Friday Feature Film: I Went To The Most Republican County In America (Nick Johnson)
The opinions expressed in this video do not represent those of the blog or the blog’s proprietor. But it is an interesting vlog/ bit of commentary.
OP-Ed: Too late – abortion ban has already hurt Republicans (AZ Capitol Times)
(Click Here for the Article)
Note: This isn’t a pro-life or pro-choice argument. But commentary on how to approach contentious wedge issues during election season.
“….Few issues in American politics are as contentious as the issue of abortion. Since the Dobbs decision, many state governments have imposed various restrictions on abortion access, but none can compare to Arizona’s 1864 law, part of the Howell Code. This law “bans nearly all abortions” in the state.
The Arizona Supreme Court recently ruled in Planned Parenthood v. Mayes that the 1864 law was enforceable. The GOP has maintained a staunch anti-abortion stance. But this ancient law that predates Arizona’s statehood has some notable Republicans up in arms — from former President Donald Trump to Senate hopeful Kari Lake. Lake stated that the ruling was “out of step with Arizonans.”
As a battleground state for the 2024 election, contentious wedge issues can make or break a candidate. As we learned in the 2022 midterms, hard-right campaigns don’t bode well with Arizona voters, making then-Gov. Doug Ducey’s more pragmatic 15-week ban a more palatable policy to the public.
Conservatives backpedaling and advocating for moderate policies might be a good strategy for attracting independent voters. It is too little, too late. Republicans switching their positions on abortion in poor timing will alienate their voter base and will give Democrats leverage in the election.
From the standpoint of perception, moving toward the middle on abortion seems disingenuous and will turn off voters. A Pew poll shows that 49 % of Arizona adults believe that abortion should be legal in “most cases.” Getting this issue wrong ispolitical suicide. Most right-wing politicians have been aggressively pro-life. Lake previously praised the idea of enforcing the 1864 territorial law. She called abortion the “ultimate sin.” Given her post commentary, Lake’s sudden shift on the issue is perplexing.
The motives of prominent Republicans to overturn the law are to survive the 2024 election. After a dismal loss in 2022, the GOP cannot afford backlash on this divisive issue. Even in deep red states like Ohio, Texas, and Kentucky, pro-abortion rights measures have won at the ballot box.
Since there is significant support for abortion access, anyone with political savvy can see that alienating these voters would be disastrous. Changing your tune at the last minute during an election season will only sit well with a few voters because recent polls show that Democratic Senate candidate Ruben Gallego has a 12 % lead over Lake. If changing her stance seems opportunistic, it may deepen the deficit.
It is one thing to scare off swing voters but another to offend your base. The party has suffered from deep fissures between the establishment and the populous wing in recent years. This schism has deepened in the debates over topics ranging from Trump’s impeachment to the legitimacy of the 2020 election results. Considering that 76% of Republicans are pro-life, this might be the most unifying issue.
Arizona might have many independent voters, but more Arizonans are still registered as Republicans (35.07%). The unaffiliated voters will pull in the victory in a tight race, but conservatives still need to capture the Republican vote. Instead of mobilizing conservatives, “wishy-washy” policies on hot-button issues could leave Republicans staying home on election day.
While Republicans in the limelight are distancing themselves from the ban, this is proving to be a rallying point for Democrats. President Biden has capitalized on the prohibition and “blamed” his opponent’s Supreme Court picks for the criminalization of abortion.
The left-leaning Arizona for Abortion Access, since the ruling, has quickly gained the necessary signatures to get a ballot question that would enshrine abortion rights in the state Constitution.
Grassroots initiatives to protect abortion rights have increased by 50%. Since reproductive rights are one of the crown jewels in the Democratic Party’s platform, the abortion ban might be a boon for Biden’s lagging campaign and Gallego’s modest lead.
If you are a politician in a swing state, always tread lightly on wedge issues. If moving to the middle is not an option, assume a strong position and don’t veer off course. Lousy timing, alienating your core voters, and giving your political adversaries red meat are recipes for a failed campaign.
Peter Clark is an Arizona-based writer and commentator..”
Weaponizing Protectionism At The Expense of Public Health
Disposable e-cigarettes have recently come into the cross-hairs of regulators across America. For example, Arizona senator Sen. T. J. Shope “has introduced” SB 1212, targeting the flood of flavored vapes from China. There are proposed measures at the federal level for the FDA to crack down on these “illegal vapes”; why is China exporting so many e-cigarettes to the U.S. in the first place?
The FDA’s restriction on flavored e-cigarettes left a void in the vaping market because of the popularity of flavored vaping devices. Not only is non-tobacco-flavored e-juice more appealing, but it has been crucial in helping adults quit smoking by breaking the connection between tobacco and nicotine.
Makers of single-use vaping devices such as Elfbar and Geek Bar found loopholes around the FDA’s ban. Supplying the product that has helped many smokers ditch cigarettes for good.
