webodec3ARCHIVEPreview
Open in TheBrain

furchtgott roth, diana ECON

---

:{:{MERRI OK}:

HAYEK austrian

KOCH HERITAGE AEI TT MANHAT, HUDSON

project 2025 gut NOAA

heritage run by TPPF whackjob roberts after tucker hit

ECONOMISTS FOR TRUMP

DENIER ==> MORANO CORSI

---

AI Overview

Diana Furchtgott-Roth is an Oxford-educated economist and the lead author of the "Department of Transportation" chapter for the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025. Serving under Kevin Roberts at the Heritage Foundation, she has championed free-market economic policies, the rollback of environmental mandates, and the promotion of fossil fuel production. [1, 2, 3,4]

Key aspects of Furchtgott-Roth's background and work include:

Furchtgott-Roth's work serves as the primary economic and regulatory blueprint for how a conservative administration could reshape federal climate, energy, and transportation policies. [1, 2]

---

Diana Furchtgott-Roth

Authored the section about: Section 3.10: Department of Transportation

Served in the Trump Administration: Yes. Furchtgott-Roth served as acting assistant secretary for economic policy at the Department of the Treasury in 2018 and 2019.

In Her Own Words

Furchtgott-Roth believes that the government shouldn’t regulate or nationalize energy production, and approves of more drilling for oil, both offshore and onshore.

“Under a new Republican administration, rather than slowing down pipeline approval, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission would focus on speeding it up. The Bureau of Land Management would prioritize approving both onshore and offshore drilling permits. The Security and Exchange Commission would no longer look at climate effects of companies’ investments, and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency would not look at the climate effects of bank loans.” – A Republican Admin Would Eliminate Costly Energy Mandates14, July 2024, Diana Furchtgott-Roth

Full Bio

ggl 6 26

AI Overview

The query refers to economist Diana Furchtgott-Roth and her husband, Harold Furchtgott-Roth, who are both prominent figures in free-market economics and are closely associated with Austrian Economics and the ideas of Friedrich Hayek. [1, 2,3, 4, 5]

Here is a breakdown of their respective backgrounds, career paths, and connections to Hayekian economics:

Diana Furchtgott-Roth

Harold W. Furchtgott-Roth

The Hayek Connection

Both Diana and Harold Furchtgott-Roth are well-known modern acolytes and commentators of Friedrich A. Hayek (1899–1992), the Nobel Prize-winning economist famous for his critiques of central planning and socialism, and his work on how decentralized prices communicate information in a free market. [1, 2, 3, 4]

The Furchtgott-Roths are part of the modern tradition of "Hayekians" (alongside other economists like Edmund Phelps and Lawrence White) who argue that market coordination is fundamentally superior to state-planned economic solutions. Both economists regularly translate the foundational, free-market principles of the Austrian School of Economics into actionable policies regarding technology, labor, and energy. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

---

e and 3 legit

the Heritage Foundation for more than a year has been drafting a policy playbook in preparation for a Republican administration to take over the federal government in 2025. The hope is that this time around conservatives won’t be caught flat-footed like they were in 2016.

The conservative think tank has produced a transition project ever since Ronald Reagan’s victory in 1980. But Heritage says this effort stands out in terms of level of involvement and vigor.

“We’re really starting ahead of time,” Paul Dans, director of Project 2025: Presidential Transition Project, said in an interview late last year. “We’re looking to bring new blood to Washington."

the effort has been something of a pet project for Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts, who took over in fall 2021 after five years leading the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a nonprofit backed by GOP donors and oil money.

“I would describe it as an obsession,” said a former Heritage employee who was granted anonymity to speak freely about his former workplace. “It is one of the main priorities of senior leadership.”

The revved-up effort from Heritage comes as the venerable think tank, which celebrated its 50th anniversary last week, has struggled in recent years through leadership changes and staff turmoil.

