inside sources print logo
Get up to date Delaware Valley news in your inbox

OPINION: The Truth Behind the IRA

Nearly every senator who voted for the Inflation Reduction Act celebrated its second anniversary, claiming that the legislation reduced healthcare costs for Americans. Sen. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania and Vice President Kamala Harris, who cast the tie-breaking vote for the IRA, are counting that Americans won’t look for the facts beyond the headlines.

Healthcare spending now accounts for 20 percent of our nation’s economy. We’ve nearly doubled our spending since Obamacare’s broken promise of affordability. Worse yet, growing health insurance costs are chewing up an increasing proportion of what American workers take home, with a higher percentage of wages going toward premiums, especially among Black, Hispanic, and lower-income workers.

The problem has accelerated, with the biggest spikes in individual and family premiums between 2022 and 2023.

Earlier this year in Pennsylvania, Casey laid out bold claims about the IRA that turned out to be false advertising.

What were those falsehoods?

The IRA is “Lowering Prescription Costs,” Casey claimed. However, prices for new drugs rose 35 percent in 2023, more than in previous years.

The IRA is “Reducing Health Care Premiums,” Casey stated.  He is wrong again. As reported in Politico, the IRA machinations were set to cause premiums to rise this November for Medicare patients. An embarrassing problem the Biden administration is trying to cover up by raiding the national piggy bank by $5 billion a year. In other words, the policy was not only going to cause increased costs for seniors but forced American taxpayers to pay to hide their mistakes.

Casey remains silent, as does the White House, while Republicans in the Senate and House challenge the highly politicized move.

Casey claims the IRA “caps insulin at $35 a month.” Savvy Americans read the smaller print to know that the cap is for the co-pay only, not the total price. While Casey and Biden like to take credit for the insulin cap, it was a pharma CEO who floated the idea in 2019 for Medicare patients. The pharmaceutical companies capped the co-pay cost of insulin for patients during the pandemic.

While the IRA cheerleaders blamed pharma for the cost of drugs, they ignored the drug middlemen, pharmacy benefit managers, whose “rebates” accounted for 80 percent of the cost of insulin and similar amounts for other drugs. Those who voted for the IRA gave the PBMs a free pass in the IRA by repealing a Trump-era executive order that would have steered $200 billion annual worth of those rebates directly to patients at the pharmacy counter.

Worse yet, the IRA has stifled innovation in one of America’s most fruitful sectors —  the biotech industry.  This is especially a problem for Americans with cancer whose lives depend on discoveries.

Instead of pretending the IRA is a smashing success, legislators might turn toward bipartisan legislation from the House of Representatives that is gaining traction. Reps. Jake Auchincloss of Massachusetts and Diana Harshbarger, a pharmacist from Tennessee, worked across the aisle to introduce the Pharmacists Fight Back Now Act.

The legislation ensures that most “rebates” end up in the pockets of seniors instead of PBM piggybanks. American Pharmacy Cooperative Inc. data show that the bill will decrease the out-of-pocket costs of seniors by $40 billion yearly. In addition, the bill prevents PBM middlemen from paying independent pharmacists less than their cost to do business and prevents PBMs from steering patients to their vertically integrated big-box pharmacies. This will allow trusted, independent mom-and-pop pharmacies to survive.

While Harris and Casey high-five each other to hide the colossal failures of the IRA, hard-working Americans will continue to pay more.  Americans are wise enough to know that inflation has not just affected food and gas, it’s caused a healthcare problem, too.  Casey and Harris have proven that their failed policies are responsible for the growing cost of healthcare. It’s time to stop doubling down on failed policy and lift bipartisan legislation like the Pharmacists Fight Back Act that strikes at the heart of the PBM middlemen responsible for increased costs.

REMAK: Inflation Reduction Act Is Not Helping Patients as Intended

The Lower Drug Costs Now Act purportedly sought to lower the cost of prescription medicines. Like the Inflation Reduction Act, it sounded like a good deal. However, there are significant concerns surrounding the IRA and how it will lower the costs of some drugs at the expense of access to many others.

When the law goes into effect, we can expect fewer treatment options and higher Medicare Part D premiums. While government negotiations (or price setting) might lower costs for Medicare, program enrollees aren’t seeing much of a benefit. In fact, the premiums they pay for standalone Part D (drug coverage) plans are rapidly rising.

The cost-cutting measures in the IRA benefit the program but create higher costs for health insurance plans. To make up for that lost revenue, those plan providers have increased the premiums, causing standalone prescription drug plans to rise by an average of 21 percent in the 2024 plan year.

It would be reasonable to assume that Medicare cost savings would be reinvested in the program to lower out-of-pocket costs for their beneficiaries. Reasonable, but wrong. The money goes not to seniors but partly to green energy. The federal government should not be doing so on the backs of older adults.

