Take On the Coronavirus , Go Medieval on It .
He was serious .
Most all governments – with few exceptions like Sweden and the Dakotas in the US – did exactly that .
The result has been shocking .
I ’ ve previously called it the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at this , however , is that the lockdowns have created a new feudalism .
The workers/peasants toil in the field , struggling for their own survival , unable to escape their plight , while privileged lords and ladies live off the labors of others and issue proclamations from the estate on the hill above it all .
Consider a restaurant at which I dined one week ago in New York City .
The mask mandate is in full force except that diners can take them off once seated .
The staff can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wear plastic gloves too .
Here you have diners enjoying themselves with food and drink and laughter , many of whom work at home and have faced relatively less economic deprivation , which I assume given how much this class of diners is throwing around on evening revelry .
Meanwhile , you have this wait staff and the kitchen staff too with their faces covered , their voices muffled , and forced into what seems to be a subservient role .
They appear like a different caste .
Society has decided to relegate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The lockdowns have turned a dignified equality that once existed between the staff and customers , all cooperating together to live better lives , and turned it into a theater for feudalistic absurdism .
The symbolism of this troubles me so much that my own dining experiences have been changed from a time of socializing into a vision of tragedy that breaks my heart .
Think for a moment about the main victims of lockdowns : working classes , the poor , people who travel for a living , those working in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of schools , people who can ’ t just convert their office jobs into living-room jobs .
They were never asked their opinions on policies that destroyed their lives and degraded their choice of profession .
The main victims do not typically have Twitter accounts .
They do not write academic articles .
They do not write articles for newspapers .
They aren ’ t talking heads on TV .
And they sure as heck aren ’ t economically protected with a tax-funded job in a public health department in a state bureaucracy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the groceries , delivering things to your front door , hopping around in restaurants to make sure you get your food .
They are in the factories , the warehouses , the fields , the meat-packing plants , and also in the hospitals and hotels .
They are voiceless and not only because their masks impede their ability to communicate ; they have been robbed of any voice in public affairs even though their lives are on the line .
Lockdowns have done nothing to drive the virus away .
This virus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ kind in history : it will become endemic ( predictably manageable ) as our immune systems adapt to it , via naturally acquired immunity in absence of a vaccine that may never arrive or will only be partially effective just like the flu vaccine .
Which is to say : we will reach herd immunity one way or another .
Ask yourself who is bearing the burden of achieving this .
It ’ s not the blue checkmarks on Twitter , the co-authors of articles in the Lancet , and certainly not the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The burden of herd immunity is being born by those who are out and about in the world , even as the keyboarded professional class sits home and waits .
Under the influence of Professor Sunetra Gupta , I would call that absolutely immoral .
Feudal .
A new caste system concocted by intellectuals who have chosen their own short-term interests over the interests of everyone else .
The FAQ at the Great Barrington Declaration explains that “ the strategies to date have managed to ‘ successfully ’ shift infection risk from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Think about the implications of that .
The politicians and intellectuals who put this new feudalism in place tossed out all normal concerns over freedom , justice , equality , democracy , and universal dignity in favor of the creation of a strict caste system .
So much for Locke , Jefferson , Acton , and Rawls .
The medical technocracy cared only about conducting an unprecedented experiment in managing the social order as if it consisted entirely of lab rats .
It was already happening when the lockdowns began .
This group @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nonessential work .
This medical procedure is elective and thus delayed while that one can go ahead .
This industry can continue on as normal while this one must shut down until we can say otherwise .
There is nothing about this system that is consistent with any modern sense of how we want to live .
We went full medieval indeed , ending arts , sports , museums , travel , access to normal medical services , and even putting an end to dentistry for a few months .
The poor have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In light of all this , I ’ ve come to have the highest respect for Sunetra ’ s Gupta ’ s cry to completely rethink the way we handle social theory in the presence of pathogens .
She posits what she called the Social Contract for Infectious Diseases .
She explains that it is not a document but rather endogenous and evolutionary in light of what we ’ ve learned about pathogens over the centuries .
We agree to live with them and among them even as we work to build civilization @ @ @ @ @ @ @ everyone .
Why did we previously insist on terms like human rights and freedoms ?
Because we believed they are inalienable ; that is , that they can not be taken away regardless of the excuse .
We baked these ideas into our laws , constitutions , institutions , and into our civic codes found in pledges , songs , and traditions .
The social contract we practice with regard to the threat of infectious diseases is that we manage them intelligently while never trampling on the dignity of the human person .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ get stronger , enabling all of us to enjoy longer and healthier lives – not just some of us , not just the legally privileged , not just those with access to platforms to speak but rather every single member of the human community .
We made that deal many centuries ago .
We ’ ve practiced it well for hundreds of years , which is why we ’ ve never before experienced draconian and near-universal lockdowns of essential social functioning .
This year we broke the deal .
We shattered and smashed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not surprising at all that a “ medieval approach ” to disease would also result in the deletion of so many modern advances in social/political understanding and consensus .
It was reckless to the point of being evil .
It has created a new feudalism of haves and have nots , essentials and unessentials , us and them , the served and the servers , the rulers and the ruled – all defined in the edicts passed by panicked dictators at all levels acting on the advice of bloodless intellectuals who couldn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ world by force .
One final note : bless those who call this out and refuse to go along .
Jeffrey A. Tucker is Editorial Director for the American Institute for Economic Research .
He is the author of many thousands of articles in the scholarly and popular press and nine books in 5 languages , most recently Liberty or Lockdown .
Photo “ Lockdown ” by Metropolitan Transportation Authority of the State of New York CC BY 2.0 .

by Jeffrey A. Tucker
On February 28, the idea of locking down and smashing economies and human rights the world over was unthinkable to most of us but lustily imagined by intellectuals hoping to conduct a new social/political experiment. On that day, New York Times reporter Donald McNeil released a shocking article: To Take On the Coronavirus, Go Medieval on It.
He was serious. Most all governments – with few exceptions like Sweden and the Dakotas in the US – did exactly that. The result has been shocking. I’ve previously called it the new totalitarianism.
