“BUILD BACK BETTER” WOULD COST $4.490 TRILLION OVER THE NEXT DECADE, IF PROVISIONS WERE MADE TO LAST 10 YEARS

I am not surprised at the lack of public trust in Washington, DC, and elsewhere. The games of smoke and mirrors played in Washington are off-the-charts outrageous.

 

Never, ever, has there been such a level of deceit, as Democrats have inflicted on the US People, since January 2021, using a controversial election in 2020 (see Appendix), to obtain government power, to relentlessly implement:

- An increased size and intrusiveness of the federal government

- A major change in US demographics by means of just-walk-in, anybody-is-welcome, open borders

- Increased Democrat command/control over the federal government and the American people to “Remake America”

- Increased Federal government control of elections, which is specifically forbidden by the US Constitution

However, Dem/Progs made a major mistake.

 

- They intended to use top-down, command/control of the very-inefficient federal government to very-expensively “Remake America”.

- Their strategy is a highly un-American approach, significantly different from the history of US economic development.

- They never mentioned the words “private enterprise”.

 

In contrast, Trump’s “Make America Great Again” specifically did not rely on government. MAGA relied on:

 

- Eliminating business-stifling government rules and regulations

- Freeing up the creative energies of the American people

- Putting America and the American people first again, within secure borders

BBB Intended and Unintended Consequences

 

The BBB bill has a dual-purpose, 1) a society-transforming increase in social program spending, and 2) remaking the US energy sector.

 

Democrats aim to use BBB to promote political patronage and transfers of wealth from lower- and middle-income taxpayers in red states, to upper middle-class and wealthy residents in blue states. This approach is regressive and likely would be reversed after the next election. See URL

https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/588576-bidens-build-back-better...

 

BBB would:

 

1) Increase US energy costs by increasing already-generous subsidies (tax credits, rebates, grants) for:

 

- Unreliable, weather/wind/sun-dependent, variable/intermittent wind and solar, which would greatly increase the costs of dealing with grid instabilities, as has happened in Germany, etc., which has the highest household electric rates in Europe.

The increased subsidies largely would benefit wealthy, Democrat, coastal elites.

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/high-costs-of-wind-sol...

 

- Expensive/unaffordable/less-useful electric vehicles known to surprise by: a) catching fire, b) performing poorly, with low efficiency in colder climates.

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/chevy-bolt-catches-fir...

 

According to University of Chicago research, most of the $18 billion in federal income tax credits disbursed to date were used for: a) weatherization of U.S. households, b) residential net-metered solar that produces extremely expensive electricity, and c) electric vehicles, including wasteful government experiments with electric school and transit buses.

 

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/electric-bus-systems-l...

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/i-95-ice-storm-overnig...

 

2) Provide tax cuts for higher-income households, in mostly high-tax, blue states, by increasing the state and local tax deduction (SALT) from $10,000 to $80,000

PHASE 1; BBB PROGRAMS HAVE VARIOUS EXPIRATION DATES TO UNDERSTATE COST

BBB Bill “Shaping” and Cost Estimating

 

The cost of the original BBB bill was $6.0 trillion, as crafted by extreme-leftist Sanders, Chairman of the US Senate Budget Committee. When his proposals proved to be a non-starter, he was told to “whittle it down” to an alleged $3.5 trillion, which, he declared, was the “absolute minimum”. See Note.

 

Whittled down means, he shortened the duration of some programs from 10 years to 1 year, or 2 years, etc., as explained in next sections. See table 4

 

NOTE: Sanders is a life-long admirer of Big-Government Communism and Socialism, who celebrated his honeymoon in the USSR, i.e., before the Iron Curtain came down

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/video-of-shirtless-Sanders-...

 

BBB Overwhelmingly a Big-Government Social Program Bill

The cost of 16 social programs would be $3.477 trillion, or 77.5% of $4.490 trillion, if all programs last 10 years

Two of the 16 social programs would represent 67.3% of the social program cost. See table 1

 

Table 1A/Social Programs

Start 2022 - End 2031

Start 2022 - End 2032

10 years

10 years

Program

  $Billion

  $Billion

Expanded child tax credit (CTC)

1597

Expanded child care and preschool

752

Total, per CBO

2349

Total all social programs, per CBO

3477

Allocated interest

129

206

Total

2478

3683

Total, %

67.3

Explanation of “Standard Procedure” Congressional Budgeting

If a program of a bill would expire in one year, the costs of 9 years of the program would not be included in the bill’s total cost, if expiring in 2 years, 8 years of costs would not be included, etc. That is the “standard procedure” the US Congress uses to play bait-and-switch games with a bill’s “total cost”.

 

On top of that, the “independent” Congressional Budget Office, CBO, typically low-balls: 1) the cost of government programs, the revenues that are required by law to offset the cost, and 3) the addition to the US debt. The CBO has only one client, the US Congress.

 

This is nothing short of premeditated lying to the American People. Decades of such procedures has led to the $30-trillion national debt. The main beneficiaries of the various bills are family, friends, and associates of Congress members, various self-seeking lobbies, and career bureaucrats, mostly Democrats, who would manage the government programs.

 

Opposition to BBB Bill

Manchin, moderate Democrat, US Senator of West Virginia, knows how to co-operate with moderate Republicans.

 

He had stated, he had reservations about the BBB bill, and would consider a bill costing about $1.5 trillion. 

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/11/10/joe-manchin-dc-can-no...