The government estimates that IRA Medicare provisions will save $266 billion from 2023 to 2031. Still, Medicare is not its own fiscal entity  —  it’s merely one part of the unified federal budget, a budget that will have to bankroll $670 billion in IRA environmental and clean energy spending. According to polling, seniors receive no benefit, which is the opposite of what they want.

One survey found that 86 percent of seniors thought Medicare savings should be used to lower prescription drug costs instead of spending on unrelated tax credits and subsidies. Unsurprisingly, the survey also found that 83 percent of seniors felt the IRA had not helped them as they thought it would.

Californians feel similarly, with more than half saying they skipped or postponed care due to cost in the last year. Seniors depend on Medicare to pay their medical bills in their retirement years, typically when most people face age-related healthcare issues and spend more on care than they did when they were younger. By cutting healthcare spending on Medicare and then using that money to support non-healthcare government programs, the IRA has done all seniors a big disservice.

Seniors fear that government price setting for medications will discourage pharmaceutical developers from investing in new drugs or finding innovative uses for existing ones and that price setting will limit access to already existing medications as insurers reduce plan options. Seniors deserve more access to drugs, not less.

Despite some positive provisions in the IRA, it has not done much for its foremost goal: helping seniors on Medicare. Should Congress and the federal government want to return to this vision, they will take immediate action on patient-centered legislation.

Please follow DVJournal on social media: X@DVJournal or Facebook.com/DelawareValleyJournal

TOMB: A Federal Power Grid Would be Everyone’s Worst Nightmare

When a cold snap in December 2022 caused widespread power outages, central planners eagerly called upon the federal government to play a larger role in our power grids to minimize deadly blackouts.

The left-wing Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI) dubbed the United States the only country “without a plan.” The electric system’s “fragmented planning framework is highly problematic because the power grid is under growing stress from climate change-related extreme weather,” claimed RMI.

Reuters published a lengthy special report about a “creaky grid” hampering wind and solar energy. The piece lamented how the federal government “lacks the authority to push through the massive grid expansion and modernization needed to withstand wilder weather and accommodate EVs and renewable power.” Furthermore, the article described the U.S. grid as “a Byzantine web of local, state, and regional regulators.”

To be sure, current grid management is far from perfect. The North American Electric Reliability Corp recently reported that more than half of the U.S. population is at risk of outages during frigid winters.

However, turning the electric system over to federal bureaucrats would be like making a vandal the property manager of an apartment complex.

The federal government’s overzealous environmental regulations and quasi-religious commitment to “green” energy have significantly contributed to grid reliability issues. And these problems are increasingly manifesting as life-threatening and costly blackouts.

Voters, consumers, and lawmakers should be skeptical of seemingly reasonable recommendations for “better planning and coordination” among the dozen regional power grids—especially when they demand increased federal oversight.

For example, RMI suggested that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) require “both a minimum amount of inter-regional transfer capability and a robust inter-regional planning process.”

However, inter-regional power sharing and planning already exist, and the real impetus for increasing federal involvement is the “green” agenda to add more wind and solar to the grid.

Unfortunately, we are already heading in the wrong direction, moving from stable, always-available power sources (e.g., coal, gas, and nuclear) toward unreliable wind and solar. This transition—imposed by subsidies and government fiat—is straining the nation’s electrical grid.

Our federal bureaucracy has undermined the integrity of the power grid by forcing early retirements of reliable coal-fired power plants. Targeted by federal and state regulators hostile to coal, the Homer City power station, Pennsylvania’s largest plant, closed last July. Two more, the Pittsburgh-area Keystone and Conemaugh plants, will shut down in the next four years.

Federal meddling in energy markets also includes the proliferation of “green” energy subsidies. These subsidies’ corrosive influence dilutes the original mission of power grids, such as the PJM Interconnection serving Pennsylvania and 12 other states, according to former FERC official James Danly.

“[Energy] markets have become something closer to a mechanism by which to harvest … subsidies, rather than what they were intended to do, which is ensure least-cost dispatch of available resources and to incentivize new investment,” said Danly.

The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) will make matters worse.

“For the most part, [grids] have embraced the goal of economic efficiency,” writes Travis Fisher, the director of energy and environmental policy studies at the Cato Institute. “However, some … have begun to include the ‘clean‐energy transition’ and ‘environmentally sustainable power system’ in their mission statements.”

Fisher’s worry: “The IRA will push [grids] further into a new era in which the goal of economic efficiency [i.e., affordable energy] is secondary to environmental goals or ignored entirely.”

Some state lawmakers want to head the federal government off at the pass. After several hearings, Pennsylvania’s Senate Environmental Resources and Energy Committee recently proposed an Independent Energy Office to sort out the complex issues of the commonwealth’s energy landscape.

Undoubtedly, there is much to do in the Keystone State, one of the nation’s largest energy producers. Pennsylvania’s elected officials must bolster the management of the life-sustaining electric system and increase access to affordable, reliable energy.

However, policymakers concerned about grid reliability should be wary of increased federal intrusion. What may be a dream come true for central planners ought to be everybody else’s nightmare.