Roberts came on after complaints from conservatives like Fox News’ Tucker Carlson over the leadership of Kay Coles James, who stepped down amid the criticism. And in the post-Trump era, several new organizations are now competing on policy turf once dominated by Heritage.

The transition project also seems to be a way to regain stature for Heritage and distinguish itself from those competitors, some outside observers interviewed for this story said.

The project has three pillars. One involves creating something of a “conservative LinkedIn” to ensure hundreds of political appointees are primed to immediately descend on federal agencies should a Republican prevail in 2024. The second involves training videos for those appointees about how to serve in an administration.

And the third part creates a policy playbook with input from more than 400 outside conservative contributors and nearly 50 member organizations that meet monthly — if not more often in an informal setting. The idea is to hammer out ideological differences, including about whether or not to support Ukraine aid.

Conservatives say they learned a lesson from President Joe Biden, who managed to staff up nearly a thousand political posts within hours of his inauguration. Many of those picks came from the Obama alumni network.

In contrast, in 2017, Republicans had trouble filling positions in the new Trump administration. Trump wound up bringing in few people with real government experience.

Dans, a former top official at Trump’s Office of Personnel Management, likened the early approach to “preseason scrimmaging.”

He said the group plans to release their policy playbook this spring. “This is not the end-all, but we are getting enough people in the room to say this is the majority” opinion on certain policies, Dans said.

Heritage said it is still finalizing policies it would recommend to an incoming GOP president, but a spokesperson pointed to a 2020 white paper from the group that is something of a free-market wish list.

Its recommendations includeending all energy-related tax credits and subsidies, eliminating all loan guarantees, ending the renewable fuel standard, spinning off environmental reviews to the states, expanding leasing on federal lands, repealing new source review, and ending the social cost of carbon.

Competition on the right

Nearly a dozen conservative policy experts and advocates interviewed for this story, who were all granted anonymity to speak candidly, alluded to the growing influence of Heritage Action.

It is the separate lobbying arm of the organization that churns out newsletters describing critical race theory and the investing strategy known as environmental, social and governance as “woke left attacks.”

Heritage has also been highly critical of big technology companies and has called for big cuts to defense spending, echoing calls on the far right.

Last week, Heritage announced that Carlson, who has dabbled in white nationalist theories, will be the keynote speaker for its 50th anniversary gala in April.

Roberts praised him as a “fearless American who is unafraid to challenge the Washington regime.”

Heritage’s lurch toward populism has been raising eyebrows among some.

“Heritage will have to decide whether it wants to stick with its conservative principles or evolve to more nationalist-type of policies,” one conservative policy advocate said.

Divisions at Heritage are illustrative of larger tensions within the Republican Party, observers noted.

One hypothesized that the transition project was in part a way for Heritage to regain some stature. Others noted it is not entirely unusual for think tanks to be at odds with their lobbying arms.

When asked about the influence of Heritage Action, Rob Bluey, vice president of communications, said the partnership between Heritage and its campaign arm is “even stronger today under Jessica Anderson’s leadership.”

“Heritage Action advocates for the American people in Washington, D.C., and state capitals based on the principles espoused by The Heritage Foundation,” he said.

A second conservative policy advocate thought it was unusual how far in advance Heritage launched the 2025 project, which has already been underway for more than a year.

“That’s something you don’t usually see in Washington, D.C.,” the advocate said.

He thought that could sideline the organization’s efforts to conduct rigorous oversight of the Biden administration for the next two years.

“It’s just interesting that Heritage is willing to take on a project that won’t have any impact until 2025,” the person said.

The conservative landscape changed in the Trump era, and in recent years a number of conservative policy shops popped up, like the Center for Renewing America led by Russ Vought, the former White House budget director. The Center for Renewing America sits on the project’s advisory board.

In recent years, several dozen staffers left the 275-person foundation, news which was first reported in September by the conservative-leaning Dispatch.