Another way to look at this, however, is that the lockdowns have created a new feudalism. The workers/peasants toil in the field, struggling for their own survival, unable to escape their plight, while privileged lords and ladies live off the labors of others and issue proclamations from the estate on the hill above it all.
Consider a restaurant at which I dined one week ago in New York City. The mask mandate is in full force except that diners can take them off once seated. The staff cannot. The wait staff of restaurants wear plastic gloves too. Here you have diners enjoying themselves with food and drink and laughter, many of whom work at home and have faced relatively less economic deprivation, which I assume given how much this class of diners is throwing around on evening revelry.
Meanwhile, you have this wait staff and the kitchen staff too with their faces covered, their voices muffled, and forced into what seems to be a subservient role. They appear like a different caste. Society has decided to relegate them to the ranks of the unclean. The lockdowns have turned a dignified equality that once existed between the staff and customers, all cooperating together to live better lives, and turned it into a theater for feudalistic absurdism.
The symbolism of this troubles me so much that my own dining experiences have been changed from a time of socializing into a vision of tragedy that breaks my heart. Think for a moment about the main victims of lockdowns: working classes, the poor, people who travel for a living, those working in arts and hospitality, children locked out of schools, people who can’t just convert their office jobs into living-room jobs. They were never asked their opinions on policies that destroyed their lives and degraded their choice of profession.
The main victims do not typically have Twitter accounts. They do not write academic articles. They do not write articles for newspapers. They aren’t talking heads on TV. And they sure as heck aren’t economically protected with a tax-funded job in a public health department in a state bureaucracy. They are out there getting food to the groceries, delivering things to your front door, hopping around in restaurants to make sure you get your food. They are in the factories, the warehouses, the fields, the meat-packing plants, and also in the hospitals and hotels. They are voiceless and not only because their masks impede their ability to communicate; they have been robbed of any voice in public affairs even though their lives are on the line.
Lockdowns have done nothing to drive the virus away. This virus will become like all others of its kind in history: it will become endemic (predictably manageable) as our immune systems adapt to it, via naturally acquired immunity in absence of a vaccine that may never arrive or will only be partially effective just like the flu vaccine. Which is to say: we will reach herd immunity one way or another.
Ask yourself who is bearing the burden of achieving this. It’s not the blue checkmarks on Twitter, the co-authors of articles in the Lancet, and certainly not the journalists at the New York Times.
The burden of herd immunity is being born by those who are out and about in the world, even as the keyboarded professional class sits home and waits. Under the influence of Professor Sunetra Gupta, I would call that absolutely immoral. Feudal. A new caste system concocted by intellectuals who have chosen their own short-term interests over the interests of everyone else.
The FAQ at the Great Barrington Declaration explains that “the strategies to date have managed to ‘successfully’ shift infection risk from the professional class to the working class.”
Think about the implications of that. The politicians and intellectuals who put this new feudalism in place tossed out all normal concerns over freedom, justice, equality, democracy, and universal dignity in favor of the creation of a strict caste system. So much for Locke, Jefferson, Acton, and Rawls. The medical technocracy cared only about conducting an unprecedented experiment in managing the social order as if it consisted entirely of lab rats.
It was already happening when the lockdowns began. This group does essential work while that group does nonessential work. This medical procedure is elective and thus delayed while that one can go ahead. This industry can continue on as normal while this one must shut down until we can say otherwise. There is nothing about this system that is consistent with any modern sense of how we want to live.
We went full medieval indeed, ending arts, sports, museums, travel, access to normal medical services, and even putting an end to dentistry for a few months. The poor have suffered so much. Medieval indeed.
In light of all this, I’ve come to have the highest respect for Sunetra’s Gupta’s cry to completely rethink the way we handle social theory in the presence of pathogens. She posits what she called the Social Contract for Infectious Diseases. She explains that it is not a document but rather endogenous and evolutionary in light of what we’ve learned about pathogens over the centuries. We agree to live with them and among them even as we work to build civilization, recognizing freedom and the rights of everyone.
Why did we previously insist on terms like human rights and freedoms? Because we believed they are inalienable; that is, that they cannot be taken away regardless of the excuse. We baked these ideas into our laws, constitutions, institutions, and into our civic codes found in pledges, songs, and traditions. The social contract we practice with regard to the threat of infectious diseases is that we manage them intelligently while never trampling on the dignity of the human person. The payoff is that our immune systems get stronger, enabling all of us to enjoy longer and healthier lives – not just some of us, not just the legally privileged, not just those with access to platforms to speak but rather every single member of the human community.
We made that deal many centuries ago. We’ve practiced it well for hundreds of years, which is why we’ve never before experienced draconian and near-universal lockdowns of essential social functioning.
This year we broke the deal. We shattered and smashed the social contract.
It’s not surprising at all that a “medieval approach” to disease would also result in the deletion of so many modern advances in social/political understanding and consensus. It was reckless to the point of being evil. It has created a new feudalism of haves and have nots, essentials and unessentials, us and them, the served and the servers, the rulers and the ruled – all defined in the edicts passed by panicked dictators at all levels acting on the advice of bloodless intellectuals who couldn’t resist a chance to rule the world by force.
One final note: bless those who call this out and refuse to go along.
– – –
Jeffrey A. Tucker is Editorial Director for the American Institute for Economic Research. He is the author of many thousands of articles in the scholarly and popular press and nine books in 5 languages, most recently Liberty or Lockdown.
Photo “Lockdown” by Metropolitan Transportation Authority of the State of New York CC BY 2.0.


thetennesseestar--2020-11-02--Prayer at Tomb of the Patriarchs for Trump’s Success

Hours before the US election , the heads of local authorities in Judea and Samaria will hold a prayer service at the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron for the success of incumbent President Donald Trump in the election .
The head of the Mount Hebron Council , Yohai Damari , explained this morning , Sunday , that the prayer stems first and foremost from gratitude to Trump for his efforts on behalf of the Land of Israel .
“ This week , the US elections , which will greatly affect the future of the State of Israel , will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump for the four good years and support for the State of Israel , the Land of Israel , and advances in Jewish settlement.