Please follow DVJournal on social media: Twitter@DVJournal or Facebook.com/DelawareValleyJournal

 

WALKER: New Speaker Is Good for Energy

For the first time, the House of Representatives removed its leader by a vote instigated by one of the majority party’s own. After a few failed attempts to elect a successor, Rep. Mike Johnson of Louisiana slid in to clinch the speaker’s post by garnering support from his party. Perhaps a lesser-known figure, Johnson has a solid record of supporting oil and gas exploration in a Gulf state with a significant fossil fuel industry.

Johnson has the backing of energy groups eager to work with him on such issues.

The Energy Workforce & Technology Council president said, “From our perspective, Speaker Johnson has been an ally to the oil and gas industry and could play a major role in changing the narrative surrounding the vilification of the industry.”

Independent Petroleum Association of America said it looks forward to working with the new speaker “on the issues that impact independent oil and natural gas producers across the country.”

Other groups were not thrilled and were quick to issue statements regarding Johnson’s perceived energy prowess. It didn’t take long for the attacks to mount.

The Sierra Club claims Johnson has “extreme views on climate change and science.” Others say he’s a “zealot,” “anti-science” or a “climate denier.” And some don’t like his stance on wind and solar because they are “inefficient sources of energy.” But receiving so much angst from those groups might make Johnson a great choice regarding good energy policy.

Whatever one’s opinion of the new speaker, it seems clear he will prioritize energy production at home. He recognizes that fossil fuels are still critical to our energy needs and the production should be ramped up rather than scaled back. As nice as the idea is of having wind and solar to power our needs, Johnson points out that those sources just aren’t adequate.

Criticizing the Inflation Reduction Act as “green energy slush funds,” Johnson’s first major legislation passed among House Republicans would cut billions of dollars in consumer rebates for energy efficiency upgrades included in President Biden’s signature climate law. It also slashes funding for the Energy Department’s energy efficiency office.

While this legislation is not likely to pass the Senate nor receive the president’s signature without some changes, it represents a starting point as Republicans negotiate spending with Democrats ahead of a mid-November government shutdown deadline and a more reasonable approach to energy. Johnson understands that such subsidies are not in the best interests of the typical American and a waste of taxpayer funds.

Regarding renewables, the speaker is not the only one to question their efficiency and reliability. There’s plenty of evidence to showcase the shortcomings of wind and solar.

The biggest examples are winter Storms Uri and Elliot that ripped through Texas and the Southeast in the last few years. Both left millions without power. And it was the use of coal that prevented the energy systems from total collapse. Weather-dependent resources failed and were insufficient to handle the substantial energy output those storms demanded.

In fact, Energy Ventures Analysis issued a report this year analyzing the energy needs and pitfalls of Storm Elliot. It states that wind “is not a reliable form of electricity generation during these weather events. … The only form of power generation that can increase output significantly to meet high electricity demand is powered by fossil fuels.”

Johnson is correct to say that wind and solar are inefficient sources of energy. More of our elected officials should take note.

Energy policy is obviously not going to change overnight with a new House speaker, especially with a thin majority and a Democratic Senate and executive branch. Much is to be done to pull us back from the disastrous policies of the last three years. But it would appear that Johnson is not about to let the safety and security of the American people be sacrificed on the altar of climate change or some political agenda. This is good news for the energy industry and for the American consumer.

STUMO: Will the Inflation Reduction Act Benefit American or Chinese Solar Companies?

s a hot summer rolls across the nation, the United States is hitting the first anniversary of the Inflation Reduction Act. The multi-billion-dollar package provides large-scale federal support for clean energy manufacturing in the United States. Essentially, the IRA represents a massive industrial policy aimed at reducing U.S. dependence on China while building out renewable energy manufacturing at home. It has already led to billions of dollars of investment in domestic U.S. solar production.

Congress and the Biden administration should consider recent history, and not assume that tax credits and incentives alone can thwart China. If Washington fails to consider the importance of trade policy, Beijing could defeat the IRA in the same way it responded to the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA).

There’s certainly a precedent here to compare the IRA with the ARRA. Both contained federal tax credits and incentives to boost U.S. solar manufacturing. However, ARRA’s failure is significant since numerous U.S. solar companies closed their doors after it was signed into law — despite Washington’s best intentions.

Why did the ARRA fail? Congress included sizable solar incentives in the legislation — including a 30 percent tax credit for domestic solar manufacturing facilities. But the ARRA didn’t envision the scale at which China would respond through artificially low solar prices, “dumped” solar goods in the United States, and massive government subsidies for China’s state-owned solar companies.

Beijing strategically poured vast amounts of capital into its solar industry — including $50 billion for large-scale solar production. These investments were intended to grow China’s solar exports and dominate the global solar industry. The strategy worked. Beijing’s immense investment in solar manufacturing drove down global solar equipment prices so much that few companies outside China could survive. By 2012, the U.S. solar industry was effectively dead, with numerous wafer, module and cell manufacturers going out of business.

