Energy prices: a key issue as the election approaches

Written by Michael O’Sullivan via RealClearEnergy,

Ah, election season. That festive time when politicians suddenly have new ideas about how to improve our lives. This year, the spotlight shines brightly on our venerable American economy, which is currently either good or bad, depending on who you ask. But it’s election season, so the voters rule and the pundits can take a powder. And that’s why we have today both presidential candidates proposing economic policies that make economists wince and voters cheer.

The remarkable gap between experts and ordinary people is beautifully illustrated in a recent Wall Street Journal poll targeting economic policy ideas from both campaigns. The Journal asked 750 registered voters what they thought. They then commissioned the University of Chicago’s Clark Center to obtain a reading from 39 “leading academic experts.” The policies in question include things like tax-free tips and social security income, tariffs on imported goods, price-gouging penalties, free money for first-time homebuyers or parents of new babies, and caps on various drug prices .

Pundits hate a lot of this because it goes against their favorite economic theories. But ordinary people, whose frame of reference comes mainly from the realities of everyday life, gave an average of 63% thumbs up. The sharpest contrast comes with eliminating taxes, where voters are nearly 80 percent in favor and economists are roughly 90 percent against. Makes you wonder if we’re not living in parallel universes.

Much could be said about economic philosophy and the lessons of history at this point. But instead, let’s think about this: About half of this country votes conservative, which means they usually don’t like big government. But according to this survey, about three-quarters of all voters favor economic policies that involve more government spending. That means half of Tory voters are willing to put their principles on hold in the interest of helping people through hard times.

I realize I’m playing fast and loose with the numbers, but it really does look like a society in economic distress — where a relatively small number becomes significant for many households. Maybe that’s why almost 8 out of 10 American adults live paycheck to paycheck and over 20 million households are behind the utility bills. Here even the staunchest Jeffersonian is tempted to look to Uncle Sam for help.

And yet we have so boring the myth of the free lunch. described Milton Friedman is “the belief that somehow government can spend money at nobody’s expense.” It doesn’t take much math to know that more government spending brings relief only at the expense of more problems. Pepper is always paid.

But if there was a way to help people without more government spending? If we could Yes something for some people without first Luanda money from other people? Surely that would bring tears of joy to ill-informed voters and enlightened pundits alike.

If 20 million households are behind on their utility bills and so many are living paycheck to paycheck, then there must be many more who are not behind but are still struggling to pay. And we know that the average cost of electricity in the US has steadily increased, has grown by almost 30% since 2019 alone. In a society where a few dollars go a long way, many people each month have to decide between their electricity bill, rent and food.

So here’s an idea: What if we simply cut the cost of electricity? It helps everyone and doesn’t require more government (ie, taxpayer) money. It just demands that the government stop forcing a premature “transition” that has only served to make energy more expensive and less reliable.

If we want to get crazy, then Uncle Sam could take some of the big bucks he’s throwing at wind and solar (which I come short) and invest in something with a better return, such as responsibly sourced natural gaswhich is cheap, reliable and reasonably clean. Or maybe put in some nuclear chips, that is safer and cleaner than you might think. If Uncle Sam was really concerned about ROI, he would realign his portfolio. At least it wouldn’t be new expenses – and would reduce energy costs faster.

Imagine if a presidential candidate stood up and said, “Listen, folks, here’s what we’re going to do. We’ll put a few hundred dollars in everyone’s pocket. Every month. Forever.”

Point me to the nearest polling booth.

Michael O’Sullivan is Program Director and COO for Blue Energy Nationa non-profit organization committed to educating young people about energy realities. He is also a popular podcast host and advocate for smart energy choices.

By Zerohedge.com

More top reads from Oilprice.com