” “ The polls are close and we gather to pray in the Tomb of the Patriarchs for his success .
During his time in office , the State of Israel and Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria in particular have received a tailwind that was unparalleled , ” Damari added .
Local authority heads will also be joined in the prayer service by the chairman of the Republican @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Zell , who lives in Gush Etzion .
Photo “ Tomb of the Patriarchs ” by JD Lasica CC BY 2.0 .

by Arutz Sheva Staff
Hours before the US election, the heads of local authorities in Judea and Samaria will hold a prayer service at the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron for the success of incumbent President Donald Trump in the election.
The head of the Mount Hebron Council, Yohai Damari, explained this morning, Sunday, that the prayer stems first and foremost from gratitude to Trump for his efforts on behalf of the Land of Israel.
“This week, the US elections, which will greatly affect the future of the State of Israel, will be held . We must thank President Trump for the four good years and support for the State of Israel, the Land of Israel, and advances in Jewish settlement.”
“The polls are close and we gather to pray in the Tomb of the Patriarchs for his success. During his time in office, the State of Israel and Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria in particular have received a tailwind that was unparalleled,” Damari added.
Local authority heads will also be joined in the prayer service by the chairman of the Republican Party in Israel, Adv. Marc Zell, who lives in Gush Etzion.
– – –
Photo “Tomb of the Patriarchs” by JD Lasica CC BY 2.0.


thetennesseestar--2020-11-02--McDonald’s Cult Classic, the McRib, is Coming Back

NEW YORK , New York ( AP ) — McRib , the fast food sandwich that went viral before viral was a thing , is back .
McDonald ’ s announced Friday that for the first time in eight years it will be offering nationwide its barbeque slathered sandwich with the cult following .
The McRib will appear on the menus Dec. 2 , for a limited time of course .
The McRib is an elusive prize for adherents , who scour the internet for reports of its surfacing at limited locations , and for a short amount of time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the McRib Locator , created to spread the word about McDonald ’ s restaurants that are offering the boneless pork sandwich served with slivered onions and pickles on top .
The company ’ s social media team this month lamented a lack of concern over its feelings , when the McRib enters the conversation .
McDonald ’ s is reintroducing the McRib nationally as it tries to regain its footing during the pandemic , which left many of its dining rooms sparsely populated or empty , though drive-thrus continued to operate .
When @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a 68 % decline in net income , the world ’ s largest burger chain said it would spend more than $ 200 million to support franchisee marketing during the second quarter in a bid to get customers back .
It ’ s not impossible to get a McRib any time you want it , but you might need to travel to Germany , where it ’ s on the menu year round .
The McRib debuted nationally the U.S. in 1982 .
About the Headline Photo : This photo provided by McDonald @ @ @ @ @ @ @ McDonald ’ s announced that it was bringing its barbeque slathered sandwich with the cult following back for yet another run on Dec. 2 .
The fast-food giant said the sandwich would be available nationally for the first time since 2012 , but only at participating restaurants for a limited time .
( McDonald ’ s via AP )

NEW YORK, New York (AP) — McRib, the fast food sandwich that went viral before viral was a thing, is back.
McDonald’s announced Friday that for the first time in eight years it will be offering nationwide its barbeque slathered sandwich with the cult following.
The McRib will appear on the menus Dec. 2, for a limited time of course.
The McRib is an elusive prize for adherents, who scour the internet for reports of its surfacing at limited locations, and for a short amount of time. There is even a website called the McRib Locator, created to spread the word about McDonald’s restaurants that are offering the boneless pork sandwich served with slivered onions and pickles on top.
The company’s social media team this month lamented a lack of concern over its feelings, when the McRib enters the conversation.
McDonald’s is reintroducing the McRib nationally as it tries to regain its footing during the pandemic, which left many of its dining rooms sparsely populated or empty, though drive-thrus continued to operate.
When it released second-quarter earnings in July showing a 68% decline in net income, the world’s largest burger chain said it would spend more than $200 million to support franchisee marketing during the second quarter in a bid to get customers back.
It’s not impossible to get a McRib any time you want it, but you might need to travel to Germany, where it’s on the menu year round.
The McRib debuted nationally the U.S. in 1982.
– – –
About the Headline Photo: This photo provided by McDonald’s shows the McRib sandwich. McDonald’s announced that it was bringing its barbeque slathered sandwich with the cult following back for yet another run on Dec. 2. The fast-food giant said the sandwich would be available nationally for the first time since 2012, but only at participating restaurants for a limited time. (McDonald’s via AP)


thetennesseestar--2020-11-02--Netflix Raising US Streaming Prices Amid Booming Growth

SAN RAMON , California ( AP ) — Netflix is raising most of its U.S. prices by 8 % to 13 % as its video streaming service rides a wave of rising popularity spurred by government-imposed lockdowns that corralled people at home during the fight against the pandemic .
The increases imposed Friday boost the cost of Netflix ’ s most popular U.S. streaming plan by $ 1 to $ 14 per month , while a premium plan that allows more people to watch the service on different screens simultaneously will now cost $ 2 more at $ 18 per @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plan remains at $ 9 per month .
It marks Netflix ’ s first price changes in the U.S. since an increase rolled out early last year .
New U.S. subscribers will be charged the higher prices immediately , while the increases will affect existing customers in phases during the next few months .
Netflix ended September with 73 million subscribers in U.S. and Canada , with the overwhelming majority located in the U.S .
The move had been widely expected after Netflix raised its prices in Canada earlier this month and then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Netflix ’ s price hike comes amid a surge in worldwide growth as efforts to contain the novel coronavirus closed down restaurants , theaters and other entertainment venues .
The Los Gatos , California , company gained 28 million worldwide subscribers during the first nine months of the year , already eclipsing its growth for the entire year of 2019 .
This year ’ s subscriber increases included an additional 5.4 million customers in the U.S. and Canada .
But the price increases may test the bounds of Netflix ’ s popularity , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forces more U.S. households to curtail their spending .
After Netflix raised its U.S. prices early last year , the streaming service suffered a decline of 130,000 subscribers in the U.S. and Canada from the end of March to the end of June .
