Another day, another campaign ad promoting radical leftist policies disguised as a news article

Calling a new slush fund to push the green agenda to destroy the fossil fuel industry the "Inflation Reduction Act" is as dishonest as calling Obamacare the "Affordable Care Act."  Any journalist who repeats or implies that this act has anything to do with reducing inflation and believes that it will reduce the deficit either doesn't have the ability to think and analyze or doesn't care about the truth.

Which government spending program has ever reduced the deficit?

Democrats' Plan to Fight Inflation May Lower Costs Over Time

President Joe Biden said on Thursday that an energy, tax and health care agreement reached with Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia would relieve inflation and bring down the cost of living for American families.

The extent to which the package, known as the Inflation Reduction Act, could alleviate the most rapid price gains in 40 years remains to be seen. But many economists agreed that the tax and other provisions would likely help reduce price pressures somewhat, although the overall effect is likely to be modest and potentially will not be felt for months or years.

The plan centers on nearly $370 billion in tax incentives and spending programs meant to encourage consumers, businesses and electric utilities to switch to lower-emission sources of energy on the road and in electricity generation. It also includes nearly $300 billion in federal spending savings, to be achieved by giving Medicare the power to negotiate for lower prescription drug prices, and money to lower health insurance premiums for 13 million people who get their insurance via the Affordable Care Act.

Biden said that health savings from those moves would amount to $800 per family per year, and that the energy provisions would bring down family energy bills "by hundreds of dollars."

The new spending and tax credits would be more than offset by a $313 billion tax increase on large multinational corporations that currently reduce their tax bills below an effective rate of 15%, along with a new crackdown by the Internal Revenue Service on businesses and high-earning individuals that evade taxes. It would raise more than it spends, which would have the effect of reducing the federal budget deficit by $300 billion.

As a result, the bill could help mitigate inflation in two ways. Reducing the federal budget deficit should reduce consumer spending power in the economy, at least somewhat. In particular, it could take money from high earners, via increased tax enforcement, and large corporations. Its investments in emerging low-emission energy sectors could speed growth and help the economy operate more efficiently.


The subsidies for health care costs do not reduce inflation.  They just shift the liability to taxpayers. 

The people who are saying that this bill reduces health care costs are the same ones who continually lied that Obamacare would substantially reduce costs.  Prices skyrocketed until Trump got rid of the individual mandate and gave people back the freedom of choice.  Then they stabilized.

Biden's subsidies for wind, solar, and electric cars also do not reduce prices any more than throwing massive amounts of loans for colleges reduced costs. 

Higher taxes are inflationary.  They reduce investment and disposable income while they inflate costs.  Why would we raise tax rates when Trump's lower tax rates have raised record revenues?

The bill has $80 billion for the IRS, and they pretend that money will yield $203 billion.  The spending number is firm.  The collection number is made up. 

There is a $27-billion "green bank" in the bill.  It is essentially a slush fund.  Democrats love slush funds to reward their political supporters. 

Obama and Biden had slush funds at CFPB, the Justice Department, and the EPA, where they shook down corporations and gave kickbacks to their supporters. 

We are constantly told what great shape the American consumer is in financially, how great the job market is.  So how come Democrats continually want more people to get subsidies for health care and say college graduates, who make more than the average person, need a continued moratorium on student loan payments and loan forgiveness?

How come there are over 4 million more people on food stamps today than there were before the pandemic?  In February 2020, there were 36.9 million people on food stamps.  Today, there are over 41 million on food stamps.

In 1989, the U.N. warned that we had only ten years left to solve the climate problem.  (They just made it up, and their predictions were 100% wrong.)

From a June 29, 1989 Associated Press dispatch:

UNITED NATIONS (AP) — A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.

Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of "eco-refugees," threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program, or UNEP.

He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control.

As the warming melts polar icecaps, ocean levels will rise by up to three feet.

After decades of focus and subsidies, solar energy provides 3.3% of our power.  Somehow, the planet is still OK

  • Renewables made up nearly 20 percent of utility-scale U.S. electricity generation in 2020, with the bulk coming from hydropower (7.3 percent) and wind power (8.4 percent).
  • Solar generation (including distributed), which made up 3.3 percent of total U.S. generation in 2020, is the fastest-growing electricity source.
  • Globally, renewables made up 29 percent of electricity generation in 2020, much of it from hydropower (16.8 percent).

After years of bribing people to buy inefficient, expensive, and impractical cars, fewer than 1% of the cars, and close to zero percent of trucks, are electric.

From 1989 until today, China and other countries have rapidly built coal plants.  In 1990, crude oil consumption was around 65 million barrels per day.  Today, consumption is around 100 million barrels per day.  Yet temperatures have barely risen.  In June, the global temperature was a whopping 0.11 degrees Fahrenheit over the 30-year average.

Should we destroy the fossil fuel industry when there are clearly no scientific data that show a direct link between temperatures and fossil fuel consumption?

Shouldn't the public be told the truth instead of constantly being fed a load of talking points to scare them into capitulation?

Sizzle — The Real (Natural) Factors

The summer this year June started out on the cool side in many areas including the tropics which averaged -0.65F colder than the 30 year average as measured by satellites. Some warmth was starting to show in the south central U.S and western Europe.

Trump's policies of fewer regulations and lower tax rates gave us a strong economy, low inflation, energy independence, and rising real wages (especially for those at the bottom).  He did that despite almost universal opposition from the media and other Democrats.  Biden and the Democrats are trying to reverse these successful policies as fast as they can.  They clearly would rather have more people being dependent on the government than giving them the chance to move up the economic ladder.

Saying the bill reduces inflation and the deficit is as big a lie as:

  • inflation is transitory
  • changing the definition of recession
  • claiming Biden isn't responsible for high energy prices
  • saying the border is secure
  • pretending that Joe never talked to Hunter
  • the Biden family never made any money in foreign countries

How sad that people who call themselves "progressives" are willing to destroy America by moving it backward toward economic collapse.

If you experience technical problems, please write to