 

Senators Sanders and Wyden, the White House staff, and Pelosi’s staff, etc., aka “the Shapers”, had no choice, but to further whittle down the cost of the bill from $3.5 to $1.75 trillion, to partially placate Manchin, mainly by tossing some programs and shortening program durations even more. See table 4

https://rules.house.gov/sites/democrats.rules.house.gov/files/Secti...

 

At this point Manchin, who had been largely kept out of the loop, made more and more noise.

He and Sanders had frequent shouting matches about:

 

1) BBB budgeting smoke-and-mirror shenanigans, such as short program durations to reduce costs

2) BBB causing a major increase in the intrusiveness of the federal government

3) BBB increasing the bureaucrat headcount of federal, state and local governments by at least 100,000

4) BBB worsening high inflation rates in 2022, and beyond; CPI up 6.8%/y in November, 2021

5) BBB worsening multi-billion federal budget deficits in 2022, and beyond

6) BBB worsening the rapidly-growing US national debt, much of it owned by China, etc.

7) BBB worsening US trade competitiveness and $trillion-plus annual trade deficits

8) BBB worsening the precarious financial condition of the Social Security and Medicare Systems.

 

The BBB bill had become a Green New Deal for boosting Democrat constituencies. See table 4

The BBB bill, aka “budget reconciliation bill,” had morphed into a vast expansion and increase of:

 

1) The socialistic welfare state for individuals, and

2) The decades-long, multi-$billion, bonanza for multi-millionaire subsidy-seekers in the renewable energy sector.

 

Major Items in the BBB Bill

The bill, as crafted in the US House, includes:

 

1) Various social programs, such as pre-school, universal paid leave, expanded Medicaid, extended Child Tax Credit, extended Earned Income Tax Credit. See table 4

 

2) Increase the state and local tax deduction (SALT) from $10,000 to $80,000

 

3) Extension of subsidies for wind, solar, etc., and increased subsidies for electric vehicles, etc. See Table 1 and Appendix for “all-in” cost of wind and solar in New England

 

4) Immigration reform, such as adding millions of new immigrants to the US population in the first 10 years, on top of an amnesty for roughly 6.5 million people. See Note.

 

NOTE: CBO judged item 4 unqualified to be included in a “reconciliation” bill. This item has been estimated to cost $483 billion over 10 years; that amount is not included in CBO cost estimates of the BBB bill. See CBO table

 

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/586240-senate-parliamentarian-r...

https://dailycaller.com/2021/12/17/senate-parliamentarian-blocks-im...

 

CBO Estimate of BBB Bill

CBO published its estimate of the bill (US House version), on November 18:

 

1) Cost $1,636 trillion, based on various program expiration dates, plus $73 billion, interest = $1,709.0 billion.

 

2) New taxes $1.268.9 trillion. This “revenue side” (politicians hate it, but it is required by law) likely is another smoke and-mirrors charade, because those taxes would have to be voted on, and most of them likely would not garner enough votes, if the 10-year costs were known.

 

3) Increase of the US debt of $367.1 billion - $207.2 billion, increased IRS enforcement = $232.9 billion.

Originally, Pelosi had stated $160 billion, but that did not include $73 billion for interest.See table 4

 

The bill, 2,466 pages, was sent by the US House to the US Senate.

If there had been a few more Democrats in the US Senate, the bill would have been passed, and signed into law.

CBO Estimates are Flawed

 

It is well known, at least among US Congress members:

 

1) CBO was created by the US Congress to create the appearance of “oversight”, and

2) CBO is billed “independent”, even though it is beholden to just one client, the US Congress. Anywhere in the world, this would be considered a conflict of intertest.

 

3) CBO has under-stated costs, over-stated revenues, and understated deficits of government programs for decades, plus CBO never shows a 5% to 10% contingency.

 

Over time, program eligibility and benefits are increased, but the offsetting revenues do not entirely cover the increased cost.

Table 2 shows an example of such estimating.

 

Government programs end up costing much more, and have less offsets, than “advertised”.

Government programs appear small, at first, but their costs inevitably grow beyond control

This has contributed to the huge $30-trillion US government national debt, over the decades.

 

Trust, but Verify; US Senators Getting a Second Opinion

In case of the multi-$trillion BBB bill, some US Senators obtained estimates from private entities, which, as they expected, revealed the CBO estimates were low-balled, in the usual manner.

 

Those estimates revealed, the combination of 1) artificially shortening expiration dates, and 2) CBO “estimating”, regarding the BBB bill, resulted in a deception of historic proportions.

 

As usual, the American people had no idea such shenanigans had been happening for decades, because the US Media does not properly analyze and publish the numbers, as was done in this article.

 

BTW, I sent this article to about 80 members of the VT Media, and almost all VT Legislators, and several VT quasi-government organizations, but there was no response.

 

Private Entity Estimates of BBB Bill

The Tax Foundation and Penn-Wharton are private economic consulting entities. They often estimate costs and impacts of government programs. Their estimates of the BBB Bill, based on various program expiration dates (US House version), are shown in table 2

 

Column 2 shows the Tax Foundation

Column 3 shows no Tax Foundation estimate

Columns 4 and 5 show Penn-Wharton estimates. See Phase 2 for more detail.

Columns 6 and 7 show CBO estimates

The CBO estimate, for various program durations, is much less than other estimates. See URL

https://taxfoundation.org/build-back-better-plan-reconciliation-bil...