A Heritage spokesperson did not refute turnover but said the organization also brought on 90 new hires in all of 2022 — the year after Roberts took over.

“His optimistic vision and always-on-offense approach to policymaking are helping us build an exceptional team,” said Bluey. “As a result, Heritage experienced tremendous growth in 2022, proudly welcoming many talented policy experts and outstanding conservative leaders to the organization.”

‘Brainwashing our kids’

One of those new hires is Diana Furchtgott-Roth, a longtime economist who joined last August as the director of the Center for Energy, Climate and Environment. She worked at both the Transportation and Treasury departments under the Trump administration. Before that she spent nine years as a director at the Manhattan Institute, a think tank.

At a January forum held at Heritage, Furchtgott-Roth complained to Rep. Kevin Hern, the chair of the Republican Study Committee from oil-and-gas rich Oklahoma, about how decarbonization efforts from the Biden administration were, as she put it, “completely changing the American way of life.” She wondered how Republicans planned to “fight back an area that they are brainwashing our kids about.”

Replied Hern: “Well, I’m from Oklahoma, next question.” The crowd laughed.

In a recent interview, Furchtgott-Roth espoused familiar GOP energy views promoting all-of-the-above energy sources.

But another observer noticed more “red-meat critiquing” from her shop. A recent article she wrote suggested Biden favored clean energy merely to boost Chinese markets after reports surfaced that the Penn Biden Center received Chinese donations.

Similarly, one of her first events at the organization featured authorsJerome Corsi and Marc Morano— both reject mainstream climate science — to speak on a panel about “The Politics of Climate Change.”

“This is not as much an economics question but a political question, and that’s why we are so glad to have these two authors with us today,” Furchtgott-Roth said in opening remarks.

Corsi suggested climate advocates adopted the term “climate change” “because they know global warming cannot be true.” He rejected the idea carbon dioxide contributes to extreme weather like hurricanes. “It’s completely a lie,” he said.

---

---

bait and switch fox BS

zinger in quiver // MTG?

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/heritage-foundation-economist-turns-tables-180831936.html

4 23

heritage Foundation scholar Diana Furchtgott-Roth called out Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., for his membership at a reported all-White beach club and his family fortune's ties to the fossil fuel industry in response to the senator's attacks.

6 in freq flyer always gop

cap gains, roberts on women, ed reform paycheck fair medical nakt, samoan fishery ACA, ACA, dereg coal, keystone xl ccs, tax, am rescue plan tell employ not show up for work

6 bks 100's artl chif econ labor ...api, 4 yrs aei 4 yrs, all funded by FF minnesota gas biz united gas herit is a club anyone not just white ppl every state of US

2021 indiv 82% 5 mil koch fdn since 96

donors trust and donors 2 m$, 75oK exxon since 98

19 if 117 other 98 mill

renewable forbes increase plants coal fired plants in china wind turbine, pro nuke dense emission nuke pwr;

humans not cause of climate 2015 wsj stand by it? yes un settled by steve koonin BO MIT  holds up bk uncertain how much hu end hearing this is what gop stands by

---

api hudson manhat heritage

fam fortune

not just white ppl  top 5 1% fdn 12% heritage  5 mil koch fdn exxon, 2019 direct mail 19 of 178

---

---

https://www.desmog.com/**2022/12/16**/heritage-foundation-hosts-uk-climate-science-denier-at-event-opposing-green-energy/

an  influential US think tank has hosted a well-known UK climate science denier at an event attacking what one speaker called Europe’s “socialist” net zero policies.

The Heritage Foundation panel event on December 8, called “Lessons for America from Europe’s Green Energy Disaster”, featured Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), the UK’s main climate science denial group.

The GWPF published two reports this year rejecting climate science on the greenhouse effect. Its campaign arm Net Zero Watch, of which Peiser is also director, in October called for “a new fleet of coal fired power stations”.