With the one-year anniversary of the IRA coming up, it’s helpful to consider the ARRA’s shortcomings — and what could happen now if Congress and the administration don’t learn from the past.

History is already poised to repeat itself. Chinese solar manufacturer Longi recently announced that it is cutting prices for its solar wafers by 30 percent while at the same time making a massive 100-gigawatt investment in wafer manufacturing.

Even if Longi’s wafers are not used in the United States, their low pricing will severely affect the global solar chain. Chinese companies are willing to sell at a loss to secure future market share. And with Beijing enabling investments at such a vast scale — and lowering costs to unprofitable levels — Chinese manufacturers are once again attempting to suffocate potential competitors, including U.S. producers.

Other mistakes are also harming America’s solar industry. Last summer, the administration issued a Solar Declaration of Emergency that effectively neutralized a Commerce Department investigation into China’s illegal circumvention of U.S. duties. The administration explained the declaration as an attempt to ensure near-term solar supplies. But the net result is that Chinese manufacturers now have a free pass to evade U.S. anti-dumping and countervailing duty orders for 24 months.

The IRA also allows Chinese solar companies to qualify for the same tax credits extended to American companies. A Goldman Sachs analysis projects that “green energy manufacturing” could cost U.S. taxpayers $156 billion in payments to solar and wind power manufacturers. With eight of the world’s 10 largest solar equipment makers based in China, Beijing could simply tap the IRA to build facilities in the United States. An analysis by the Coalition for a Prosperous America found that Chinese companies take in $125 billion courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer.

When China subsidizes its solar industry, it doesn’t extend such treatment to American producers. But now, U.S. solar subsidies could potentially help Chinese companies.

Congress has previously passed incentives to boost U.S. solar manufacturing. But those efforts failed to protect U.S. manufacturers from China’s aggressive tactics. If Washington hopes to launch a viable domestic solar industry, it must fully enforce U.S. trade laws and confront China’s continuing attempts to suffocate America’s solar industry.

Please follow DVJournal on social media: Twitter@DVJournal or Facebook.com/DelawareValleyJournal

DelVal Pols Debate Impact of Latest Inflation Hike

When news broke that the Consumer Price Index hit a higher than expected year-over-year 8.3 percent rate, the stock market tanked. That was not good news for an incumbent president and his party just weeks before the midterm election.

Even worse, the cost of groceries “rose 13.5 percent over the last 12 months, the largest 12-month increase since the period ending March 1979,” according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. “The indexes for shelter, medical care, household furnishings and operations, new vehicles, motor vehicle insurance, and education were among those that increased over the month.”

President Joe Biden amplified the Democrats’ angst by hosting a White House Rose Garden celebration of the $739 billion so-called Inflation Reduction Act the same day the report hit. The celebration featured claims of fiscal success and a song by 1970s singer James Taylor.

Meanwhile, the Penn Wharton Budget Model found the legislation’s impact on inflation would be “statistically indistinguishable from zero.”

So, how are Delaware Valley elected officials and their midterm opponents reacting to the latest inflation news?

Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) noted the Biden administration’s positive talk about inflation being under control missed the mark.

“The ‘consensus’ was wrong. Today’s inflation report shows what American families knew to be true: prices are still rising,” Toomey tweeted. “Americans are paying significantly more for essentials than they were one year ago: 13.5 percent more for groceries, 6.2 percent more in rent, 23.8 percent more for energy.”

Republican U.S. Senate candidate Dr. Mehmet Oz said, “Pennsylvanians are getting slammed by higher and higher prices everywhere they turn as the inflation rate continues to tick up. There will be no relief in sight as long as we continue electing tax and spend Democrats like Joe Biden and John Fetterman. My opponent, John Fetterman, would only make this worse by funding radical ideas like the Green New Deal while raising taxes on the middle class.”

Fetterman did not respond to a request for comment about the new inflation report.

His fellow Democrat, Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon (D-Delaware/Philadelphia), attended the White House legislative victory party, tweeting from the scene: “The #InflationReductionAct is a major victory for America’s families and for our planet–advancing the people’s interest over the special interest. Great to mark its historic passage at the White House with my friend @RepDean!”

Scanlon’s GOP opponent David Galluch did not see it that way.

“I grew up with a single mom who sacrificed to make ends meet. The current leadership in D.C. is refusing to provide real solutions at the expense of families like the one I grew up in,” Galluch said.

“While working families continue to be squeezed by inflation, President Biden and Congresswoman Scanlon take a victory lap for passing the ‘Inflation Reduction Act,’ a bill that did not lower inflation or provide ‘immediate relief,'” he added.

Another DelVal Democrat facing a GOP challenger in Congress, Rep. Chrissy Houlahan, has publicly complained about the Biden administration’s poor handling of inflation. She responded to the bad news by taking to Facebook and reminding voters she has her own plan.