Even though Public Health England found e-cigarettes to be “95 percent safer than conventional cigarettes”, there is still moral panic over the impact of nicotine on the developing brain.
The calls to save the youth from the dangers of nicotine-laden bubblegum vapor might be a laudable cause. In the tradition of Bruce Yandle’s Bootleggers and Baptists, various interest groups are looking to capitalize on banning imported vapes. Hiding underneath the veneer of protecting kids from addiction is an undercurrent of protectionist opportunists.
The United States should cease strict enforcement on banning Chinese disposable vapes for the following reasons: it will reward the rent-seeking of domestic industries, perpetuate protectionist policies, and harm millions of Americans trying to quit cigarettes.
Protecting kids from foreign mango-flavored e-cigarettes might seem pressing. Considering the media bombard us with stories of teens developing health conditions purportedly linked to vaping. But all the alarmist headlines ignore that teen vaping is on the decline.
Despite the waning popularity among high schoolers, domestic companies selling nicotine products support ramped-up enforcement. U.S.-based Altria owns 35% of Juul, Zyn, and heated tobacco products, directly competing with Asian single-use manufacturers. By the end of 2022, disposable vapes were “51.8% of total unit sales”.
Considering the immense competition from foreign producers, Altria has a motive to endorse measures that eliminate them from the market. The tobacco titan launched lawsuits against disposable e-cigarette makers shirking the flavor ban. Altria has been outspoken about the dominance of flavored Chinese vapes in the market. The CEO said that the market has been “overrun” by imported disposables.
Altria has even backed initiatives by states to restrict sales of foreign disposable vapes. Since they are losing significant market share to these products, it takes time to take their concerns seriously. Public health concerns are not what is pressing big tobacco to call for stricter enforcement. The American nicotine industry is trying to combat a wave of foreign competition.
Through validating policies and the exaggerated dangers of disposable e-cigarettes, lawmakers are only encouraging this covert rent-seeking behavior. All at the expense of vapers.
Not only are business interests looking to benefit from restrictions on disposable vapes, but elected officials also stand to gain. Political leaders can seize this opportunity to perpetuate protectionist policies to stay in office, not improve public health. Over the years, China has been a popular target for politicians. The Trump administration launched a “trade war” with China, fraying trade relations.
Much of the anti-Chinese sentiment regarding trade and global affairs responds to public demand. Per the 2023 Pew poll, 83 % of American adults view China negatively, and 44 % hold “very unfavorable views”. The current geopolitical climate makes anything related to China a soft target. Combined with public “hysteria” over youth vaping, policies against Chinese disposables have a lot of currency in the political marketplace.
A few luminaries in national politics who are tough on China have jumped on the anti-Elfbar bandwagon. Senator Marco Rubio has stressed the need to oppose China and blamed the nation for America’s “social and economic ills .”Rubio has recently introduced a bill to increase the tariffs on Chinese automobiles.
Rubio has also called for the FDA to step up enforcement against the importation of flavored E-cigarettes from China. He is capitalizing on the image of China poisoning our youth with vaping products and stressing the importance of saving children from “high nicotine” and “fentanyl” tainted vapes. These are flimsy justifications for banning smoking cessation tools. Teen vaping is declining, and there are procedures for spotting counterfeit devices.
Political and commercial interests prosper by restricting imported ENDS, while vapers suffer. Vaping is an effective form of smoking cessation. A study published by the NEJM found that when combined with smoking-cessation counseling, e-cigarettes helped participants abstain from tobacco. 59.6% of the participants using vapes discontinued tobacco use, versus only 20.1% who went cold turkey.
What makes vaping so effective in helping smokers quit is the flavors. Another study conducted by CoEHAR found that tobacco-flavored vapes only had a 15% success rate in helping smokers quit.
Clamping down on the only source of flavored vaping products, many Americans will remain smokers. This crackdown will have a devastating impact on public health. E-cigarettes contain less toxic chemicals and biomarkers than exposure to cigarette smoke. The risk of cardiovascular conditions among smokers who switched to vaping decreased because it lessened the narrowing of their arteries.
Protection of our youth from nicotine addiction is a noble policy objective. But railing against foreign e-cigarette companies making a product that helps adults quit smoking is not the answer. Commercial and political interests benefit by weaponizing the influx of Chinese devices. Tobacco companies and politicians do so at the expense of vapers. It is vapers who bear the costs of enforcing the flavor ban.
OP-ED: How the Subsidy Straw Is Sucking The Colorado River Dry (American Institute For Economic Research)
(Click Here for the Article.)
Institutional Assimilation
The role of social media companies in content moderation takes center stage in the Section 230 debate. Many conservatives believe that firms like Facebook are mimicking state authority by censoring speech (Frederick,2023).
What if there is merit to this claim? By collaborating with the institutions of governance, private companies become an extension of the state.
