Latest news with #wealthyhouseholds
CNN
04-07-2025
- Business
- CNN
Why the GOP doesn't want you biking to work but will spend millions on a ‘heroes' sculpture garden
The Republican tax and spending bill is 900 pages of barely readable text full of complicated proposals that would, among many other things, slash the social safety net in America and lavish wealthy households with tax cuts. It is reviled on the left for hurting poor people and reviled on the far-right for not going far enough to cut spending. It's a hard pill to swallow for lawmakers across the political spectrum, which is why it's loaded up with super niche provisions that reflect some of the ideological contradictions within the Trump coalition. Like, killing the $2 billion 'qualified bicycle commuting reimbursement,' a relatively cheap incentive that, at least in theory, would align with the 'Make American Healthy Again' sect of Trump loyalists. The benefit was suspended in Trump's first term, but before then it allowed employers to offer workers a $20 a month tax-free reimbursement for biking to work. (Healthy! Good for the environment!) The GOP package in Congress would eliminate it for good. There's also $40 million earmarked for a 'National Garden of American Heroes' — 250 life-size sculptures that Trump wants completed in the next 12 months ahead of the nation's 250th anniversary. The ambitious project is a longtime Trump vision that, according to Politico, will be almost impossible to pull off in time without the help of foundries in China. Incidentally, the money for the sculpture garden would be directed to the National Endowment for the Humanities, a government agency that Trump has been trying to eliminate since his first term. The NEH recently laid off 2/3 of its staff, canceled more than 1,000 grants and is marshaling its remaining resources to focus on next year's anniversary. These seemingly arbitrary small items are essentially sweeteners to win over lawmakers who might quibble with the broader thrust of the legislation. 'Now that we essentially do policy-making at a large scale, through these huge mega-bills in reconciliation… you have to stuff everything that you possibly can to try to get your entire coalition on board, particularly within the margins,' said Alex Jacquez, chief of policy and advocacy at Groundwork Collaborative, a progressive think tank. 'So that's where you see a lot of these, 'huh, where did that come from?' items.' The clearest example of that is the litany of carve-outs for the state of Alaska and its 740,000 residents, known by some critics as the Kodiak Kickback. (Fun fact: 'Alaska' shows up in the text of the Senate bill more than 20 times; other states, if they're mentioned at all, show up fewer than four times.) The reason for all the Alaska love is simple: As GOP leaders drummed up support, it became clear that Sen. Lisa Murkowski would be a holdout because of the bill's expanded Medicaid work restrictions and changes to federal food assistance programs. Over the weekend, staffers scrambled to rewrite key pieces of the bill to win her support, my CNN colleagues reported. As a result, Murkowski locked in several Alaska-specific breaks, including a tax deduction for meals served on fishing vessels, a special tax exemption for fishing villages in the western part of the state, and a five-fold expansion of a deduction for whaling boat captains. Like the commuter cycling reimbursement that the bill would eliminate, these aren't big-ticket items. But they illustrate the haphazard and at times punitive way government spending decisions get made. On the cycling benefit, Jacquez says it is likely just a target for Republicans who see it as a culture war issue — a 'green' activity that largely benefits people in cities who tend to vote for Democrats. You can see that dynamic play out in other provisions, too. Republicans have tried to shield some of their rural constituencies from the worst effects of the bill, Jacquez notes. There is a rural hospital bailout fund designed to blunt the impact of Medicaid cuts, for example. But that doesn't do anything to help urban hospitals in New York City, where some 4 million residents, nearly half the population, are enrolled in Medicaid. In the grand scheme of a $3.3 trillion spending package, $150 million for America's birthday might seem fine. 'But that's $150 million that's not going to be spent on food assistance,' Jacquez said. 'Or it's a billion dollars that's not going to be spent on Medicaid. When every cent allegedly matters, these things do add up.'
CNN
04-07-2025
- Business
- CNN
Why the GOP doesn't want you biking to work but will spend millions on a ‘heroes' sculpture garden
The Republican tax and spending bill is 900 pages of barely readable text full of complicated proposals that would, among many other things, slash the social safety net in America and lavish wealthy households with tax cuts. It is reviled on the left for hurting poor people and reviled on the far-right for not going far enough to cut spending. It's a hard pill to swallow for lawmakers across the political spectrum, which is why it's loaded up with super niche provisions that reflect some of the ideological contradictions within the Trump coalition. Like, killing the $2 billion 'qualified bicycle commuting reimbursement,' a relatively cheap incentive that, at least in theory, would align with the 'Make American Healthy Again' sect of Trump loyalists. The benefit was suspended in Trump's first term, but before then it allowed employers to offer workers a $20 a month tax-free reimbursement for biking to work. (Healthy! Good for the environment!) The GOP package in Congress would eliminate it for good. There's also $40 million earmarked for a 'National Garden of American Heroes' — 250 life-size sculptures that Trump wants completed in the next 12 months ahead of the nation's 250th anniversary. The ambitious project is a longtime Trump vision that, according to Politico, will be almost impossible to pull off in time without the help of foundries in China. Incidentally, the money for the sculpture garden would be directed to the National Endowment for the Humanities, a government agency that Trump has been trying to eliminate since his first term. The NEH recently laid off 2/3 of its staff, canceled more than 1,000 grants and is marshaling its remaining resources to focus on next year's anniversary. These seemingly arbitrary small items are essentially sweeteners to win over lawmakers who might quibble with the broader thrust of the legislation. 'Now that we essentially do policy-making at a large scale, through these huge mega-bills in reconciliation… you have to stuff everything that you possibly can to try to get your entire coalition on board, particularly within the margins,' said Alex Jacquez, chief of policy and advocacy at Groundwork Collaborative, a progressive think tank. 