“A little while back, I asked Dr. Mark Zandi, Chief Economist at Moody’s Analytics, to join me for a telephone town hall to talk about the root causes of inflation and what we can expect in the coming months,” Houlahan wrote. “We discussed the global shockwave of the pandemic and its lasting impact on our global supply chains. As one of the few members in Congress with a background in supply chain management, I used that experience to create my Inflation Action Plan.”

Guy Ciarrocchi, the former CEO of the Chester County Chamber who is challenging Houlahan, was unimpressed. “Inflation is the number one issue to everyone. Well, it’s the number one issue to every not named Biden or Houlahan.

“Biden and Houlahan created this mess with wasteful spending and forcing us to import energy from our enemies.  I campaign every day to offer hope, to change this—and will work even harder in Congress to use common sense to fix their mess that is crushing our family budgets.”

Houlahan posted this message on Facebook: “Yesterday’s inflation report is a reminder that inflation doesn’t go away overnight, and it also confirms what we have been feeling at home—price relief is not where it needs to be, and that’s making things harder for Pennsylvanians.

The report showed that even though gas and energy prices continue to come down, those cost savings were offset by other sectors including medical care.

Christian Nascimento, the Republican running against Rep. Madeleine Dean (D-Montgomery) said, “If we needed any reminding about the challenges our economy is facing, August’s 8.3 percent CPI increase has confirmed one thing: the Democrats’ policies are not working.

“Whether it is increased taxes, increased spending, increased hiring at the IRS, or the redistribution of student debt, Joe Biden’s policies are harming the economy, and Madeleine Dean and congressional Democrats that vote 100 percent of the time with the president are enabling this damage,” Nascimento said.

A frequent criticism of the inflation legislation is that it is actually a green energy and health care spending plan, not a strategy to cool an overheated economy. Dean appeared to confirm that view.

“Grateful to be with my brother and my son as we celebrate the Inflation Reduction Act at the White House,” she posed on Facebook. “This legislation will make our largest-ever investment in climate action; lower prescription costs, including capping Medicare insulin at $35; ensure the biggest corporations pay their fair share; and reduce our nation’s deficit.

“For our families. For our planet. For our future.”

Please follow DVJournal on social media: Twitter@DVJournal or Facebook.com/DelawareValleyJournal

Whatever Happened to the ‘Inflation Reduction Act?’

A new NBC News poll released Sunday found 74 percent of Americans believe the country is on the wrong track—the highest number in the history of its survey.

It also found that while President Joe Biden’s approval had ticked up to 42 percent, his disapproval had also increased to 55 percent. Not a great number for Democrats just 80 days ahead of the midterms.

National pundits say the recent legislative achievements of Biden and the Democratic majority will help turn things around for the party. They plan to spend $10 million marketing their most recent legislation, the $739 billion …. Something Act.

When Sen. Joe Manchin and Majority Leader Sen. Chuck Schumer revealed the legislative deal they had negotiated in secret, they called it the “Inflation Reduction Act.” But when NBC News’ pollsters asked voters about it last week, here is the language they used:

“Democrats recently passed legislation supported by President Joe Biden that addresses health care and prescription drug prices, climate change, taxes for corporations, and the federal budget deficit. Do you think it was a good idea or a bad idea?”

Notice what words are missing: “Inflation” and “reduction.”

It’s not just NBC. The New York Times’ coverage featured the headline, “What’s in the Climate, Tax and Health Care Package?” At NPR it was “Biden Signs Sweeping Climate, Health Care, Tax Bill Into Law.” At The Philadelphia Inquirer, “Congress OKs Dems’ Climate, Health Bill, a Biden Triumph.”

Inflation? Barely a mention, other than to note independent analysts like the Congressional Budget Office and the Wharton School say the new law won’t have a significant impact.

As Kiplinger reports, “Despite its name, the Inflation Reduction Act’s main goals are really to address climate change and lower healthcare costs.”

That is a very different message from the one Democrats facing tough races this November were preaching just weeks ago.

 “Rep. Susan Wild Issues Statement Following Senate Passage of the Inflation Reduction Act” was the headline on the Pennsylvania congresswoman’s page when the bill passed the upper chamber.

But when she voted for it two weeks later, her headline read: “Rep. Wild Takes Historic Vote to Lower Health Care Costs, Save Taxpayer Dollars, Fight Climate Change.”

See what’s missing?

With the bill passed, Democrats have abandoned talk of “inflation reduction.” Now they are celebrating subsidies for buying electric vehicles and heat pumps that will eventually lower individual families’ energy bills and so, to them, it is lower inflation.

For example, Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm on Sunday touted the fact that the new law saves middle-income families “30 percent off the price of solar panels… You will be able to, starting next year, get rebates on the appliances and equipment that will help you reduce your monthly energy bill by up to 30 percent. That is all about reducing costs for people.”

Except it is not. First, families struggling with rising prices have to shell out hundreds or thousands of dollars upfront to get the “savings.” Plus, spending nearly $400 billion in tax dollars on rebates for weather-stripping a home or buying energy-efficient appliances may eventually save some individuals money (they still have to buy the EV or washing machine up front). But creating more customers for fewer goods is likely to create more upward price pressure for the economy as a whole, experts say.