Netflix is also facing more competition than ever , including deep-pocketed rivals that include Amazon , Apple , Walt Disney and AT & T .
And several of those plans are far less expensive than Netflix ’ s U.S. plan .
For instance , Disney ’ s rapidly growing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ month for access to a library that includes some of the most beloved films of all time .
Apple ’ s year-old streaming service costs just $ 5 per month for a relatively small selection of TV series and films , but the iPhone maker is trying to extend its reach by pouring more money into programming and bundling with its some of its other services .
For instance , a plan that includes video , music , video games and online storage is being offered for $ 15 per month , or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s most popular stand-alone plan .
“ We understand people have more entertainment choices than ever and we ’ re committed to delivering an even better experience for our members , ” Netflix said in a statement .
“ We ’ re updating our prices so that we can continue to offer more variety of TV shows and films.
” The higher prices should help lift Netflix ’ s profits , a prospect that investors like .
But Netflix ’ s stock fell more than 5 % to close Friday at $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ overall market .
Netflix ’ s shares have climbed by nearly 50 % so far this year , thanks largely to its robust growth amid the pandemic .
Michael Liedtke is a reporter for The Associated Press .
About the Headline Photo : This Aug. 13 , 2020 file photo shows a logo for Netflix on a remote control in Portland , Ore. Netflix is raising most of its U.S. prices by 8 % to 13 % as its video streaming service rides a wave of rising popularity spurred by government-imposed lockdowns that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against the pandemic .
( AP Photo/Jenny Kane , File )

by Michael Liedtke
SAN RAMON, California (AP) — Netflix is raising most of its U.S. prices by 8% to 13% as its video streaming service rides a wave of rising popularity spurred by government-imposed lockdowns that corralled people at home during the fight against the pandemic.
The increases imposed Friday boost the cost of Netflix’s most popular U.S. streaming plan by $1 to $14 per month, while a premium plan that allows more people to watch the service on different screens simultaneously will now cost $2 more at $18 per month. Netflix’s basic U.S. plan remains at $9 per month. It marks Netflix’s first price changes in the U.S. since an increase rolled out early last year.
New U.S. subscribers will be charged the higher prices immediately, while the increases will affect existing customers in phases during the next few months. Netflix ended September with 73 million subscribers in U.S. and Canada, with the overwhelming majority located in the U.S.
The move had been widely expected after Netflix raised its prices in Canada earlier this month and then ended free 30-day trials in the U.S.
Netflix’s price hike comes amid a surge in worldwide growth as efforts to contain the novel coronavirus closed down restaurants, theaters and other entertainment venues. The Los Gatos, California, company gained 28 million worldwide subscribers during the first nine months of the year, already eclipsing its growth for the entire year of 2019. This year’s subscriber increases included an additional 5.4 million customers in the U.S. and Canada.
But the price increases may test the bounds of Netflix’s popularity, especially if the pandemic-driven recession deepens and forces more U.S. households to curtail their spending.
After Netflix raised its U.S. prices early last year, the streaming service suffered a decline of 130,000 subscribers in the U.S. and Canada from the end of March to the end of June.
Netflix is also facing more competition than ever, including deep-pocketed rivals that include Amazon, Apple, Walt Disney and AT&T. And several of those plans are far less expensive than Netflix’s U.S. plan.
For instance, Disney’s rapidly growing streaming service charges just $7 per month for access to a library that includes some of the most beloved films of all time.
Apple’s year-old streaming service costs just $5 per month for a relatively small selection of TV series and films, but the iPhone maker is trying to extend its reach by pouring more money into programming and bundling with its some of its other services. For instance, a plan that includes video, music, video games and online storage is being offered for $15 per month, or just a $1 more than Netflix’s most popular stand-alone plan.
“We understand people have more entertainment choices than ever and we’re committed to delivering an even better experience for our members,” Netflix said in a statement. “We’re updating our prices so that we can continue to offer more variety of TV shows and films.”
The higher prices should help lift Netflix’s profits, a prospect that investors like. But Netflix’s stock fell more than 5% to close Friday at $475.74 amid another down day in the overall market. Netflix’s shares have climbed by nearly 50% so far this year, thanks largely to its robust growth amid the pandemic.
– – –
Michael Liedtke is a reporter for The Associated Press.
About the Headline Photo: This Aug. 13, 2020 file photo shows a logo for Netflix on a remote control in Portland, Ore. Netflix is raising most of its U.S. prices by 8% to 13% as its video streaming service rides a wave of rising popularity spurred by government-imposed lockdowns that corralled people at home during the fight against the pandemic. (AP Photo/Jenny Kane, File)


thetennesseestar--2020-11-02--Commentary: The Unelected Tyrants Who Burned Down the Golden State

If this seems like an unfair title , it isn ’ t , though some of these tyrants were appointed by elected politicians .
And all of these tyrants rely on laws that were passed by elected politicians .
But while there is plenty of blame to go around , tyranny is what Californians have endured .
A tyrannical system is entirely to blame for apocalyptic fires that are wiping out California ’ s forests , fouling the air , and killing everything in their path .
So who are these unelected tyrants ?
We can start with federal and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the careerist ideologues who dominate the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency , abetted by the fanatics who run California ’ s Air Resources Board , along with dozens of other federal and state agencies .
Joining them outside of government to assist in the incineration of California ’ s precious ecosystems are the lobbyists and litigants representing powerful environmentalist nonprofits such as the Sierra Club and the Center for Biological Diversity .
So numerous they escape individual accountability , these tyrants collectively have made it nearly impossible to engage in logging , forest thinning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , regulations , and judgments these tyrants relentlessly advocate and ruthlessly enforce are the reason California ’ s fires in recent years have been cataclysmic .
As a consequence , after more than a century of increasingly effective suppression of natural fires , California ’ s forests are now overgrown tinderboxes .
They ’ re either going to get cleared out mechanically , or they ’ re going to burn like hell .
Opposing this tyranny does not signify a lack of concern for our natural environment , even though the tyrants routinely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ve ever been stirred by the sight of a California condor soaring above the wave-battered cliffs of Big Sur , you should thank an environmentalist .