This phenomenon is known as Institutional Assimilation. Through an organization aligning its conduct with the incentives of the government, it acts as a proxy. Acting as a surrogate for a government agency.
Institutional Assimilation subverts the traditional dichotomy of Pluralism and Elite Theory in political science (Gilens & Page, 2014). The faction within the coalition possessing leverage varies by situation. Regulatory capture (Stigler, 1971)would be an example of the conditions of the Section 230 debate in reverse. Lawmakers acting as stewards of corporate interests, become an extension of the firm.
Beware! The Subsidy Straw!
The Colorado River has been facing a water crisis for over two decades. From 2000 to 2021, the river basin has “…lost over 40 trillion liters of water..”. Per a recent news report, water scarcity has led to disputes among the seven states sourcing water from the Colorado River.
However, this is nothing new. For years, states have contested their water allotments. Commentators are quick to look for the cause of the plummeting water levels. Pointing to climate change or population booms in the southwest. The true culprit is less obvious.
The offender of the shrinking Colorado River is agricultural subsidies. A staggering 79 % of the harvested water is for agricultural use. Only 12 % of the extracted is for residential use. A combination of crop, irrigation, and crop insurance subsidies have formed a “subsidy straw”. These farming sector entitlements have incentivized producers to grow thirsty plants, make water extraction effortless, and create moral hazard. For these reasons, it is critical to end this water-guzzling trifecta to save the Colorado River.
It is common sense to avoid growing water-intensive crops in the desert. Crop subsidies drive farmers to cultivate water-gulping plants. Per the Cato Institute, the most heavily subsidized crops include: “corn, soybeans, wheat, cotton, and rice”. They also tend to be the crops that require the most water. The extra incentive to crow thirsty crops “..discourages..” farmers from rotating to water-conserving commodities.
Subsidized water guzzlers are top crops for arid states. For example, Arizona is renowned for its cotton production. It takes “..5,283 gallons of water to produce 2.2 pounds..” cotton. Despite the water inefficiency of cotton, producers have received over $1.1 billion in crop subsidies over the past few decades. Sucking the Colorado River dry for the sake of an ailing industry!
If enticing farmers to produce water gulpers wasn’t bad enough, the government also subsidizes irrigation equipment. The US government subsidizes “efficient” irrigation equipment to conserve water. In most cases, it has the opposite effect.
This initiative intended to make water extraction less wasteful but has only increased water consumption. A study found that upgraded irrigation equipment resulted in a 3 % increase in water extraction. Researchers also discovered that “..farmers were more likely to plant water-intensive..” crops in “..higher proportion of their fields..”. Combined with the “use it or lose it” water rights policies and the inability to sell water use privileges, farmers have no incentive to save the surplus. Despite the proven ineffectiveness of the irrigation subsidies, Biden is still pouring millions into this failed endeavor.
To top it off, producers also receive cheap crop insurance. Crop insurance policies typically cover agricultural goods damaged by drought. Farmers get a helping hand from the government. In 2022, Uncle Sam subsidized 62 % of policyholders’ premiums. Totaling a whopping $12 billion. Between 2000 and 2016 producers “..received $65 billion more in claims than they paid in premiums ..”. Many tax dollars have propped up farms producing thirsty crops in the desert.
Making crop insurance cheaper will not help water conservation efforts. If anything, it will create moral hazard. Low insurance premiums do not incentivize farmers to switch to crops that require less water. Nor does it make them want to use less water. Having a safety net, they are less apt to change their ways. If farmers were responsible for the full premiums or had no insurance, they would feel the pinch of water shortages. Adopting more efficient water management strategies and growing crops that thrive in desert terrain.
Town ordinances banning lawn watering aren’t saving the Colorado River. But dissolving the “subsidy straw” might be the remedy. Crop, irrigation, and insurance subsidies have created the perfect storm for encouraging wanton water consumption in the agricultural sector. Not only wasting water but wasting tax dollars. If we want to solve the water crisis in the Western United States, these entitlements must go!
Drought in the Desert: Brought to You By Agricultural Subsidies
We need to end agricultural subsidies for good. The southwestern United States is on the brink of a water shortage crisis. One of the main drivers is not climate change. The subsidies pervasively incentivize farmers to cultivate water-intensive crops.
Per the Cato Institute, the most heavily subsidized crops include: “corn, soybeans, wheat, cotton, and rice”. Beef subsidies are not nearly as lucrative.
In a sick twist of irony, many subsidized crops require large quantities of water for cultivation. This list includes “Corn, Rice, wheat, and cotton”. The taxpayers are unknowingly funding their droughts!
This intervention from the government not only steers farmers towards thirsty crops but also discourages crop rotation. The lack of crop rotation also leaves arid states to content with soil depleted of nutrients and farmers using harmful pesticides.
If environmentalists are alarmed about the water shortages, they should tackle agricultural subsidies.
(Courtesy of USA FACTS)
Inverted logic 