A new study released on Tuesday by the Competitive Enterprise Institute and Power the Future revealed the astronomical potential costs of the Green New Deal. The Daily Wire reported, “The state of Pennsylvania, for example, would need to spend $2 quadrillion to upgrade residential, commercial and industrial buildings as mandated in the GND, and Florida would need to pony up $1.4 quadrillion, according to the study.”

To fund the Green New Deal in Pennsylvania, which would cost $2 quadrillion or $2,000,000,000,000,000, we would need 100 times the entire GDP of the United States, or 3000 times the entire GDP of Pennsylvania. In Alaska, the Green New Deal would cost each household more than $100,000 in the first year alone, or nearly double the median income of the United States. As CEI President and CEO Kent Lassman said in a statement, “Perhaps that’s why exactly zero Senate Democrats, including the resolution’s 12 co-sponsors, voted for the Green New Deal when they had the chance.”

The study concluded, “The Green New Deal is a plan to radically reshape the American economy and the landscape of a household economy. Every aspect of how we live and work would be affected by the proposal. The preponderance of goods essential for agriculture, transportation, and construction would be replaced. In short, it is not realistic. However, national political figures and perhaps even a growing movement of fellow citizens would like to implement it as a policy agenda.”

This may be substantially more than previous estimates, like the estimates from the study conducted by the Congressional Budget Office, but the authors of the recent study admitted that it was an underestimation because it is “impossible to calculate the whole or maximum cost of the GND.”

The Justice Department is launching a broad antitrust review into whether the massive technology firms, Facebook Inc., Google, Amazon.com Inc. and Apple Inc., are unlawfully stifling competition. The review will be focusing on examining the practices of the online platforms that control internet search, social media, and retail services, The Wall Street Journal reported.

The new antitrust review is designed to go beyond recent plans to examine the tech industry that were created by the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission. The recently defined antitrust powers of the FTC and the Justice Department allows claims to be filed from both departments on one company. According to the Wall Street Journal, “the new Justice Department review could amplify the risk, because some of those companies could face antitrust claims from both the Justice Department and the FTC.”

This could be a big step towards what I like to call “equality of speech”. While we have the God given right to free speech in this country through the 1st amendment, what we have seen in recent years is a monopoly of the social media and just plain media platforms that allow all voices to be heard. Instead of a platform for all ideas and opinion, we have seen deliberate censorship of constitutionally minded individuals to the extent that their freedom of speech has been injured. This investigation is absolutely warranted, and I would go as far to say that it should be expanded to include media and the leftist politicians that colluded with the social media tech companies to limit and suppress free speech that they don’t like.

The economically illiterate Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) has continued to push the party-wide auction of a higher federal minimum wage with a proposal of $20 per-hour, following the previous push by the left for a $15 per-hour federal minimum wage.

“Big fights like this one, $15. By the way, when we started it, it should have been $15,” the freshman congresswoman spoke of the federal minimum wage. “Now I think it should be $20 … It should be $20 an hour.”

“They say all this is gonna raise the cost,” she so eloquently added. “But I could tell you, milk has gone up, eggs has gone up, everything has gone up, the cost of food has gone up, the cost of a lot of things we need has gone up already.”

Unsurprisingly, Tlaib must have ignored recent research on this subject, continuing her apparent pattern of disregarding information on economics throughout her career in order to maintain faith in her political stances. Earlier this month, the Congressional Budget Office warned that a federal minimum wage increase would cause mass unemployment proportional to the increase of the federal minimum wage. For example, increasing to $10 per-hour would cause up to 100,000 job losses, $12 per-hour would cause up to 800,000 job losses, and $15 per-hour would cause up to 3.7 million job losses.

Additionally, Bernie Sanders, who is somehow becoming RELATIVELY more moderate as the Democrats sprint their way farther and farther left, recently felt the burn as his campaign staff have demanded a $15 minimum wage, which he has championed for years. Since there is only a finite amount of money, which is an idea that seems to be incomprehensible to the left, Sanders had to cut the hours of his employees by a third in order to pay them $15 per-hour. Less work and more unemployment is the foreseeable result of these policies, and Sanders was able to experience this first hand.