As InsideEVs reported in June, the average cost of an electric vehicle had already risen to $54,000 before the Act Formerly Known As ‘Inflation Reduction’ passed Congress. That was due in part to supply chain issues and shortages in inventory, something that is not likely to change in the next year. And, they added, “soaring demand is almost certain to push prices up as well.”

Supporters of the $739 billion bill have also shifted the conversation toward the law’s health care provisions. For example, Obamacare subsidies “temporarily” granted to families earning up to $300,000 a year were scheduled to expire. The new law extends those subsidies for another three years, at a cost of around $25 billion per year.

That is another $25 billion in federal dollars going into an economy that is already at 8.5 percent inflation. Another great deal for the six-figure-salary families who get the free money, but how will that lower price pressure overall?

The question facing Democrats is how voters will react to the law once they learn the details. The early indicators aren’t good. The NBC News poll asked what impact voters believed the new law, whatever it is called, will have on them personally.

Just 26 percent said it would make things better; 35 percent said it would make things worse.

Please follow DVJournal on social media: Twitter@DVJournal or Facebook.com/DelawareValleyJournal

PA Pols Say Climate Bill Will Cut Energy Costs. Experts Say ‘No’

Most Americans know the “Inflation Reduction Act” President Joe Biden signed will have little impact on inflation. CBS News ran the headline, “One thing the Inflation Reduction Act may not do: Lower inflation” even before the bill had been signed.

And a new Morning Consult poll found just 15 percent of independent voters believe the legislation will live up to its name.

Which may explain why Democrats have suddenly shifted their language about the legislation to a “climate” bill, touting savings on energy costs it will bring American consumers. But will this new measure, with its $739 billion price tag, actually lower the cost of electricity, heating oil, or gas?

Sen. Bob Casey says yes. “This bill is going to lower… energy costs for American families while creating clean energy manufacturing jobs and tackling the climate crisis.”

Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon (D-Pa) agrees. The Inflation Reduction Act will “lower energy costs, saving Pennsylvania families an average of $1000 per year on their energy bills.”

(Interestingly, the same study Scanlon cites also says these savings won’t arrive until 2030, and just $16 to $125 of that $1,000 will come from the new law.)

While the League of Conservation Voters may be right that the Inflation Reduction Act “is the largest investment ever to fight the climate crisis,” relatively little of the $369 billion in climate spending will lower energy costs in the short term.

That is because, energy experts say, the spending is mostly in the form of tax breaks on money businesses spend building green energy production or switching to green energy sources. Some of the money also goes to homeowners and residential customers; but once again, only after they spend their own money weatherproofing their homes, switching to heat pumps, or buying electric vehicles.

In other words, there are no savings until ratepayers do some spending.

Rep. Chrissy Houlahan (D-Chester) acknowledged that fact earlier this week. “The Inflation Reduction Act lowers energy costs for families by providing rebates and tax credits to make homes and vehicles more energy efficient.” [emphasis added].

The largest share of the money goes “to subsidize supply, specifically for low-carbon and zero-carbon energy sources,” said Nick Loris of the Conservative Coalition for Climate Solutions (C3 Solutions). “All else being equal, increased supply will lower prices. But for that to happen, the energy sector needs the ability to build the necessary infrastructure in a timely fashion.”

Without the necessary regulatory modernizations, Loris says policymakers are failing to address the systemic problem that has frustrated investors and energy producers across the board.

“That’s particularly true in places like the northeast where heating oil has doubled in price since last year, but regulatory bottlenecks and NIMBYism has blocked the infrastructure for cost-effective alternatives,” Loris said. “Secondly, it’s important to remember that this isn’t $369 billion isn’t free money. Americans will have to pay for subsidies through more borrowing or higher taxes.”

However, if they spend part of that money buying new energy-efficient washing machines or heat pumps, won’t that reduce demand and, over time, lower prices? Not according to Kenny Stein, policy director for the Institute for Energy Research, a free-market think tank.

“For the heat pump or appliance example, the alleged cost savings are based on modeling that says renewables make electricity cheaper, therefore a new heat pump will save money,” Stein says. “But if renewables increase electricity prices (which they tend to do), then the modeled savings vanish.”

Why would renewables increase electric rates? Because moving large numbers of businesses and households from heating oil or natural gas to electricity (not to mention electric vehicles) means a massive increase in demand.

“Another wrinkle to the modeling is that supporters of the new law count improved efficiency from a new, greener appliance as savings. It’s true that a brand new heat pump is likely to run more efficiently than a 30-year-old furnace. But a brand new furnace would also run more efficiently. So a lot of the ‘heat pump efficiency’ savings are actually just ‘new appliance efficiency’ savings,” Stein said.

That may sound like common sense to some, but Anthony Watts of the Heartland Institute said many policy markers lack a basic understanding of basic math, physics, engineering, etc.