 

Table 2/BBB bill

Tax Foundation

Tax Foundation

Penn-Wharton

Penn-Wharton

CBO

CBO

Program durations

Various

10-year

Various

10-year

Various

10-year

$billion

$billion

$billion

$billion

$billion

$billion

Outlays

Spending, per CBO

1,479.3

Tax credits

658.4

Total, includes interest

2,137.7

2,084.0

4,551.0

1,709.0

4,490.0

Revenue

Corporations

470.0

Individuals

530.0

Net IRS reinforcement

148.0

Drug price provisions

340.0

Miscellaneous

177.0

Total

1,667.8

1,810.0

1,810.0

1,268.9

1,476.0

Deficit, includes interest

469.9

274.0

2,741.0

232.9

3,014.0

PHASE 2; BBB PROGRAMS LAST 10 YEARS TO REFLECT REALISTIC COST

 

After the US House bill arrived in the US Senate, some Senate committees reviewed the bill, as is standard practice with all House bills, and ordered the CBO to make another estimate, based on all programs lasting 10 years.

 

The CBO published its estimated cost on Friday, December 10, which showed the bill would cost about $4.490 trillion, if all provisions would last 10 years.

 

BBB would increase the US national debt by $3.014 trillion.

All data in table 4 are from the URL

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57673

 

Penn-Wharton Estimate of BBB Bill

Manchin, who was skeptical of CBO estimates, contacted Penn-Wharton, a well-known consulting entity with expertise in cost estimating of government programs.

 

PW estimated the cost at $2.084 trillion, new tax revenue at $1.810 trillion (US House version), and $4.551 trillion, if all provisions would last 10 years. See table 2 and URL

 https://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/issues/2021/11/15/hr-5376-bui...

 

Manchin was right about being skeptical of CBO estimates.

CBO, as usual, had low-balled the cost, revenues and deficit. See table 2

 

Inflationary Effects of Social Program Spending of BBB

 

The “Shapers” had selected arbitrary program durations to make the BBB cost look as small as possible (trying to fool everybody), knowing full well, once any government program exists, it would take a revolution to end it.   

 

In table 3:

Various Program Durations

 

Column 2 shows the spending of all social program. Each program’s cost is allocated per its duration years

Column 3 shows Energy/Environment ($550 billion), plus SALT deduction ($197 billion) distributed over 10 years

Column 4 shows the total spending, with various durations of social programs

 

10-y Program Durations

 

Column 5 shows 10-y duration of social programs

Column 6 shows the same as Column 3

Column 7 shows the total spending, with 10-y durations of social programs

Democrats would have us believe:

 

- If all social programs expire after year 5, and with no such spending in years 6 through 10, more than 30 million CTC recipients, and many millions of other recipients, would no longer collect benefits?

 

- If all social programs would have 10-y durations, and their additional, annual-average, federal spending would be $422.3 billion, that would not be inflationary? See column 6 of table 3

Major Side Benefit of BBB for 2022 Election

The BBB social program spending of $430.5 billion in year 1, i.e., 2022, would bribe many millions of beneficiaries to vote for Democrats during the 2022 Election, and beyond, to continue collecting benefits.

Table 3

Social program

Energy/Envir/SALT

Total

...

Social program

Energy/Envir/SALT

Total

spending

spending

spending

spending

spending

spending

Various durations

10-y duration

10-y duration

10-y duration

10-y duration

 $billion

$billion

$billion

$billion

$billion

$billion

Year 1

355.8

74.7

430.5

347.6

74.7

422.3

Year 2

155.8

74.7

230.5

347.6

74.7

422.3

Year 3

154.3

74.7

229.0

347.6

74.7

422.3

Year 4

112.3

74.7

187.0

347.6

74.7

422.3

Year 5

110

74.7

184.7

347.6

74.7

422.3

Year 6

0

74.7

74.7

347.6

74.7

422.3

Year 7

0

74.7

74.7

347.6

74.7

422.3

Year 8

0

74.7

74.7

347.6

74.7

422.3

Year 9

0

74.7

74.7

347.6

74.7

422.3

Year 10

0

74.7

74.7

347.6

74.7

422.3

Total

889.0

747.0

1636.0

3477.0

747.0

4224.0

Interest

 

 

73.0

 

 

 

266.0

Total

 

 

1709.0

 

 

 

4490.0

BBB Bill is a Trojan Horse

The BBB bill consists of two parts:

 

1) A huge social program bill

2) An energy/environment bill

3) The total cost of the social programs would be $3.477 trillion, or 3477/4490 = 77.5% of $4.490 trillion

 

BBB is used as a Trojan Horse for the social program part of the bill, which would never pass on its own, i.e., without the much smaller, “climate-change-fighting”, energy/environment part. That part was added to the social program part to lure more US Congress votes for the entire bill.

 

The social program part of the bill is a Democrat wish-list that would permanently turn the US to the left, towards Sanders-style Socialism.

 

Democrats do not have a mandate for such a Socialist style, left turn.

Similar Socialist turns failed in Cuba, Venezuela, Russia, China, etc.

 

This strategy was pre-meditated by Schumer, Pelosi, Sanders, Wyden, etc. to “remake America”

The “standard procedure” was used by “the Shapers” for budgeting the BBB bill.

They purposely made the social programs appear inexpensive with 1) short durations and 2) CBO “scoring”, i.e., premeditated lying.