These Democrats either do not understand how the minimum wage works, or they are disingenuously pushing for an impossible policy they believe will be popular just to get elected. These minimum wage laws are misnamed. The true minimum wage is $0, meaning no one is guaranteed a job, no employer is forced to employee someone. A $15 per-hour federal minimum wage law would just outlaw the ability of an employee to work for less than $15 per-hour, even if they want to. So, if someone cannot find an employer that will hire them for $15 per-hour then they will not be able to work, and they will have no money. This is what causes the unemployment, many employers are either unwilling to hire an employee that does not produce enough to hire such a large investment, or they are unable to afford to hire such an expensive employee (or both).

Further, for the few employers that do hire the more expensive employees, the price of labor will now be increased. In order to offset the increased price of labor, the employers must increase the revenue earned by increasing the costs of the goods produced. Otherwise the business will eventually fail from the imbalance of the price of labor to the revenue earned. This is essentially basic algebra. For example, in the most simplified way I can mathematically explain the minimum wage:

E = Employee
D = Dollars per hour
R = Revenue (after business expenses other than employee costs)
P = Profits


P must be greater than zero in order for this to be possible, otherwise the business is losing money. If D (dollars per hour) is increased than either E (employees) must be decreased or R (revenue) must be increased, which would push the price of the goods produced upwards. When you legislate a minimum for D (dollars per hour), then you effectively legislate a maximum for E (employees); or you drive up the cost of goods, which means increased cost of living and nullifies the benefits of the increased wages in the first place. This is the most basic economics, this is supply and demand.

President Trump revealed Monday that “compromise” bipartisan budget deal has been agreed upon, and it will boost federal spending by $320 billion and suspend the debt ceiling beyond the next presidential election.

Yahoo News reported, “The agreement raises the discretionary spending caps for fiscal years 2020 and 2021, pairing it with a suspension of the statutory debt ceiling until the end of July 2021, nearly nine months after the 2020 election.”

In other words, the government will be increasing in size by $320 billion dollars, that we cannot afford, while kicking the can down the road so we do not have to face the reality of the unaffordability of our government. The “compromise” is expected to push the annual budget deficit to more than $1 trillion next year.

Regularly we hear how detrimental it would be for the United States to default on its debt, which ostensibly necessitates an increased debt ceiling. While defaulting on our debt would obviously be bad, we should move to reduce that debt. The solution is not to increase the rate at which we accumulate debt and then adjust how much debt we are allowed to have, the solution is to eliminate the deficit and begin to reduce our debt.

On the bright side, at least we won’t have to see the “shut the government down” game for a while.

On Thursday, President Trump revealed that he’s seriously considering a Pentagon contract that’s estimated to be worth $10 billion for Amazon or Microsoft.

According to Nextgov, the Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure, or “The JEDI contract, now open to bidders, will put a single cloud service provider in charge of hosting and distributing mission-critical workloads and classified military secrets to warfighters around the globe.”

The contract has been controversial as the minimum requirements outlined in the contract seemed to heavily favor Amazon. After Oracle was eliminated from the bidding for the contract in April, they filed a lawsuit alleging that the Pentagon carefully crafted the contract to favor Amazon and it neglected to investigate the relationship between DOD employees and Amazon.

Although these are American grown businesses, I am leery of any mega company working with the DOD that also has strong ideological foundations, especially leftist ideologies. Many of Microsoft’s and Amazons internal policies and employee values mimic the odd belief structure of Silicon Valley and companies like Google which have shown to be deeply involved with attempting to restructure our nations political foundation into a more socialists way of governance. That is a big problem as the DOD has already shown signs of leftist social engineering and decreased war fighting capabilities due to political maneuvering.