Most Californians agree that the condor , along with other species , was worth saving .
But if the entire Ventana Wilderness is incinerated , condor habitat no longer exists .
Similarly , if the entire Feather River watershed is reduced to cinder , hundreds of square miles of owl habitat will no longer exist .
By now , one may hope , most honest environmentalists know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , they ’ ve blown it .
To paraphrase an old adage , they burned down the forest to save the trees .
Maybe now they ’ ll help push for genuine , far-reaching , and swift reform .
Then again , a lot of power and money can be had in perpetuating conflict .
And recent actions by California Governor Gavin Newsom offer zero indication that help could be forthcoming from politicians .
Newsom ’ s reaction to the ongoing inferno in California is to ban gasoline-powered cars , and declare that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ climate deniers.
” Let ’ s settle the climate “ denier ” issue straight away .
If California ’ s summers are getting hotter , dryer , and lasting longer , then everything these unelected tyrants have been doing has been even more misguided , not less .
And comprehensive regulatory reform and relief to start properly managing California ’ s forests is more urgently needed , not less .
So enough about the climate .
Acknowledging climate change , regardless of its cause or trajectory , makes the case for forest management @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a great irony that alarm over climate change is used to justify endless proposals that call for urgent and unprecedented actions across all aspects of public policy , yet it can not stimulate a swift and effective response to California ’ s burning forests .
So what steps can be taken to quickly mitigate the damage of these catastrophic fires ?
And what ongoing steps can be taken to prevent them in the future ?
In preparing this report , expert opinions were solicited from leaders in the timber , cattle , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and political representatives .
All of them were in general agreement on the steps to be summarized here .
None of them wanted to be quoted directly .
The ire of the tyrants is real , and if you ’ re in these businesses , the power they wield is to be feared .
For about 20 million years , California ’ s forests endured countless droughts , some lasting centuries .
Natural fires , started by lightning and very frequent in the Sierras , were essential to keep forest ecosystems healthy .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ used to cover most of the valley floor , because while forests constantly encroached , periodic fires would wipe them out , allowing the meadows to return .
Across millennia , fire-driven successions of this sort played out in cycles throughout California ’ s ecosystems .
Also for the last 20 million years or so , climate change has been the norm .
To put this century ’ s warming into some sort of context , Giant Sequoias once grew on the shores of Mono Lake .
For at least the past few @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into higher latitudes .
In the Sierra Foothills , the oaks have invaded the pine habitat , and the pine , in turn , has invaded the higher elevation stands of fir .
Today , it is mismanagement , not climate change , that is the primary threat to California ’ s forests .
In a speech before the U.S. Congress last September , Republican Tom McClintock summarized the series of mistakes that are destroying California ’ s forests .
McClintock ’ s sprawling 4th Congressional District covers 12,800 square miles , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mountain range .
His constituency bears the brunt of the misguided green tyranny emanating from Washington , D.C. and Sacramento .
Here ’ s some of what McClintock said : When it comes to carrying out timber , California used to do a pretty good job .
In the 1950s the average timber harvest in California was around 6 billion board feet per year .
The precipitous drop in harvest volume came in the 1990s .
The industry started that decade taking out not quite 5 billion board feet , and by 2000 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over 2 billion board feet .
Today , only about 1.5 billion board feet per year come out of California ’ s forests as harvested timber .
What McClintock describes as a working balance up until the 1990s needs to be restored .
In order to achieve a sustainable balance between natural growth and timber removals , California ’ s timber industry needs to triple in size .
If federal legislation were to guarantee a long-term right for timber companies to harvest trees on federal land , investment would follow .
The following @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s 29 remaining sawmills , along with the locations of eight more that are inactive .
In addition , there are 112 sites in California where sawmills once operated .
In most cases , these vacant sites of former mills are located in ideal areas to rebuild a mill and resume operations .
The economics of reviving California ’ s timber industry are compelling .
A modern sawmill with a capacity of 100 million board feet per year requires an investment of $ 100 million .
Operating at a profit , it would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of these sawmills would create roughly 20,000 jobs in direct employment of loggers , haulers , and mill workers , along with thousands of additional jobs in the communities where they are located .
The ecological impact of logging again in California ’ s state and federal forests will not become the catastrophe the environmentalists and regulators have suggested as their pretext to destroy the logging industry .
Especially now , with decades of accumulated experience , we know that logging does more good than harm to forest ecosystems .
There is evidence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by Sierra Pacific , for example , owl counts are higher than in California ’ s federally managed forests .
Even clear-cutting , because it is done on a 60 to 100-year cycle , does more good than harm to the forests .
By converting one or two percent of the forest back into meadow each year , areas are opened up where it is easier for owls to hunt prey .
Also , during a clear cut , the needles and branches are stripped off the trees and left to rejuvenate the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well , via contour tilling which follows the topography of the hillsides .
Rain percolates into the furrows , which is also where the replacement trees are planted .
While clear-cutting would not destroy most ecosystems , since it is only performed on one to two percent of the land in any given year , there are other types of logging that can be used in areas deemed more ecologically sensitive .
Southern California Edison owns 20,000 acres of forest around Shaver Lake in Southern California where the utility practices what is called @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Fire burned , earlier this year , an almost unthinkable 550 square miles in Southern California , the 30 square-mile island of SCE-managed forest around Shaver Lake was unscathed .
The reason is that for decades , Edison has been engaged in timber operations the company defines as “ uneven age management , single-tree selection , ” whereby the trees to be harvested are individually designated in advance , in what remains a profitable logging enterprise .
Controlled burns are also an essential part of SCE ’ s total ecosystem management , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ areas to be burned are caught up on logging and thinning .
The practice of uneven age management could be utilized in riparian canyons , or in areas where valuable stands of old-growth merit preservation .
The alternative , a policy of hands-off preservation , has been disastrous .
Tree density in the Sierra Nevada is currently around 300 per acre , whereas historically , a healthy forest would only have had around 60 trees per acre .
Clearly this number varies depending on forest type , altitude , and other factors .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ forests , especially on federal lands , contain about five times the normal tree density .