The event is the latest example of UK and US groups working together to oppose climate action. Other links across the Atlantic include the Atlas Network, a fossil fuel-linked US think tank that works with UK libertarians, to the GWPF receiving money from its US “Friends of GWPF” fundraising arm.

Peiser used the event, which was streamed online, to claim that the energy crisis is caused by “a dogmatic prioritization” of renewable energy over alternatives like “shale gas or nuclear”.

According to the International Energy Agency, however, the energy crisis is caused by the high wholesale cost of gas and fuelled by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

The Heritage Foundation presents itself as a mainstream think tank and has influenced several Republican US administrations. However, along with Peiser, this week’s event featured a number of links to climate science denial.

Fossil Fuel Links

The event’s chair Diana Furchtgott-Roth – who is director of Heritage’s Center for Energy, Climate, and Environment – wrote an article for Forbes last month which argued that the West should encourage “all countries” to use “natural gas, coal, and nuclear” to help the poor.

The article also cast doubt on climate science, suggesting “some research shows little change” in extreme weather, downplayed sea-level rises, adding: “Climate change is going on, as it has for millennia.”

In 2019, Furchtgott-Roth received $227,304 from the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, a think tank which received more than $3 million from oil giant Koch Industries’ charitable arm Koch Foundations, according to a Greenpeace investigation.

The panel’s other speaker was Nile Gardiner, director of Heritage’s Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, who said: “I do think the British government needs to rethink the whole green energy agenda. It’s not a conservative agenda, in fact it’s a socialist agenda.”

He said: “I think net zero has become basically a form of religion, and anyone who questions the dogma on this immediately is accused of being a heretic.”

Climate Deniers

Gardiner also repeatedly endorsed calls for a Brexit-style referendum on the UK’s net zero policies, an idea which has been pushed by climate science denial groups.

Gardiner cited a YouGov survey commissioned by CAR26, whose director Lois Perry said in August: “I do not believe that man-made climate change is a thing.” In November 2021, Perry spread the conspiracy theory that global warming is a “con” by “elites” to make people poor and hungry.

He also argued that a “net zero referendum” was justified due to what he called the “vast sum of public money” involved in cutting emissions to net zero. The UK’s net zero target will cost less than 1 percent of GDP per year by 2035, according to the government’s advisory Climate Change Committee.

The economic policies of Liz Truss received high praise from Gardiner.He stated her “overall approach” of cutting taxes was “absolutely right”, adding that she was brought down by “her U-turn over the issue of [abolishing] the top rate of tax”. Truss’s mini-budget cost the UK economy £30 billion, according to analysis by the independent Resolution Foundation.

The Heritage Foundation event was attended by Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which has received funding from ExxonMobil. Ebell was tapped by Donald Trump’s team to lead its transition for the Environmental Protection Agency in 2016.

---

---

last week, President Biden signed an Executive Order encouraging U.S. leadership in the clean car sector with a goal of half of all new car sales in the U.S. being zero-emission by 2030. It took them a few days, but deniers seem to have assembled their response by cobbling together a mix of old lies, new misrepresentations, and bizarre logical fallacies.

:{:{}:

For example, a response that in any sane outlet might be praise for Biden’s plan was published in the Koch-funded RealClearEnergy as an attack: President Biden’s Electric Car Future is Union Made. Bruce Yandle, a fellow at the Koch-funded Mercatus Center at George Mason University, is upset that Biden invited three major U.S. car companies to attend the announcement because they were the largest employers of workers in the United Auto Workers union, and didn’t invite non-American companies with non-union workers to his event promoting good American jobs.}:

By Climate Denier Roundup

Obviously, it’s no surprise that a Koch crony is anti-union and anti-EV, unless you confuse organized labor with organized denial.