 

Social programs would be $889 billion, with “gimmick” expirations, $3,477 billion, with 10-y expirations

US debt adder would be 160 + 73, interest = $233 billion, with “gimmick” expirations to understate costs

US debt adder would be 2,748 + 266, interest = $3,014 billion, with 10-y expirations

 

After decades of such practices, it is no wonder the US has become saddled with a $30-trillion national debt, much of it owned by foreigners.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/12/13/joe-manchin-not-fair-...

 

Comments on Table 4

 

All data in table 4 are from the CBO estimate of December 10.

The URLs show a CBO letter and CBO spreadsheets

 

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57673

https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2021-12/57673-BBBA-GrahamSmith-Let...

Table 4/US House version; 10-y duration

Expiration

Duration

Cost

Start 2022 - End 2031

10 years

Program

year

$Billion

  $Billion

Expanded child tax credit (CTC)

End of 2022

1

185

1597

Expanded child care and preschool

End of 2027

5

381

752

Increased state and local tax (SALT) deduction

End of 2025

3

-15

245

Increased health insurance subsidies

End of 2025/26

2.5

74

220

Increased home- and community-based care

Various years

146

209

Increased health insurance subsidies for low-income folks

End of 2025

3

57

180

Increased earned income tax credit (EITC)

End of 2022

1

13

135

Increased higher education for low-income folks

Various years

12

29

Increased health insurance subsidies for unemployed

End of 2022

1

2

28

Summer electronic benefit transfer

End of 2024

2

3

23

Maintenance of Medicaid eligibility standards

End of 2025

3

7

20

Trade adjustment assistance

End June 2025

2.5

6

14

Trade-exempt bond financing

End of 2026

4

9

11

Elder abuse, neglect, exploitation

Various years

4

8

Compensation of journalists

End of 2025

3

2

3

Taxation of Pell Grants

End of 2025

3

1

2

Medicaid

0

1

Health insurance affordability fund

2

0

Total social programs, per CBO

889

3477

Energy/Environment

550

550

Increased SALT deduction

 

 

197

197

Total BBB bill, per CBO

1636

4224

Interest

73

266

Total BBB bill, per CBO

1709

4490

Less increased taxes

1269

1269

BBB bill deficit

440

3221

Less increased IRS enforcement

207

207

Added to US debt, per CBO

233

3014

Hyping the US House Bill

The “Shapers” and Biden, Schumer, Yellen, etc. continue hyping the US House bill

 

They falsely claim, to delude the American people, the “BBB bill is 100% paid for; it will cost zero dollars; it will reduce the US Debt”.

 

Schumer had been pressing very hard to get the smoke-and-mirrors, BBB bill passed, between November 18 and December 12, before the American people would become aware of the real cost.

 

He relentlessly pushed to have it passed 1) before “Biden goes to Glasgow, Scotland, to strengthen his hand”, 2) before Thanksgiving, 3) before Christmas, 4) before the end of the year.

 

He knew the CBO estimate would be a game-changing revelation for:

 

1) Many US House members and US Senators, who had complained about being kept “in the dark”, and not knowing what they had voted on.

 

2) The already-overstressed American people, due to 1) COVID, 2) “just-walk-in” open borders, and 3) high inflation robbing them of purchasing power, etc.

 

Well, the cat is finally out of the bag.

Manchin said: “I can’t vote for this. It is a no”

 

Manchin Being Played-with by White House Staff: Manchin made this comment:

 

"They (White House staff) figured, surely to God, we can move one person.

We surely can badger and beat one person up.

Surely, we can get enough protesters to make that person uncomfortable enough that they'll just say, 'OK I'll vote for anything,'

Well, guess what? I'm from West Virginia. I'm not from where they're from.

They can just beat the living crap out of people, and think they'll be submissive, period".

 

NOTE: Nothing is more permanent, than a temporary government program.

Once any government program has started, it would take a revolution to end it

 

NOTE: Democrat politicians, who typically make their careers in government, not in private enterprise businesses, would have absolutely no intention of letting any government programs expire. They would fight tooth and nail, for as long as it takes, to extend all of them, for the full 10 years.
https://www.newsmax.com/politics/cbo-finance-build-back-better-bide...

MISCELLANEOUS COMMENTS

 

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas: "If the temporary provisions of this BBB bill were extended for the full ten years, and I fully expect them to be, if Democrats would have the votes to do it, this legislation would cost a whole lot more than what the American people have been misled to believe”

Sen. Joe Manchin, D-WV: I am opposed to the government expansion effects of BBB, and their outrageous costs, and its inflationary effects. He accused the Biden administration of using "gimmicks" to downplay the bill's cost.

"As more of the real details outlined in the basic framework are released, what I see are shell games and budget gimmicks that make the real cost of the BBB bill at least 4490/1709 = 2.63 times as high, if the programs are extended, or made permanent," Manchin said.

Democrats, who hold a narrow Senate majority, would need Manchin's vote to pass the BBB bill.

Manchin has yet to endorse the BBB bill, as proposed, and will probably seek to make significant changes, according to CNBC.

 

It looks like “significant changes” is the understatement of the year, because a few months ago, Manchin stated, he would consider a BBB bill costing no more than $1.5 trillion.

 

However, Democrats could not help themselves, and, in a feeding frenzy, piled on one program after another. Major surgery, or cancellation of the BBB bill, would be required, to revert to a proper level of fiscal sanity.


Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, D-AZ: “I may seek changes to the bill in the Senate”.
She already shot down the administration's effort to hike tax rates on large corporations and wealthy individuals, per CNBC.

