Clearly, no one has been reading the assigned literature.
Washington Times (9/30/24) op-ed: "A few days ago, President Biden finally said the quiet part out loud: The Inflation Reduction Act, which was sold to the American people as a way to reduce the deficit, is actually a climate bill — more specifically, a climate spending bill. The president boasted that it was the most significant climate change law ever. While the significance of this measure is questionable, the cost is undeniable. In that speech, Mr. Biden bragged about 'his $369 billion climate investment' as if he were cutting the checks himself. Meanwhile, the Joint Committee on Taxation has increased the cost of the green subsidies to $515 billion, and Goldman Sachs estimates that it will balloon to $1.2 trillion by 2032. Even these are likely to be low estimates. Who’s really picking up the check? American taxpayers...Every single Republican in the House and Senate voted against the Inflation Reduction Act., and for good reason: The bill’s green subsidies are projected to bust the budget. While these costs are somewhat constrained for now, all bets are off if this bill becomes law. As a matter of policy, Republicans should oppose the transmission provisions in the Manchin-Barrasso legislation. Politically, if they are willing to trade meaningful permitting reform for a further expansion of the Inflation Reduction Act’s costly green giveaways, they should demand a much steeper concession from Democrats."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