The result is trees that can not compete for adequate moisture and nutrients , much less rain percolating into springs and aquifers , disease and infestation of the weakened trees , and fire .
The choice before us—thin the overgrown forests or suffer fires that destroy the forests entirely— can not be emphasized enough .
In the Feather River Canyon , along with many other canyons along the Sierra Nevada , the east-west topography turned them into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and down the watershed .
Yet these riparian areas have been among the most fiercely defended against any logging , which made those fires all the worse .
The choice going forward should not be difficult .
Logging and forest thinning can not possibly harm a watershed as much as parched forests burning down to the soil , wiping out everything .
If removing trees with timber operations is essential to return California ’ s forests to a sustainable , lower density of trees per acre , mechanical removal of shrub and undergrowth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ areas that are not clear cut .
Fortunately , California has already developed the infrastructure to do this .
In fact , California ’ s biomass industry used to be bigger than it is today , and can be quickly expanded .
The next map shows the locations of 22 active biomass power plants in California , generating just over a half-gigawatt of continuous electric power .
That ’ s one percent of California ’ s electricity draw at peak demand ; not a lot , but enough to matter .
Also shown @ @ @ @ @ @ @ blue highlighted ) of idle biomass plants .
Mostly developed in the 1980s and ’ 90s , at the peak there were 60 biomass power plants in California , but with the advent of cheaper natural gas and cheaper solar power , most of them were shut down .
If removing trees with timber operations is essential to return California ’ s forests to a sustainable , lower density of trees per acre , mechanical removal of shrub and undergrowth is an essential corollary , especially in areas that are not clear cut @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the infrastructure to do this .
In fact , California ’ s biomass industry used to be bigger than it is today , and can be quickly expanded .
The next map shows the locations of 22 active biomass power plants in California , generating just over a half-gigawatt of continuous electric power .
That ’ s one percent of California ’ s electricity draw at peak demand ; not a lot , but enough to matter .
Also shown on the map are the locations ( blue highlighted ) of idle biomass @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and ’ 90s , at the peak there were 60 biomass power plants in California , but with the advent of cheaper natural gas and cheaper solar power , most of them were shut down .
At a fully amortized wholesale cost estimated somewhere between 12 cents and 14 cents per kilowatt-hour , biomass power plants can not compete with most other forms of energy .
But this price is not so far out of reach that it could not be subsidized using funds currently being allocated to other forms of renewables infrastructure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could work .
If , for example , biomass power capacity in California were roughly doubled to 1 gigawatt of continuous output , a six cents per kilowatt-hour subsidy would cost about $ 500 million per year .
This must be compared to the annual cost of wildfires , which easily exceeds a billion per year .
It also must be compared to the amount of money being thrown around on projects far less urgent than rescuing California ’ s forest ecosystems , such as the California High-Speed Rail project , which has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ entire subsidy of $ 500 million per year were spread into the utility bills of all Californians , it would only amount to about a 1.5 percent increase .
The logic of these steps seems impeccable .
Thin the forests .
Restore them to ecological health .
Adopt time-tested modern logging practices and revive the timber industry .
Build biomass power plants on the perimeter of the forests .
Prevent ridiculous , costly , horrific , tragic wildfires .
Help the economy .
But these steps have been known for decades , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time policymakers were close to a consensus on forest thinning , government bureaucrats obstructed the process and environmentalists sued to stop the process .
And they won .
Time and time again .
And now we have this : millions of acres of scorched earth , air so foul that people couldn ’ t leave their homes for weeks , and wildlife habitat that in some cases likely will never recover .
If this failure in policy doesn ’ t leave Californians livid , nothing will .
The forest management policies currently adopted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ environment they were designed to supposedly protect .
They have destroyed California ’ s timber industry , neglected its biomass industry , and are systematically turning mountain communities into ghost towns .
This is tyranny , and perhaps even worse—it is tyranny that lacks either benevolence or wisdom .
If the goal was to have a healthy forest ecosystem , that was violated , as these forests burned to the ground and most of the remaining tracts of unburned forest are overgrown and dying .
If the goal was to do anything in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its impact on the forests , and do it with urgency , that too was violated , because everything they did was wrong .
Even now , instead of urgent and far-reaching changes to forest management policies , we get more electric car mandates .
That was the urgent response .
So California ’ s ruling elites , starting with Gavin Newsom among the politicians , and Ramon Cruz , the Sierra Club ’ s new president , can prove they care about the environment by sitting down with representatives from California ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unelected state and federal regulators to devise a plan .
Or they can continue to bloviate about “ climate change , ” unconcerned that climate change only makes it more urgent that California revive its timber and biomass industries .
Edward Ring is a senior fellow of the Center for American Greatness and co-founder in 2013 of the California Policy Center .
Photo “ California Wildfire ” by Forest Service , USDA .

by Edward Ring
If this seems like an unfair title, it isn’t, though some of these tyrants were appointed by elected politicians. And all of these tyrants rely on laws that were passed by elected politicians. But while there is plenty of blame to go around, tyranny is what Californians have endured. A tyrannical system is entirely to blame for apocalyptic fires that are wiping out California’s forests, fouling the air, and killing everything in their path.
So who are these unelected tyrants?
We can start with federal and state bureaucrats. Principal among them are the careerist ideologues who dominate the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, abetted by the fanatics who run California’s Air Resources Board, along with dozens of other federal and state agencies. Joining them outside of government to assist in the incineration of California’s precious ecosystems are the lobbyists and litigants representing powerful environmentalist nonprofits such as the Sierra Club and the Center for Biological Diversity.
So numerous they escape individual accountability, these tyrants collectively have made it nearly impossible to engage in logging, forest thinning, or controlled burns. The policies, regulations, and judgments these tyrants relentlessly advocate and ruthlessly enforce are the reason California’s fires in recent years have been cataclysmic.
As a consequence, after more than a century of increasingly effective suppression of natural fires, California’s forests are now overgrown tinderboxes. They’re either going to get cleared out mechanically, or they’re going to burn like hell.