 

Sen. Graham, R-NC: "The last thing I'm going to do is add more burdens to working families in South Carolina. And here's my message to the Democratic Party: “Quit lying about this bill”. They should revote it in the House," said Graham. "We need to stop Build Back Better before it destroys this country."

 

“A Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report released last week estimated that the Build Back Better Act would increase the federal deficit by $3 trillion over 10 years, if all of the included provisions would last 10 years”.

 

"There is not a plan to pay for it. If there is, I missed it, so give it to me. Give it to the American people, before we vote in the Senate. Show me how you pay for this bill," Graham said on Sunday.

 

He also mentioned Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) had told him the bill was full of "gimmicks."

 

It was reported last week that Graham was hoping to sway Manchin to vote against the social spending package by using numbers from the CBO report.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/585463-graham-says-democrats-mu...

 

Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla: He told a shocked Wall Street Journal CEO Council Summit interviewer: ”We don’t need the $7,500 tax credit. Honestly, I would just can this whole bill. Don’t pass it, that’s my recommendation”.

 

“Rules and regulations are immortal,” Musk continued. “They don't die. The vast majority of rules and regulations live forever ... there's not really an effective garbage collection system for removing rules and regulations, so this hardens the arteries of civilization where you are able to do less and less over time.”

 

This bill, which Democrats originally referred to as a “budget reconciliation bill,” has now morphed into little more than a vast expansion of the social welfare state for individuals and for rent-seekers in the renewable energy space. BBB is in fact a Green New Deal cornucopia.

 

When the moderator at the WSJ event pointed out that the bill contains billions in subsidies for the installation of new EV charging infrastructure, Musk responded by saying “Unnecessary. Do we need support for gas stations? We don't. I'm literally saying get rid of all subsidies.”

 

Musk also took to Twitter on Wednesday to further blast Democrats’ social-spending plan, saying it would explode the national debt by 24%. ”If ‘temporary’ provisions in the Build Back Better Act become permanent, US national debt will increase by 24%!” he tweeted.

 

”There is a lot of accounting trickery in this bill that isn’t being disclosed to the public,” Musk wrote in a subsequent tweet, adding a final shot at big-government policies: ”Nothing is more permanent than a ‘temporary’ government program.”

Related Stories


Manchin Calls for a 'Lot of Changes' to Build Back Better Act
Rep. Estes to Newsmax: US 'Better Off' If Build Back Better Fails

FIVE MAJOR ISSUES

 

1) Child Tax Credit (CTC)

 

A CTC was enacted as part of COVID relief. It was meant to be temporary, from Jul. 2021 to Dec. 2021

During those 6 months, the US treasure sent more than $80 billion, in direct deposits, to 36 million households with 60 million children, $300/child/mo.

 

Household with incomes up to $150,000 qualified for the full $300/child; if greater household income, the CTC would decrease to a minimum of $166/child/mo.

 

CBO estimated extending CTC payments at $185 billion for 2022, and $1,597 billion for 10 years  

CBO estimated Expanded Child Care and Pre-school payments at $752 billion for 10 years. See table 4

 

Sanders has been advocating both programs for decades, because that was done in Socialist countries of Europe.

 

He does not mention, rich Europe spends about 1% of GDP on defense, whereas the US spends about 4.5%, about $780 billion/y, plus $50 billion/y for intelligence.

2) Democrats Ignoring Precarious Financial Condition of Medicare

 

“The Medicare Trustees Report estimated that Medicare's hospital insurance trust fund will be insolvent in 2026. At that point, the fund will have to rely on incoming revenues, essentially operating on a cash-flow basis—and there won't be enough cash.”

https://vermontdailychronicle.com/2021/12/17/medicare-four-years-to...

 

3) Immigration Amnesty for Democrat Constituency Building

 

BBB includes amnesty for roughly 6.5 million illegal aliens, who would be shielded from arrest and deportation by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency while securing work permits, driver’s licenses, and travel documents. If signed into law, the amnesty would be the largest in American history.

 

The CBO confirmed the amnesty provision, costing American taxpayers about $500 billion over two decades, for illegal aliens who lived in the US since 2010. “About 6.5 million aliens (non-US nationals) would receive parole,” the CBO notes

 

The amnesty provision would ensure millions of eligible illegal aliens “would receive benefits from the Affordable Care Act, Medicaid, Earned Income and Child Tax Credits, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, often called food stamps), Social Security, and Medicare, to a much greater extent than they would without legal status”

 

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/12/16/fact-check-democrat-f...

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/12/06/analysis-bidens-amnes...

NOTE: As usual, hard-working, tax-paying Americans do not have a clue regarding the cost of “amnesty”

Almost all Congress members and US Media folks know the costs, but keep them hidden from the public, as otherwise there would be another uproar.

Extreme-leftist Democrats added “amnesty” to the BBB, hoping no one would notice.

The CBO ruled it cannot be part of a reconciliation bill. See CBO table

4) Regressive Natural Gas Tax, on Top of Gasoline Price Increases, on Top of High Inflation

 

At a time when the Biden administration is panicking in an attempt to keep energy prices down, the US House has slapped a BBB "fee", aka "stealth tax", on natural gas and everyone who uses it.


The BBB bill results in an "escalating tax on methane emissions by oil and gas producers," a new op-ed in the Wall Street Journal points out. The tax will hit $1,500 per ton by 2025, and the fee is supposed to be a contribution to recent promises made in Glasgow COP26 to curb methane emissions.