“Our electric grid was built by engineers, not by politicians,” says Watts, a senior fellow for environment and climate at Heartland. “These politicians are pushing a green agenda, insisting ‘this will be better, it will be cheaper, it will be economically feasible, it will save people money.’ They may or may not be sincere, but they are completely ignorant of the scientific reality behind these things.”

In the coming years, Watts predicted legislators who support the Inflation Reduction Act will try to fix its failures by making a push to nationalize energy.

“They will claim the government could manage it better and we’re not going to be hit with all these price increases, but it’s not going to be helpful,” said Watts. “Government can’t do anything better than private industry.”

Please follow DVJournal on social media: Twitter@DVJournal or Facebook.com/DelawareValleyJournal

MASTRIANO: Pennsylvanians Losing Hope Over Inflation Woes

Empty pantries. Unfilled medications. Depleted savings. I recently poured over hundreds of comments like these from my constituents regarding the issue concerning them most: the growing toll inflation takes on their survival.

Of the roughly 650 people who responded to my poll, 92 percent said they are worse off today than they were last year. Another 95 percent said they feel the pain of inflation at the gas pump and the grocery store. Many told me the cost to fill their tank has tripled, while electric bills and food purchases have risen by hundreds of dollars each month.

Others say they’ve dipped into savings and delayed retirement just to handle the worsening economic situation. Parents forgo new clothing and school supplies as their children embark on another academic year, elderly and disabled residents on fixed incomes fret over property tax hikes, small business owners watch sales plummet and income halved, while others consider fleeing Pennsylvania altogether.

This widespread suffering weighs on my mind every day and the responsibility I bear to fix it grows heavier by the minute. I wish I could say the same for my colleagues across the aisle, spurred on by a feckless gubernatorial administration only interested in throwing money at our problems in hopes they’ll just disappear.

Ordinary Pennsylvanians know this tactic only makes things worse. There’s no such thing as free money, especially when it’s our hard-earned dollars the state is using to appease Gov. Tom Wolf’s progressive allies. It’s the same pattern we see at the congressional level, where President Joe Biden just signed the Inflation Reduction Act – a misnomer, at best, to distract from the billions in handouts it awards to green energy.

Even the nonpartisan Congressional Office of the Budget admits the legislation will increase taxes on the middle class – those making under $400,000 annually – by $20 billion over the next decade. This, on top of the $410 million carbon tax the Wolf administration is fighting tooth and nail to impose on electricity ratepayers through the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI).

A bipartisan mix of lawmakers opposes RGGI because it could nearly quadruple energy costs by 2030 with virtually zero reduction in carbon emissions. It threatens tens of thousands of jobs and punishes millions of residents unable to afford greener options, like electric heat pumps and solar panels.

My constituents tell me their electricity bills have already inflated by hundreds of dollars each month, leaving them with difficult choices to make about which bills get paid. If the Senate Republicans’ legal challenge to stop RGGI once and for all fails, these costs will skyrocket even more.

But Wolf’s policies don’t exist in a vacuum. Rather, the Biden administration’s ruinous strategies amplify the struggle we all face just to drive to work and keep our lights on. From restrictive gas drilling regulations to the billions in aid we funnel to Ukraine to defeat a war against Russia, we swear we aren’t fighting, both Democratic leaders believe the middle class should fund their self-serving ambitions.

That’s why I sponsored Senate Bill 813 to temporarily institute a gas tax holiday that would shave 15 cents off the price per gallon for six months. The legislation also implements registration fees for electric and hybrid vehicles to offset the lost revenue from the tax cut to maintain funding for roads and bridges.

We know, however, that energy is just one facet of this spiraling economic crisis. Local governments often lean on property taxes to fill widening budget gaps, a strategy that hits residents surviving on fixed incomes the hardest. With more than 2.2 million seniors living in Pennsylvania, this hardship isn’t limited to my district alone.

Eliminating property taxes for residents 65 and older could benefit as many as 176,000 seniors currently living below the poverty line. Legislation I introduced last year would extend this relief to elderly residents who’ve lived in Pennsylvania for ten years or longer and make less than $40,000 annually.

Our seniors have spent decades working and contributing taxes to our state. They shouldn’t fear losing their homes because of the inflationary spiral that’s wreaking havoc on our lives.

I’m not the only one taking action to quell this disaster. My Republican colleagues and I have likewise championed legislation to lower taxes on businesses, which will translate into wage growth and economic prosperity.

We’ve dismissed the governor’s proposals to increase personal income taxes, collect higher fees from oil and gas operators and drain our state’s savings account. We’ve sued to block his onerous regulations meant to punish industry and raise prices for all. We’ve asked voters to step in and tell us where they stand on our most fundamental issues, rather than letting the administration dictate to us what they think is best.