Speaking of organized denial, while the once-Koch-funded Daily Caller has since basically given up on regular climate denial reporting, and its IPCC story was a straightforward rip-off of the AP’s “code red” coverage (sans any Koch-network denial quote, because no-pay, no-play, we assume). The Caller still occasionally publishes guest opinion pieces and ran one from Charlotte Whelan of the (pro-Covid) Independent Women’s Forum andSteamboat Institute (which is hosting Marc Morano and a slate of other rightwing pseudostars at an upcoming festival).

Whelan is also upset the White House invited union workers to its pro-union-jobs event, and adds (with a deliberately misleading citation) the claim that “it could take more than 15 years to recoup the upfront extra costs in fuel savings. The average American certainly can’t wait that long to ‘make back’ the additional upfront cost” But the work cited (an NRDC post based on a peer-reviewed study) doesn’t even measure how long it would take to recoup the upfront cost of an EV with cheaper charging and a more efficient propulsion system. The study did, however, use 15 years as the unit of measurement for a car’s life. So the calculations show that over an average 15-year lifespan of ownership, it can be almost $15,000 cheaper to go with an electric car.

Over at theKoch-funded Heritage foundation’s media arm, their policy analyst Katie Tubb makes a similar claim about EVs being for rich people, which we’ve addressed before as part of their propaganda campaigns, as well as the old racist dog whistle about China.

Finally, we get to a new name to us, Diana Furchtgott-Roth, who wrote that Biden’s move was “costly and counterproductive” in the industry-funded Manhattan Institute’s City Journal.

After a column defending the auto industry from 5G in January, and another in March with the phrase “nothing beats personal vehicles for social distancing.” Furchtgott-Roth makes similar points to the other professional disinformers in her most recent City Journal piece, but she also a:{dds a particularly baffling claim that because “the United States has achieved energy security by becoming a net exporter of oil and natural gas,” then “mandating sales of electric vehicles would weaken that security.”}:

But if exporting oil makes us stronger (by her logic) then wouldn’t having more of it to export because our own cars are using less of it be a good thing, that would make us stronger?

Why would someone write something so inane and illogical, despite a byline that includes “former deputy assistant secretary for research and technology at the U.S. Department of Transportation” and “adjunct professor of economics at George Washington University?” Those are both legitimate organizations, not industry-funded disinformation operations!

Well it turns out that the DOT appointment was made by notoriously-bad-hiring-manager Donald Trump, and prior to that, Furchtgott-Roth was an economist for the American Petroleum Institute, proving once again that when someone says something stupid about EVs, it’s probably on purpose.

(Originally appeared at DailyKos.)

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diana_Furchtgott-Roth

Diana Furchtgott-Roth (born 1958) is an adjunct professor at George Washington Universityand a columnist for Forbes.com and Tax Notes. She served as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology at the United States Department of Transportation during the Trump Administration. She previously served as Acting Assistant Secretary for Economic Policy at the U.S. Department of the Treasury.[1][2] Before joining the Trump Administration, Furchtgott-Roth served as a senior fellow and director of Economics21 at the Manhattan Institute**for Policy Research. She was nominated by President Donald Trump to become Assistant Secretary of Transportation for Research and Technology. On January 3, 2021, her nomination was returned to the President underRule XXXI,**Paragraph 6 of the United States Senate.[3]

 Furchtgott-Roth was previously the chief economist of the United States Department of Labor, chief of staff of the President's Council of Economic Advisers, deputy executive director of the United States Domestic Policy Council, and junior staff economist at the Council of Economic Advisers.[4] A former columnist for MarketWatch, she has authored seven books.[5]

Education and career

Diana Roth was born to Ellen and Gabriel Roth in England in 1958. Her family moved to America in 1967.[6] Her father was an economist at the World Bank. They lived in Chevy Chase, Maryland.[7] After receiving a B.A. from Swarthmore College, Roth returned to England and earned a M.Phil. in economics at Oxford University.