The cost of the fee will be passed along to the consumer, which will result in even higher energy prices than consumers are already struggling with. About 180 million Americans use natural gas for cooking and heating their homes, the report says.


The Energy Information Administration (EIA) stated about 50% of US households that use natural gas will pay 30% more this winter, than last year. The methane tax would add another 17% on top of that.


The WSJ op-ed board calls it a "regressive tax" and states the "Department of Energy notes the average energy burden for lower-income families would be three times higher than for higher income households".


The methane tax "exposes the contradiction at the heart of Democratic climate policy" and clearly violates President Biden's promise not to raise taxes on those making less than $400,000 per year, the op-ed argues.


The op-ed concludes, once the methane tax is in place, it'll be easy to increase it over time. Combined with new methane regulations, the cost of gas would increase even more.


The methane tax is "targeted, punitive, and will increase household gas bills," the op-ed concludes.


https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/bidens-new-regressive-methane-tax...

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/biden-s-new-regressive...

5) Inflation as High as 40 Years Ago

 

All this added deficit spending would be taking place with CPI inflation at about 6.8%/y, Nov. 21 (it was 6.2% in Oct. 21) the highest rate in over 40 years, courtesy of the extreme, radical, leftist posse of Biden handlers; it excludes increases in rental rates, and increases of homeowner costs, due to the increase in higher mortgage costs, resulting from increased housing prices. However, If the current CPI basis were the same as in 1982, the inflation rate would be closer to 15%, instead of 6.8%.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/12/using-cpi-used-1982-rate-c...

 

The Labor Department said in a Dec. 14 statement , for the 12 months ending Nov. 2021, the PPI index increased by 9.6%, the highest number in the history of the series, which goes back to 2010. Consensus forecasts predicted 9.2%

 

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/producer-prices

https://www.zerohedge.com/economics/inflation-fridays-7-increase-co...

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/ppi.nr0.htm

 

APPENDIX 1

Here are three articles that document major election fraud several months before the 2020 Election.

Make sure to read the URLs and watch the videos.

PREPARATION OF UP TO 288,000 MAIL-IN BALLOTS IN BETHPAGE, NY FOR USE IN PENNSYLVANIA MONTHS BEFORE THE ELECTION

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/preperation-of-288-000...

PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA, 2020 ELECTION DATA ANALYSIS, by Dr. Shiva Audit Team, based at MIT

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/pima-county-election-data-analysis-by-dr-shiva-audit-team-based

STATE SENATE HEARINGS OF PARTIAL FORENSIC AUDIT RESULTS OF ARIZONA 2020 ELECTION

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/state-senate-hearings-...

APPENDIX 2

 

The BBB bill has 1) selective tax breaks, 2) state and local tax relief (SALT), 3) increased OSHA penalties, 4) Funds for an EPA Climate Corps.

 

If Congressmen and Senators vote for the BBB bill:

 

- They think it is more important to give tax breaks to reporters, the media, unions, trial attorneys, than to plumbers, truck drivers, etc.  This is a clear statement of who they really represent.

 

- They think is important to give rich taxpayers in states like California, Illinois, and New York a big tax break.

 

- They think it is important to targeted small businesses, because the BBB bill would increase OSHA penalties (this is hard to believe) 10 times, to $700,000 per violation. It would break many businesses.

 

They would give the EPA $7 billion to employ a “climate corps.”.

The local climate cop will be on your doorstep surveying your carbon footprint.

 

Ronald Reagan stated, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.”

https://www.openthebooks.com/wall-street-journal-dear-mrandms-taxpa...

APPENDIX 3

Widespread Environmental Destruction due to BBB Bill

If Biden’s $4.49-trillion BBB bill becomes law, there would be a vast amount of environmental devastation all over the US, including:

 

1) On hundreds of miles of pristine, 2,000-ft-high ridge lines, for mounting 500-ft high wind turbines, in New England. The video shows the massive destruction require to install 500-ft high wind turbines on ridge lines in New England.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSgVpz_7dDg

 

2) On at least 100 square miles of New England meadow land for mounting solar systems, that would produce almost nothing for a few days, after a snow fall, and nothing from about 4 pm in winter, and 5 pm in summer, to about 9 am the next day. The video shows the massive destruction required to install a multi-MW solar system on a wooded area with wetlands.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYYVZKgusU4

 

Such destructions would be common-place, and would create huge turmoil among nearby people, all while China, India, etc., continue burning at least 8 billion metric ton of coal, each year, as agreed to during the Glasgow, COP26

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/wind-and-solar-provide...

China consumes about 50% of the world’s coal consumption of about 8 billion metric ton

https://yearbook.enerdata.net/coal-lignite/coal-world-consumption-d... 

Table 5/Coal consumption

2018

2020

Country

Billion metric ton

Billion metric ton

China

3.770

3.830

India

1.010

0.976

US

0.625

0.419

Russia

0.227

0.205

NOTE:

Warren Buffett Quote: "I will do anything that is basically covered by the law to reduce Berkshire's tax rate," Buffet told an audience in Omaha, Nebraska recently. "For example, on wind energy, we get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That's the only reason to build them. They don't make sense without the tax credit." 

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/nancy-pfotenhauer/2014/05/12/e...

APPENDIX 4

“All-in” Electricity Cost of Wind and Solar in New England

 

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/high-costs-of-wind-sol...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/cost-shifting-is-the-na...