'So that's where you see a lot of these, 'huh, where did that come from?' items.' The clearest example of that is the litany of carve-outs for the state of Alaska and its 740,000 residents, known by some critics as the Kodiak Kickback. (Fun fact: 'Alaska' shows up in the text of the Senate bill more than 20 times; other states, if they're mentioned at all, show up fewer than four times.) The reason for all the Alaska love is simple: As GOP leaders drummed up support, it became clear that Sen. Lisa Murkowski would be a holdout because of the bill's expanded Medicaid work restrictions and changes to federal food assistance programs. Over the weekend, staffers scrambled to rewrite key pieces of the bill to win her support, my CNN colleagues reported. As a result, Murkowski locked in several Alaska-specific breaks, including a tax deduction for meals served on fishing vessels, a special tax exemption for fishing villages in the western part of the state, and a five-fold expansion of a deduction for whaling boat captains. Like the commuter cycling reimbursement that the bill would eliminate, these aren't big-ticket items. But they illustrate the haphazard and at times punitive way government spending decisions get made. On the cycling benefit, Jacquez says it is likely just a target for Republicans who see it as a culture war issue — a 'green' activity that largely benefits people in cities who tend to vote for Democrats. You can see that dynamic play out in other provisions, too. Republicans have tried to shield some of their rural constituencies from the worst effects of the bill, Jacquez notes. There is a rural hospital bailout fund designed to blunt the impact of Medicaid cuts, for example. But that doesn't do anything to help urban hospitals in New York City, where some 4 million residents, nearly half the population, are enrolled in Medicaid. In the grand scheme of a $3.3 trillion spending package, $150 million for America's birthday might seem fine. 'But that's $150 million that's not going to be spent on food assistance,' Jacquez said. 'Or it's a billion dollars that's not going to be spent on Medicaid. When every cent allegedly matters, these things do add up.'
The Guardian
27-05-2025
- Business
- The Guardian
As the energy transition ramps up, Australia risks becoming a more unequal society. Here's what needs to change
The great energy transition is happening before our eyes. You can see it on our roofs: more than one in three Australian homes now have solar. You can see it on our roads: nearly 10% of new cars sold in Australia last year were electric. But the greening of Australia is creating losers as well as winners. While wealthier households are saving on their energy bills by installing solar panels and switching from gas to all-electric, many people have no choice but to stay with more expensive fossil fuels. The newly returned Albanese government should urgently lead action to ensure all Australians benefit from a greener grid. People who own their own homes have the flexibility – and often the income – to upgrade their house when it makes sense. With solar panels and a battery, you're able to draw less energy from the grid and use it when it's cheapest. If you can afford to swap your gas stove for an electric one, or buy an EV, you're able to save even more. But if you rent, you are eight times less likely to have solar panels on your house. That's because most landlords aren't interested in buying new tech, upgrading appliances, or switching from gas to all-electric when they're not the ones paying the energy bills. Sign up to get climate and environment editor Adam Morton's Clear Air column as a free newsletter So, while wealthier Australians switch, everyone else is stuck. And the way our gas and electricity bills are calculated means the people least able to afford it will pay the most for their energy. On average, about 40% of your gas bill goes to maintaining the network, not the amount of gas you use. The more people that are connected to the same network, the cheaper your bill. Those who can afford to switch to electric will do so and save. Those who are left behind on the gas network will foot the bill. If you end up being one of the unlucky few who are still paying for gas – mostly renters and people on low incomes – your energy prices are set to skyrocket. When it comes to electricity, if you can't afford to install solar panels and batteries, you'll have to pay more to help maintain the grid. Customers are increasingly being charged different prices depending on when they use electricity or how much they use at once. That's a big advantage if you own an electric vehicle and can charge it in the dead of night, or you can afford a battery so you can store your solar energy and use it when you need it. But it's hard to change the time you cook dinner, and no one is checking tariff rates while they're watching the footy. If you don't have a battery to shift when you draw from the grid, you're going to bear the brunt of peak-time prices. As the energy transition ramps up, Australia risks becoming a more unequal society. Here's what needs to change to avoid windfall savings for the well-off, while everyone else gets whacked with the costs. First, governments need to create a clear plan to get off gas. It's an essential step on the road to net zero. Each state government should set a date – following the lead of the ACT – for when there will be no more gas in homes. They should put these dates into rental standards, requiring landlords to make the switch. Sign up to Clear Air Australia Adam Morton brings you incisive analysis about the politics and impact of the climate crisis after newsletter promotion The second step is to help the people who can't upgrade their houses. In public housing, state governments should pay for the switch to all-electric, and have solar panels and batteries installed where appropriate. The federal government should increase funding for upgrades to social housing and push the states to move faster. To help other renters switch, landlords should be given an instant write-off if they convert gas appliances to electric. The third step is to plan how to fairly share the costs of the energy transition. As the gas network is wound down and new poles and wires are built, someone will have to pay. If households pay the same way they have been, the result will be unfair. If networks wear the whole bill, they will go broke. The federal government needs to coordinate this process and, building on the work of the Australian Energy Market Commission, reform the way we pay for electricity and the grid. The new rules should be designed to ensure costs are distributed equitably for all households. The energy transition is essential to tackle climate change, and it's good for many consumers, who can save on gas, petrol and power. But without action, the transformation risks worsening inequality. Governments must help households to make the switch, and change the rules so that the benefits and costs are fairly shared. Dominic Jones is an associate in the Energy and Climate Change Program at Grattan Institute