Opposing this tyranny does not signify a lack of concern for our natural environment, even though the tyrants routinely make the accusation. If you’ve ever been stirred by the sight of a California condor soaring above the wave-battered cliffs of Big Sur, you should thank an environmentalist. Most Californians agree that the condor, along with other species, was worth saving. But if the entire Ventana Wilderness is incinerated, condor habitat no longer exists. Similarly, if the entire Feather River watershed is reduced to cinder, hundreds of square miles of owl habitat will no longer exist.
By now, one may hope, most honest environmentalists know that when it comes to forest management, they’ve blown it. To paraphrase an old adage, they burned down the forest to save the trees. Maybe now they’ll help push for genuine, far-reaching, and swift reform. Then again, a lot of power and money can be had in perpetuating conflict. And recent actions by California Governor Gavin Newsom offer zero indication that help could be forthcoming from politicians. Newsom’s reaction to the ongoing inferno in California is to ban gasoline-powered cars, and declare that he has “no more patience for climate deniers.”
Let’s settle the climate “denier” issue straight away. If California’s summers are getting hotter, dryer, and lasting longer, then everything these unelected tyrants have been doing has been even more misguided, not less. And comprehensive regulatory reform and relief to start properly managing California’s forests is more urgently needed, not less.
So enough about the climate. Acknowledging climate change, regardless of its cause or trajectory, makes the case for forest management reform stronger, not weaker.
It is a great irony that alarm over climate change is used to justify endless proposals that call for urgent and unprecedented actions across all aspects of public policy, yet it cannot stimulate a swift and effective response to California’s burning forests. So what steps can be taken to quickly mitigate the damage of these catastrophic fires? And what ongoing steps can be taken to prevent them in the future?
In preparing this report, expert opinions were solicited from leaders in the timber, cattle, and biomass industries, professional foresters, and political representatives. All of them were in general agreement on the steps to be summarized here. None of them wanted to be quoted directly. The ire of the tyrants is real, and if you’re in these businesses, the power they wield is to be feared.
How to Revive California’s Forests
For about 20 million years, California’s forests endured countless droughts, some lasting centuries. Natural fires, started by lightning and very frequent in the Sierras, were essential to keep forest ecosystems healthy. In Yosemite, for example, meadows used to cover most of the valley floor, because while forests constantly encroached, periodic fires would wipe them out, allowing the meadows to return. Across millennia, fire-driven successions of this sort played out in cycles throughout California’s ecosystems.
Also for the last 20 million years or so, climate change has been the norm. To put this century’s warming into some sort of context, Giant Sequoias once grew on the shores of Mono Lake. For at least the past few centuries, forest ecosystems have been marching into higher latitudes. In the Sierra Foothills, the oaks have invaded the pine habitat, and the pine, in turn, has invaded the higher elevation stands of fir.
Today, it is mismanagement, not climate change, that is the primary threat to California’s forests.
In a speech before the U.S. Congress last September, Republican Tom McClintock summarized the series of mistakes that are destroying California’s forests. McClintock’s sprawling 4th Congressional District covers 12,800 square miles, and encompasses most of the Northern Sierra Nevada mountain range. His constituency bears the brunt of the misguided green tyranny emanating from Washington, D.C. and Sacramento. Here’s some of what McClintock said:
Excess timber comes out of the forest in only two ways—it is either carried out or it burns out. For most of the 20th century, we carried it out. It’s called “logging.” Every year, U.S. Forest Service foresters would mark off excess timber and then we auctioned it off to lumber companies who paid us to remove it, funding both local communities and the forest service. We auctioned grazing contracts on our grasslands. The result: healthy forests, fewer fires and a thriving economy. But beginning in the 1970s, we began imposing environmental laws that have made the management of our lands all but impossible. Draconian restrictions on logging, grazing, prescribed burns and herbicide use on public lands have made modern land management endlessly time-consuming and ultimately cost-prohibitive. A single tree thinning plan typically takes four years and more than 800 pages of analysis. The costs of this process exceed the value of timber—turning land maintenance from a revenue-generating activity to a revenue-consuming one.
When it comes to carrying out timber, California used to do a pretty good job. In the 1950s the average timber harvest in California was around 6 billion board feet per year. The precipitous drop in harvest volume came in the 1990s. The industry started that decade taking out not quite 5 billion board feet, and by 2000 the annual harvest had dropped to just over 2 billion board feet. Today, only about 1.5 billion board feet per year come out of California’s forests as harvested timber.
Reviving California’s Timber Industry
What McClintock describes as a working balance up until the 1990s needs to be restored. In order to achieve a sustainable balance between natural growth and timber removals, California’s timber industry needs to triple in size. If federal legislation were to guarantee a long-term right for timber companies to harvest trees on federal land, investment would follow.
The following map shows the locations of California’s 29 remaining sawmills, along with the locations of eight more that are inactive. In addition, there are 112 sites in California where sawmills once operated. In most cases, these vacant sites of former mills are located in ideal areas to rebuild a mill and resume operations.
The economics of reviving California’s timber industry are compelling. A modern sawmill with a capacity of 100 million board feet per year requires an investment of $100 million. Operating at a profit, it would create 640 full-time jobs. Constructing 30 of these sawmills would create roughly 20,000 jobs in direct employment of loggers, haulers, and mill workers, along with thousands of additional jobs in the communities where they are located.
The ecological impact of logging again in California’s state and federal forests will not become the catastrophe the environmentalists and regulators have suggested as their pretext to destroy the logging industry. Especially now, with decades of accumulated experience, we know that logging does more good than harm to forest ecosystems. There is evidence to prove this.
In forests managed by Sierra Pacific, for example, owl counts are higher than in California’s federally managed forests. Even clear-cutting, because it is done on a 60 to 100-year cycle, does more good than harm to the forests. By converting one or two percent of the forest back into meadow each year, areas are opened up where it is easier for owls to hunt prey. Also, during a clear cut, the needles and branches are stripped off the trees and left to rejuvenate the soil. The runoff is managed as well, via contour tilling which follows the topography of the hillsides. Rain percolates into the furrows, which is also where the replacement trees are planted.
