Bernie Sanders' "Green New Deal" is full of economic impossibilities | Should the Death Penalty stay on the table?
01:19:19 Share

Hey everyone!

First off, please subscribe to the show by clicking this link. )

Today on the show we talked about a murder trial from the '90's down in Texas that end with an execution last week. Needless to say, the prosecution brought questionable evidence, and the convicted murderer spoke of his innocence until his final words.

If the government is inefficient, corrupt, and all to powerful, should we still allow the death penalty? We try to answer this difficult question on the first half of the podcast.

Bernie Sanders' "Green New Deal"

Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders released his plan for a $16.3 trillion spending package dubbed the "Green New Deal," blatantly stealing the name of the massive plan laid out earlier in the year by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. 

I spent several hours running through this plan line by line today, and arrived at a pretty simple conclusion:

If you care about the environment, if you care about the poor, if you care about innovation, or the economic stability of the country, then you must consider the argument that the government is the worst possible entity to accomplish those goals. 

Bernie's plan calls for a complete replacement of:

• The power grid
• all automobiles
• all school buses
• all shipping vehicles (semis)
• all gas stations
• and nearly all roads

It also promises to create 20 million new "high-paying" jobs, and eliminate unemployment. In the elimination of unemployment, it suggests that the need for a welfare state will dissipate, since everyone will have a high paying job. Of course, that's a high-paying job paid for with tax dollars, something that will first have to be stolen from the economy. 

Let me be clear. It is probably a bad thing to remove carbon from the ground, and place it into the air. Im not refuting that suggestion, but I will question the idea that we are nearing a "climate catastrophe." I'll also question the idea that this is purely man-made (can we call sexism on that term?), and that anything the United States does can have any effect on the situation.

This plan seizes control of the entire energy sector, and promises to remove "greed" from the equation by leaving all power to be supplied by publicly owned companies. If Bernie has a room full of angels waiting to take the reins, I suggest he disperse them elsewhere immediately. 

This comes down to one question: Who is more effective at innovation, and efficiency- private entities, or the government?

I could use the example of NASA vs. SpaceX. Through 60 years of innovation, NASA was able to get the cost of sending a satellite to space down to $600 million. To ad to that fact, they were producing new rockets with each launch. In 10 years, Elon Musk and SpaceX were able to reduce the cost of sending things into space down to $60 million. A tenth of the price if you don't have your calculator handy. In addition to that, they developed a way to fly the rockets back to the launch pad to save money. That wasn't enough.. They then produced a drone ship that would become a mobile landing pad for the rockets, since due to the arch of the launch and the rotation of the earth the rocket would be re-entering over water, and boat fuel is cheaper than rocket fuel. 

Think what you may about profit, but the motive for profit saves us money. Take into consideration the fact that in the Russians heyday, an automobile cost 3x as much to produce in the Soviet Union, even though profit was illegal. Remember, Henry Ford didn't invent the automobile. He simply found a way to mass produce it in a way t --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/goodmorningliberty/support)

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices)