The Inflation Reduction Act Is Not the Big Deal That Both Parties Think It Is

The Democrats are claiming victory for passing a sliver of Build Back Better, while Republicans are now voting against legislation they actually support out of spite.

By
50

In an era of ugly legislative gridlock, it’s easy to forget that progress isn’t necessarily pretty.

Last week, Washington got blindsided by the unveiling of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. For Democrats it was a moment of spontaneous joy, while Republicans reacted with instantaneous outrage.

In brief, here’s what happened. The Senate passed, on a bipartisan basis, the CHIPS and Science Act, which would spend up to $280 billion to subsidize domestic microchip production. The bill is flawed, but justifiable on national security grounds. Then almost immediately afterward, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and Sen. Joe Manchin (D-West Virginia) announced their Inflation Reduction Act, which is mostly a vastly scaled down version of the old Build Back Better package that Manchin blocked almost single-handedly for more than a year.

Republicans were furious because they were led to believe such a thing was impossible. In what appeared like a fit of pique, they blocked the PACT Act, a bill aimed at helping veterans harmed by burn pits in war zones. Except in June the same bill had passed the Senate 84-14 (it had to be reintroduced for technical reasons). In other words, the “support the troops” party voted down a pro-veteran bill they had supported just to spite the Democrats.

Start a Free Trial
Get every newsletter and all of The Dispatch. Support quality, fact-based journalism. Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
50
By
Comments (50)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Peter S.

    Oh man, it's been awhile since I've heard a good argumentum ad solyndram! Was vaguely hoping we'd finally gotten past that one.

    All green energy subsidies or investments are exactly like one specific government R&D investment that went south amongst many other similar R&D investments from the same program at the same time that did just fine. Sure.

    Collapse
  2. Dennis Trask

    Thoughtful policy. Thats something graduate students work on. Congress has other fish to fry.

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    John A Johnson

    What really upsets me is the obvious contradiction between then CHIPS bill subsidizing capital investment in the chosen industry and the Manchin-Schumer proposed elimination of the bests feature of the 2017 tax bill -- the expensing of capital investment. And it is dishonest to pretend taxes paid are involved, the total tax paid is not changed, only when it is paid. Idiots

    Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Show Jay Janney the 🚪!

    Indeed, Manchin says that he kept Biden out of negotiations because Biden’s involvement would have messed it all up. Manchin is probably aware of a warning from a former WH occupant who warned "𝗗𝗼𝗻'𝘁 𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗝𝗼𝗲'𝘀 𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝘁𝗼 𝗳--- 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴𝘀 𝘂𝗽."

    I simply wonder if the "White House", who regularly walks back his comments didn't want him involved in negotiations. All that walking back might leave them tired from the exercise.

    Collapse
  5. Jim Hahn

    So, I guess the way to look at this is, we could have spent a whole lot more taxpayer money….so we should just be happy.

    Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Matt J

    Isn't Congress supposed to be the one that writes the agenda that the Executive branch, well, executes? Isn't that like how it's always supposed to work? I'm not a fan of this new paradigm where the president is supposed to be the one who puts out the 500-page bills, then lets Congress proofread it.

    Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    The Bell Tower

    “…progress isn’t necessarily pretty.“

    It isn’t necessarily good either. That’s the progressive trick, calling all government activity progress. Governments, more often than not, do negative things. Even democracies.

    Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Kevin Johnson

    Good stuff. But I am puzzled how you square Toomey (who led objections to substance in the Vets bill) possibly having good reasons, with “Republicans voted out of spite.” Seems to me, Toomey had a substantive and procedural point, which he made over months. Neither he (nor I suppose most Republicans) wanted to stop the Vets aid at all. And they didn’t: they just delayed it. Why is the “spite” explanation more convincing than Toomey’s explanation for what happened? I’m asking seriously since I might have (again) missed something. The terrible moment we have doesn’t necessarily mean no one ever opposes something for good, or at least defensible, reasons. What convinced you that Jon Stewart is right here? Thanks.

    Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Earl King

    I’m going to try and understand Jonah pique with the GOP. Indeed Pat Toomey’s explanation is a proper explanation if it is entirely true. I suspect however something else was a play. I also suspect in these days honesty between our Senate Leadership on both sides is frayed. Agreements between these parties or negotiations take place. Yes we won’t object to you bringing up so in so for a vote but we would like to vote on four Amendments on this bill you are considering. The Senate is a dance with all its rules especially in a divided Senate. It wouldn’t surprise me that Schumer pulled a Lucy on the GOP as the caterwauling is suggestive of that. Schumer has been a particularly bad Leader and I have read many suggestions claiming his ability to be honest is a challenge.

    Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    Greg Williams

    "It’s almost as if policy were an afterthought."

    While not being widely known for his talents in the art of understatement, Jonah shows it to be yet another facet of his highly evolved writing skill with this one.

    Collapse
Load More