Ah, election season. That festive time when politicians suddenly have new ideas about how to make our lives better. This year the limelight shines brightly on our revered American economy, which is presently either good or bad, depending on whom you ask. But it’s election season, so voters rule and the experts can take a powder. And that’s why today we have both presidential candidates proposing economic policies that make economists wince and voters cheer.
The remarkable gap between experts and ordinary people is nicely illustrated in a recent Wall Street Journal poll targeting economic policy ideas from both campaigns. The Journal asked 750 registered voters what they think. Then they commissioned the University of Chicago’s Clark Center to get a reading from 39 “top academic experts.” The policies in question include things like tax-free tips and Social Security income, tariffs on imported goods, penalties for price gouging, free money for first-time homebuyers or parents of newborns, and caps on various drug prices.
The experts hate much of this because it runs counter to their preferred economic theories. But regular folks, whose frame of reference comes mainly from the realities of daily living, gave an average 63% thumbs-up. The starkest contrast comes with tax elimination, where voters are nearly 80% for and economists are about 90% against. Makes you wonder if we’re not living in parallel universes.
At this point much could be said about economic philosophy and lessons from history. But instead let’s think about this: roughly half of this country votes conservative, which means they typically don’t like big government. But according to this survey, around three quarters of all voters favor economic policies that involve more government spending. That means something like one half of conservative voters are willing to suspend their principles in the interest of helping people get through tough times.
I realize I’m playing fast and loose with the numbers, but it does indeed look like a society in economic distress — where relatively small numbers become meaningful to many households. Perhaps that’s why nearly 8 of 10 American adults live paycheck to paycheck and more than 20 million households are behind on their utility bills. This is where even the staunchest Jeffersonian is tempted to look to Uncle Sam for help.
And yet we have that pesky free lunch myth. Milton Friedman described it as “the belief that somehow or other government can spend money at no one’s expense.” It doesn’t require higher math to know that more government spending brings relief only at the expense of more problems. The piper always gets paid.
But what if there were a way to help people without more government spending? What if we could give something to some people without first taking money from other people? Surely that would bring tears of joy to both the ill-informed voters and the enlightened experts.
If 20 million households are in arrears on their utility bills, and so many are living paycheck to paycheck, then there must be many more who are not behind but still struggling to pay. And we know the average cost of electricity in the U.S. has been rising steadily, up nearly 30% since just 2019. In a society where a few dollars mean a lot, many people each month must decide between the light bill, the rent, and food.
So, here’s an idea: what if we simply bring down the cost of electricity? It helps everyone and it doesn’t require more government (i.e., taxpayer) money. It only requires 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 money he throws at wind and solar (which come up short) and invest in something with a better pay-off, like responsibly sourced natural gas, which is cheap, reliable, and reasonably clean. Or maybe put a few chips on nuclear, which is safer and cleaner than you might think. If Uncle Sam were really concerned about return on investment, he’d realign his portfolio. At least that wouldn’t be new spending — and it would bring down energy costs more quickly.
Imagine if a presidential candidate stood up and said, “Listen folks — here’s what we’re going to do. We’re going to put a couple hundred bucks in everyone’s pocket. Every month. Forever.”
Point me to the nearest voting booth.
Michael O'Sullivan is Program Director and COO for Blue Energy Nation, a non-profit committed to educating young people on energy realities. He is also a popular podcast host and an advocate for smart energy choices.