In that vein, I’ll conclude with just a handful of the hundreds of comments I’ve received from my constituents about the hardships they face. Don’t just take my word for it:

“I have to watch every penny and try to budget even further in the event that inflation gets worse so my family will still be able to afford to pay bills, buy food, and gasoline so I can get to work. It’s scary and frustrating. ”

“HARD decisions have to be made. Pay health insurance or the utility bills? HAVE to go to work, HAVE to use gas, how is anyone coming out ahead? We were barely making even BEFORE inflation hit.”

“I don’t fill my tank up all the way. I put enough in to get me 2 to 3 days. I can’t afford my co-pays to go to [the] doctor. Even when I work 30 hours OT in 2 weeks.”

“We are on SS and it is almost impossible to make our money take us till the next month. With all the bills going higher, but our checks do not get any higher. We have to make choices if we should pay rent, or go to the doctor and pay the copays, or pay the bills, or get medication, or eat, or use the gas to do any of the above.”

“We have several kids [and] it’s very hard to even have all the essentials now. It is very hard to have food for all my kids all the time. And gas is so expensive to even go to work. Basically working to pay for gas and food. No money for anything else.”

“Inflation has caused me to put my business up for sale due to a drastic drop in sales. Only form of income so barely getting buy and hoping for the best.”

“All of our utilities are behind or in shut off status. We have been late on our house payment the last few months. We basically go to work and back home because we are trying to conserve what gas we have. Everything has gone up, but our wages.”

“Barely keeping our head above water. Depending on the outcome of the midterms, we may have to leave the country. Things are completely out of control.”

“We can’t save for a new house due to everything else increasing. My husband drives a truck and his fuel prices have almost tripled! We need your help!”

“The prices of everything are so high we have to sacrifice a lot of things just to eat and provide electric in my household. Whoever reads this please help!”

Please follow DVJournal on social media: Twitter@DVJournal or Facebook.com/DelawareValleyJournal

WILLIAMS: Congress Wants to Expand IRS and Give It More of Your Info

Natassia Smick, a mother of two, is working on getting her bachelor’s degree. She and her husband earn around $33,000 annually and depend on $2,000 from the earned-income tax credit to help make ends meet. Unfortunately, instead of getting the tax refund they were owed and relied on, the Smick family was targeted with an invasive audit from the IRS.

Now, thanks to the Inflation Reduction Act, millions of hard-working, low-income Americans like Natassia could face similarly frustrating audits from the IRS.

The partisan bill rushed through Congress includes more than $80 billion in new funding for the IRS. Among other things, these taxpayer dollars will go toward hiring and training 87,000 new enforcement agents at the IRS to conduct even more audits. Democrats are claiming this expansion would serve to go after tax cheats and billionaires who can afford to pay more. But the facts tell a different story. Just a few months ago, a new analysis of IRS data clearly showed that poor Americans — earning less than $25,000 a year — are five times more likely to be audited by the IRS.

This unprecedented expansion of the IRS is bad enough. But what many people may not know is that this bill also includes millions of dollars for a taxpayer-funded study that will pave the way for the IRS to collect even more financial information from American families. In fact, the bill gives the IRS $15 million to study how the government could start preparing and filing tax returns on behalf of taxpayers. That may seem innocuous, but make no mistake: this provision is the first step to making the government our accountant.

A massive amount of personal information is needed to file a tax return every year and get a full refund. And that information changes from year to year. These are important changes that the government — especially an agency as backlogged and behind as the IRS — will struggle to maintain. If the agency was put in charge of generating and filing tax returns, it’s almost guaranteed that it wouldn’t be accurate, which, in the best-case scenario, means more precious time spent trying to fix their mistakes. That would be a nightmare at an agency that is answering only one in 50 customer service phone calls.

In the worst-case scenario, it would mean not getting the money owed. Millions of Americans who depend on critical tax credits, like Natassia and her family, could miss out on the full refund they are entitled to and rely on to pay their bills. In fact, a recent report from CNBC found that this proposal would make it harder for taxpayers to claim the earned income tax credit, the child tax credit, the child and dependent care credit, and more.

And while progressives in Congress rushed to push this clear conflict of interest through, even the IRS itself has said that a government-run system would not be a significant improvement for taxpayers. 

The former heads of the IRS under presidents Barack Obama and Donald Trump agreed that a government-run tax prep system should not be a priority for the agency. And James McTigue, a director at the independent Government Accountability Office specializing in tax policy and administration, recently  acknowledged that “it’s not 100 percent clear that the IRS could do better or as well as the private companies.”

This massive package, rushed through in the dead of night, has many concerning provisions, but those that expand the IRS and may force taxpayers to turn over even more personal information to the government in exchange for a system that experts acknowledge may not work is alarming. 

Earlier this year, an overwhelming 75 percent of voters across the country said they would oppose proposals just like this, and 60 percent of voters said they would not support elected officials who pushed these proposals through. Members of Congress should remember they work for these voters and shouldn’t make tax season more difficult and even more invasive for hardworking Americans like Natassia.

Please follow DVJournal on social media: Twitter@DVJournal or Facebook.com/DelawareValleyJournal