While clear-cutting would not destroy most ecosystems, since it is only performed on one to two percent of the land in any given year, there are other types of logging that can be used in areas deemed more ecologically sensitive. Southern California Edison owns 20,000 acres of forest around Shaver Lake in Southern California where the utility practices what is called total ecosystem management.
When the Creek Fire burned, earlier this year, an almost unthinkable 550 square miles in Southern California, the 30 square-mile island of SCE-managed forest around Shaver Lake was unscathed. The reason is that for decades, Edison has been engaged in timber operations the company defines as “uneven age management, single-tree selection,” whereby the trees to be harvested are individually designated in advance, in what remains a profitable logging enterprise. Controlled burns are also an essential part of SCE’s total ecosystem management, but these burns are only safe when the areas to be burned are caught up on logging and thinning.
The practice of uneven age management could be utilized in riparian canyons, or in areas where valuable stands of old-growth merit preservation. The alternative, a policy of hands-off preservation, has been disastrous. Tree density in the Sierra Nevada is currently around 300 per acre, whereas historically, a healthy forest would only have had around 60 trees per acre. Clearly this number varies depending on forest type, altitude, and other factors. Overall, however, California’s forests, especially on federal lands, contain about five times the normal tree density. The result is trees that cannot compete for adequate moisture and nutrients, much less rain percolating into springs and aquifers, disease and infestation of the weakened trees, and fire.
The choice before us—thin the overgrown forests or suffer fires that destroy the forests entirely—cannot be emphasized enough. In the Feather River Canyon, along with many other canyons along the Sierra Nevada, the east-west topography turned them into wind tunnels that drove fires rapidly up and down the watershed. Yet these riparian areas have been among the most fiercely defended against any logging, which made those fires all the worse. The choice going forward should not be difficult. Logging and forest thinning cannot possibly harm a watershed as much as parched forests burning down to the soil, wiping out everything.
Growing California’s Biomass Power Industry
If removing trees with timber operations is essential to return California’s forests to a sustainable, lower density of trees per acre, mechanical removal of shrub and undergrowth is an essential corollary, especially in areas that are not clear cut. Fortunately, California has already developed the infrastructure to do this. In fact, California’s biomass industry used to be bigger than it is today, and can be quickly expanded.
The next map shows the locations of 22 active biomass power plants in California, generating just over a half-gigawatt of continuous electric power. That’s one percent of California’s electricity draw at peak demand; not a lot, but enough to matter. Also shown on the map are the locations (blue highlighted) of idle biomass plants. Mostly developed in the 1980s and ’90s, at the peak there were 60 biomass power plants in California, but with the advent of cheaper natural gas and cheaper solar power, most of them were shut down.
If removing trees with timber operations is essential to return California’s forests to a sustainable, lower density of trees per acre, mechanical removal of shrub and undergrowth is an essential corollary, especially in areas that are not clear cut. Fortunately, California has already developed the infrastructure to do this. In fact, California’s biomass industry used to be bigger than it is today, and can be quickly expanded.
The next map shows the locations of 22 active biomass power plants in California, generating just over a half-gigawatt of continuous electric power. That’s one percent of California’s electricity draw at peak demand; not a lot, but enough to matter. Also shown on the map are the locations (blue highlighted) of idle biomass plants. Mostly developed in the 1980s and ’90s, at the peak there were 60 biomass power plants in California, but with the advent of cheaper natural gas and cheaper solar power, most of them were shut down.
At a fully amortized wholesale cost estimated somewhere between 12 cents and 14 cents per kilowatt-hour, biomass power plants cannot compete with most other forms of energy. But this price is not so far out of reach that it could not be subsidized using funds currently being allocated to other forms of renewables infrastructure or climate change mitigation. The numbers could work.
If, for example, biomass power capacity in California were roughly doubled to 1 gigawatt of continuous output, a six cents per kilowatt-hour subsidy would cost about $500 million per year. This must be compared to the annual cost of wildfires, which easily exceeds a billion per year. It also must be compared to the amount of money being thrown around on projects far less urgent than rescuing California’s forest ecosystems, such as the California High-Speed Rail project, which has already consumed billions. And if this entire subsidy of $500 million per year were spread into the utility bills of all Californians, it would only amount to about a 1.5 percent increase.
Will the Unelected Tyrants Relent?
The logic of these steps seems impeccable. Thin the forests. Restore them to ecological health. Adopt time-tested modern logging practices and revive the timber industry. Build biomass power plants on the perimeter of the forests. Prevent ridiculous, costly, horrific, tragic wildfires. Help the economy.
But these steps have been known for decades, and yet nothing has been done. Every time policymakers were close to a consensus on forest thinning, government bureaucrats obstructed the process and environmentalists sued to stop the process. And they won. Time and time again. And now we have this: millions of acres of scorched earth, air so foul that people couldn’t leave their homes for weeks, and wildlife habitat that in some cases likely will never recover. If this failure in policy doesn’t leave Californians livid, nothing will.
The forest management policies currently adopted in California have not only ruined the environment they were designed to supposedly protect. They have destroyed California’s timber industry, neglected its biomass industry, and are systematically turning mountain communities into ghost towns. This is tyranny, and perhaps even worse—it is tyranny that lacks either benevolence or wisdom.
If the goal was to have a healthy forest ecosystem, that was violated, as these forests burned to the ground and most of the remaining tracts of unburned forest are overgrown and dying. If the goal was to do anything in the name of fighting climate change and its impact on the forests, and do it with urgency, that too was violated, because everything they did was wrong. Even now, instead of urgent and far-reaching changes to forest management policies, we get more electric car mandates. That was the urgent response.
So California’s ruling elites, starting with Gavin Newsom among the politicians, and Ramon Cruz, the Sierra Club’s new president, can prove they care about the environment by sitting down with representatives from California’s timber industry, along with the unelected state and federal regulators to devise a plan.
Or they can continue to bloviate about “climate change,” unconcerned that climate change only makes it more urgent that California revive its timber and biomass industries.
– – –
Edward Ring is a senior fellow of the Center for American Greatness and co-founder in 2013 of the California Policy Center.
Photo “California Wildfire” by Forest Service, USDA.