thebigp

Immiserating The Poor--More dubious achievements from the EPA--8k, b12-1
If my admittedly anecdotal evidence is any guide, income ine******y is an issue trickling down from the top rather than bubbling up from the bottom of society. That the national conversation is about relative ine******y rather than absolute poverty is because the former issue is particularly vexatious to the academics, journalists, and civil servants who are driving the conversation. I'd love to know the average income of the folks showing up to hear Bernie Sanders, but I'd bet that few of Bernie's fans are stuck in 40-old year-old junkers with duct tape securing the brake lights.
While the president constantly complains about our country's income ine******y, two important environmental rules put forward this summer by his administration will only make the income gap bigger. When President Obama famously promised to use his veto pen and his issue executive orders to do what the Republican Congress wouldn't, it may not have been entirely clear that his activism would be aimed at people with bald tires and balky t***smissions. His environmental rules are bad news for poor people in rural Missouri and the rest of the country.
The Clean Power Plan rule will m lead to huge increases in electricity costs in states like Missouri, where coal provides the majority of our sic electric power. Analysis of an earlier version of the rule projected double digit annual increases in electricity costs for the next decade, but the final rule demands even larger cuts in carbon emissions. The National Black Chamber of Commerce commissioned a study that predicts the average family will see its electric bill increase by more than $1,200 a year. The average Missourian pays just over $100 per month for electricity.
All this for a barely measurable projected decrease in global temperatures. The EPA is well aware of the regressive nature of the rule, so it commands states to provide aid to those on the lower end of the income scale and even helpfully offers some examples of programs that will pass muster with its enforcers.
The EPA is the perfect example of a government agency of that has slipped the bonds of democratic restraint. The new Waters of the United a States rule, which went into effect in much of the country at the end of August, threatens low-income budgets as much as the Clean Air rule does. As farmers scramble to comply with the increased costs and lowered productivity that will result in from enforcement of the rule, U.S. agriculture will struggle to meet increasing demands for food. World food demand is reliably expected to increase by 70 percent over the next three decades: It will be difficult to nearly double food production while in the most productive farmland in the world is under the thumb of a government agency that consistently oversteps the elastic boundaries set by an It inattentive Congress.
Mapping his software that incorporates the new rule shows that well over 95% of Missouri is now a Water of United States. The House has passed legislation that would halt its implementation; dozens of states are opposing it in court the Corps of Engineers has written a series of leaked memos criticizing the rule; and a U.S. district court judge in North Dakota has granted an injunction halting its unplementation in 13 states.
The average American spends around a tenth of his income on food, but people in the lower end of the income distribution spend much more, with the lowest income quintile spending over one-third of their income feeding their families. Second, the demand for food is inelastic. Decreases in the supply of food lead to commensurately larger increases in the price of food.
This summer provided a real-world illustration of freshman economics: A 10 to 15 percent decline in the number of eggs on the market due to a poultry disease led to a short-term doubling of the price of eggs.
'We can ease poverty with any number of programs, from the Earned Income Tax 'credit to food stamps to subsidies for health insurance. Heck, even the EPA's programs to help folks cut their electric bills may have some efficacy. The greatest cost to all of us from the famous Obama pen is not the increase in the cost of living, but the damage done to the self-respect of those who can no longer support themselves.
source--weekly standard (9/14/15), blake hurst