 

Pro RE folks point to the “price paid to owner” as the cost of wind and solar, purposely ignoring the other cost categories. The all-in cost of wind and solar, c/kWh, includes:

 

1) Above-market-price paid to Owners 

2) Subsidies paid to Owners

3) Owner return on invested capital at about 9%/y

4) Grid extension/augmentation

5) Grid support services

6) Future battery systems

 

Comments on table 6

   

- Vermont legacy Standard Offer solar systems had greater subsidies paid to owner, than newer systems

 

- Wind prices paid to owner did not have the drastic reductions as solar prices.

 

- Vermont utilities are paid about 3.5 c/kWh for various costs they incur regarding net-metered solar systems

 

- "Added to rate base" is the cost wind and solar are added to the utility rate base, used to set electric rates.

 

- “Total cost”, including subsidies to owner and grid support, is the cost at which wind/solar are added to the utility rate base

 

- “NE utility cost” is the annual average cost of purchased electricity, about 6 c/kWh, plus NE grid operator charges, about 1.6 c/kWh

for a total of 7.6 c/kWh.

 

- “Grid support costs” would increase with increased use of battery systems to counteract the variability and intermittency of increased build-outs of wind and solar systems.

 

NOTES:

1) NE wholesale grid price averaged about 5 c/kWh, starting in 2009, due to low-cost CCGT and nuclear plants providing at least 65% of all electricity loaded onto the NE grid, in 2019.

 

https://www.iso-ne.com/about/key-stats/resource-mix/

https://nepool.com/uploads/NPC_20200305_Composite4.pdf


2) There are Owning costs, and Operating and Maintenance costs, of the NE grid

ISO-NE charges these costs to utilities at about 1.6 c/kWh. The ISO-NE charges include: 

 
Regional network services, RNS, based on the utility peak demand occurring during a month

Forward capacity market, FCM, based on the utility peak demand occurring during a year.

 

Table 6/VT & NE sources

Paid to

Subsidy

Grid

GMP

 Added

ISO-NE

Total

NE

Times

 

 

paid to

support

 

to rate

RNS+

 

utility

 

owner

towner

cost

adder

base

FCM

cost

cost

c/kWh

c/kWh

c/kWh

c/kWh

c/kWh

c/kWh

c/kWh

c/kWh

Solar, rooftop, net-metered, new

17.4

5.2

2.1

3.5

20.9

1.6

29.8

7.6

3.92

Solar, rooftop, net-metered, legacy

18.2

5.4

2.1

3.5

21.7

1.6

30.8

7.6

4.05

Solar, standard offer, combo

11.0

6.74

2.1

11.0

1.6

21.44

7.6

2.82

Solar, standard offer, legacy

21.7

10.5

2.1

21.7

1.6

35.9

7.6

4.72

Wind, ridge line, new

9.0

4.1

2.4

9.0

1.6

17.1

7.6

2.25

Wind, offshore, new

12.1

5.4

2.8

12.1

1.6

21.9

7.6

2.88

Sample calculation; NE utility cost = 6, Purchased + 1.6, (RNS + FCM) = 7.6 c/kWh

Sample calculation; Added to utility base = 17.4 + 3.5 = 20.9 c/kWh

Sample calculation; Total cost = 17.4 + 5.2 + 2.1 + 3.5 + 1.6 = 29.8 c/kWh

Excludes costs for very expensive battery systems

Excludes costs for very expensive floating, offshore wind systems

Excludes cost for dealing with shortfalls during multi-day wind/solar lulls. See URL

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/wind-and-solar-provide...

 

“Added to rate base” is for recent 20-y electricity supply contracts awarded by competitive bidding in NE.

“Added to rate base” would be much higher without subsidies and cost shifting.

Areas with better wind and solar conditions, and lower construction costs/MW have lower c/MWh, than NE

APPENDIX 5

HEAT PUMPS ARE MONEY LOSERS IN MY VERMONT HOUSE, AS THEY ARE IN ALMOST ALL NEW ENGLAND HOUSES

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/heat-pumps-are-money-l...

 

I installed three heat pumps by Mitsubishi, rated 24,000 Btu/h at 47F, Model MXZ-2C24NAHZ2, each with 2 heads, each with remote control; 2 in the living room, 1 in the kitchen, and 1 in each of 3 bedrooms.

The HPs have DC variable-speed, motor-driven compressors and fans, which improves the efficiency of low-temperature operation.

The HPs last about 15 years. Turnkey capital cost was $24,000

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/vermont-co2-reduction-o...

 

My Well-Sealed, Well-Insulated House

 

The HPs are used for heating and cooling my 35-y-old, 3,600 sq ft, well-sealed/well-insulated house, except the basement, which has a near-steady temperature throughout the year, because it has 2” of blueboard, R-10, on the outside of the concrete foundation and under the basement slab, which has saved me many thousands of space heating dollars over the 35 years.

 

I do not operate my HPs at 15F or below, because HPs would become increasingly less efficient with decreasing temperatures.

The HP operating cost per hour would become greater than of my efficient propane furnace. See table 3

 

High Electricity Prices

 

Vermont forcing, with subsidies and/or GWSA mandates, the build-outs of expensive RE electricity systems, such as wind, solar, batteries, etc., would be counter-productive, because it would:

 

1) Increase already-high electric rates and

2) Worsen the already-poor economics of HPs (and of EVs)!!

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/high-costs-of-wind-sol...

 

PART 1

 

Energy Cost Reduction is Minimal

 

- HP electricity consumption was from my electric bills

- Vermont electricity prices, including taxes, fees and surcharges, are about 20 c/kWh.