Furchtgott-Roth was an economist on the staff of President Ronald Reagan's Council of Economic Advisers in 1986–87.From 1991 to 1993, she was deputy executive director of the White House Domestic Policy Council and associate director of the State Department's Office of Policy Planning under President George H. W. Bush. From 1993 to 2001, she was a resident fellow and assistant to the president at the American Enterprise Institute. In 2001–02, Furchtgott-Roth was the chief of staff of President George W. Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, and from 2003 to 2005, she was chief economist at the United States Department of Labor. From 2005 to 2011, she was a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute.

Furchtgott-Roth is currently an adjunct professor at George Washington University. Her book Disinherited: How Washington Is Betraying America's Young, coauthored with Jared Meyer, received the 2016 Sir Antony Fisher International Memorial Award.[5] As an economist, Diana has an abundance of knowledge about what is good for the United States economy. In an interview in June of 2016, with Neil King, global economics editor for the Wall Street Journal ^[8], Diana was asked questions revolving around what is ailing the U.S. economy. One specific question was, “ Is there wisdom in raising (GDP) rates this year if only for having the ammunition to lower them later, should the economy worsen?” In which she responded by favoring a rule (the Taylor rule) which is a stable rate tied to the rate of GDP.

Views

She is an advocate of lower taxes and less burdensome regulations in order to increase economic growth. She has argued that raising the minimum wage would do more harm than good because it would deprive low-skill workers and teens of jobs. She has proposed that the Federal government should pay to complement and back up the Global Positioning System because it is used by millions of Americans and is central to the economy.[9] Diana has made contributions to The Federalist Society Organization. Talks with Authors can be found on The Federalist Society webpage.

Personal life

As of 2021, she and her husband Harold had six children.[6]

Bibliography

References

  1.  "Diana Furchtgott-Roth". U.S. Department of Transportation. 7 May 2019. Retrieved 10 December 2019.
  2.  Crilly, Rob (June 9, 2020). "Trump transport official still waiting for Senate confirmation after nearly three years". Washington Examiner. Retrieved June 10, 2020.
  3.  "PN1596 - Nomination of Diana Furchtgott-Roth for Department of Transportation, 116th Congress (2019-2020)". www.congress.gov. 2021-01-03. Retrieved 2021-01-19.
  4.  Mulero, Eugene (October 3, 2017). "White House Nominates Economist for Top Research, Technology Post at DOT". Transport Topics. Retrieved 10 December 2017.
  5. ^ ^Jump up to:^a^ ^b^ "President Donald J. Trump Announces Key Additions to his Administration". The White House. September 28, 2017. Archived from the original on September 29, 2017. Retrieved 10 December 2017.
  6. ^ ^Jump up to:^a^ ^b^ "Prepared Statement of Ms. Diana E. Furchtgott-Roth". U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Oct 3, 2002.
  7.  "The Right Kind of Economist". Swarthmore College Bulletin. Oct 2012.
  8.  https://www.proquest.com/docview/1797809791
  9.  https://www.wsj.com/articles/will-we-be-ready-if-gps-goes-down-11616177141

External links

Categories: 

---

oddly no names of who hired him

Dr. Furchtgott-Roth is a former commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). During his FCC tenure, Dr. Furchtgott-Roth delivered testimony before numerous Congressional committees. Since leaving the FCC, he has served as an expert in a number of high-profile matters, including Liberty Media v. IAC/InterActiveCorp. and the XM/Sirius Satellite Radio merger.

Dr. Furchtgott-Roth is a frequent speaker on telecommunications, regulation, and high technology. He has authored books on cable television, telecommunications, and international trade in computer software, and has published more than 40 scholarly and popular articles in such outlets as the Antitrust Bulletin, The Columbia Science and Technology Law Review, the Federal Communications Law Journal, The Wall Street Journal, Investor's Business Daily, and Forbes.

Prior to his appointment to the FCC, Dr. Furchtgott-Roth served as chief economist of the US House of Representatives Committee on Commerce, where he was one of the principal staff involved in drafting the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

---