Economy

Infrastructure Plan: Buttigieg defends tax hikes, non-transport proposals

Published

2 years ago

April 1, 2021

Screen Shot 2021 04 01 at 2.47.32 PM e1617307677124

Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg on Thursday defended criticism that the Biden administration’s $2 trillion infrastructure plan contains items Republicans argue are unrelated to infrastructure.

In an MSNBC interview, anchor Stephanie Ruhle brought up Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) having said the plan “appears to use ‘infrastructure’ as a Trojan horse for the largest set of tax hikes in a generation,” which McConnell argued would “kill jobs and hold down wages at the worst possible time”.

“It’s not Trojan, it’s American,” Buttigieg quipped. “And it’s not a horse, it’s a highway system, and railways, and airports, ports, and a lot of other things that Americans need.”

The former South Bend, Indiana mayor went on to argue that upping the corporate tax rate to “pay their fair share” is necessary for funding the infrastructure proposals, also saying that “business thrives in countries that take care of their infrastructure.”

Buttigieg had previously floated a “mileage tax” to bankroll an earlier version of the infrastructure plan, but scrapped it following much outcry.

Ruhle later pointed out to the transportation secretary that there is a lot in the plan that Americans “absolutely need” but “wouldn’t be considered traditional infrastructure,” adding that the plan proposes a lot more than just roads and railways.

Buttigieg responded by arguing that railways in the 1860s and an interstate highway system in the 1950s weren’t considered “traditional infrastructure,” saying that both are at the core of the United States’ present-day infrastructure.

Some controversial parts of the plan include funds for electric vehicle development, care for elderly and disabled Americans, and building and retrofitting affordable housing, among other proposals.

Nonetheless, Buttigieg also said during the interview that he’s “not gonna give up on earning Republican support” for the plan.

Watch the full MSNBC interview here.

You can follow Douglas Braff on Twitter @DouglasPBraff.

Economy

San Francisco gas-furnace ban will gouge residents and strain vulnerable electric grid

Published

4 days ago

March 22, 2023

Sara Carter Staff

Progressive California is digging itself deeper and deeper into a literal energy crisis. Last week, twenty members of the Air Quality Management District “approved the plan to phase out and ban gas-powered systems that emit nitrogen oxide, or NOx, and that contribute to air pollution. Three board members were absent, and one member abstained” writes National Review.

The ban will phase out the sale of new gas furnaces and water heaters in Northern California. As a result, it will “be costly for residents, will further burden an already stretched electric grid, and will have minimal environmental impact” energy experts and economists told National Review.

“The move is emblematic of California’s approach to energy, which involves ramping up the demand for electricity while gutting the state’s ability to meet its electricity needs,” they said.

Specifically, it is “a regressive policy that’s going to increase costs in a state that is already unaffordable, it’s going to do minimal in terms of reducing [greenhouse-gas] emissions, and it’s going to stress a problem that we already have no plan of addressing, which is [that] our grid is going to be unable to provide reliable electricity,” said Wayne Winegarden, a senior fellow in business and economics at the California-based Pacific Research Institute who is studying the state’s electricity shortfall.

Winegarden said California already has a major housing-affordability problem. “And now we’re going to make it even less affordable,” he said. While there are state and federal incentives and subsidies for people to purchase and install electric heating systems, Winegarden, an economist, called it a “shell game.”

“Subsidies don’t get rid of the costs,” he said. “They just redistribute the costs.”

The board’s vote did not address natural-gas stoves because it doesn’t regulate indoor air pollution, notes National Review. However, earlier this year, the Biden administration’s Consumer Product Safety Commission was considering restrictions, and possibly a ban, on natural-gas stoves.