- My HPs provide space heat to 2,300 sq ft, about the same area as an average Vermont house

- Two small propane heaters (electricity not required) provide space heat to my 1,300 sq ft basement

- I operate my HPs at temperatures of 15F and greater; less $/h than propane

- I operate my traditional propane system at temperatures of 15F and less; less $/h than HP

 

- My average HP coefficient of performance, COP, was 2.64

- My HPs required 2,489 kWh to replace 35% of my fuel.

- My HPs would require 8,997 kWh, to replace 100% of my fuel.

 

- The average Vermont house COP is about 3.34

- The average Vermont house requires 2,085 kWh to replace 27.6% of its fuel, per VT-DPS/CADMUS survey. See URL

 

https://afdc.energy.gov/files/u/publication/fuel_comparison_chart.pdf

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-019-0199-y

https://acrpc.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/HeatPumps-ACRPC-5_20.pdf

 

Before HPs: I used 100 gal for domestic hot water + 250 gal for 2 stoves in basement + 850 gal for Viessmann furnace, for a total propane of 1,200 gal/y

 

After HPs: I used 100 gal for DHW + 250 gal for 2 stoves in basement + 550 gal for Viessmann furnace + 2,489 kWh of electricity.

 

My propane cost reduction for space heating was 850 - 550 = 300 gallon/y, at a cost of 2.339/gal = $702/y

My displaced fuel was 100 x (1 - 550/850) = 35%, which is better than the Vermont average of 27.6%

My purchased electricity cost increase was 2,489 kWh x 20 c/kWh = $498/y

 

My energy cost savings due to the HPs were 702 - 498 = $204/y, on an investment of $24,000!!

 

Amortizing Heat Pumps

 

Amortizing the $24,000 turnkey capital cost at 3.5%/y for 15 years costs about $2,059/y.

This is in addition to the amortizing of my existing propane system. I am losing money.

https://www.myamortizationchart.com

 

Other Annual Costs

 

There likely would be service calls and parts for the HP system, as the years go by.

This is in addition to the annual service calls and parts for my existing propane system. I am losing more money.

 

Energy Savings of Propane versus HPs

 

Site Energy Basis: RE folks claim there would be a major energy reduction, due to using HPs. They compare the thermal Btus of 300 gallon of propane x 84,250 Btu/gal = 25,275,000 Btu vs the electrical Btus of 2,489 kWh of electricity x 3,412 Btu/kWh = 8,492,469 Btu.

 

However, that comparison would equate thermal Btus with electrical Btus, which all engineers know is an absolute no-no.

 

A-to-Z Energy Basis: A proper comparison would be thermal Btus of propane vs thermal Btus fed to power plants, i.e., 25,275,000 Btu vs 23,312,490 Btu, i.e., a minor energy reduction. See table 1A

 

BTW, almost all RE folks who claim a major energy reduction from HPs, do not know how to compose this table, and yet they mandate others what to do to save the world from Climate Change.

 

Table 7/Energy Savings

Heat in propane, Btu/y, HHV

25275000

Fuel to power plant, Btu/y

23312490

Fuel to power plant, kWh/y

6833

Conversion efficiency

0.4

Fed to grid, kWh

2733

Transmission loss adjustment, 2.4%

2667

Distribution loss adjustment, 6.7%

2489

Heat in propane, Btu/gal, HHV

84250

Purchased propane, gal/y

300

Purchased electricity, kWh/y

2489

Heat in propane Btu/gal, LHV

84250

Standby, kWh

91

Defrost, kWh

154

To compressor, kWh

2244

COP

2.64

Heat for space heat, kWh

5926

Btu/kWh

3412

Furnace efficiency

0.8

Btu/y for space heat

20220000

20220000

APPENDIX 6

POOR ECONOMICS AND MINIMAL CO2 REDUCTION OF ELECTRIC VEHICLES IN NEW ENGLAND

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/poor-economics-of-elec...

 

RE folks claiming EVs have no CO2 emissions is utter nonsense.

 

“Break their will” RE folks want to “Electrify Everything”, but that is an easily uttered slogan

It would require:

 

– Additional electricity generation plants, such as nuclear, wind, solar, and hydro
– Additional grid augmentation/expansion to carry increased loads for future EVs and heat pumps
– Additional battery systems to store the midday solar electricity surges for later use, aka, DUCK-curve management.
– Major command/control-orchestrating to avoid overloading distribution and high voltage electric grids regarding:

 

1) Charging times and duration of EVs and heat pumps
2) Operating times of major appliances
3) Control of electricity demands of commercial/industrial businesses

 

RE folks would have everyone driving UNAFFORDABLE EVS, that would reduce very little CO2 compared with EFFICIENT gasoline vehicles., on a lifetime, A-to-Z basis.

 

EVs do not have a tail pipe, but they sure as hell “emit” CO2.

 

On a lifetime, A-to-Z basis, with travel at 105,600 miles over 10 years, the CO2 emissions, based on the present New England grid CO2/kWh, would be: 

 

NISSAN Leaf S Plus, EV, compact SUV, no AWD, would emit 25.967 Mt, 246 g/mile

TOYOTA Prius L Eco, 62 mpg, compact car, no AWD, would emit 26,490 Mt, 251 g/mile

SUBARU Outback, 30 mpg, medium SUV, with AWD, would emit 43.015 Mt, 407 g/mile

VT Light Duty Vehicle mix, 22.7 mpg, many with AWD or 4WD, would emit 56,315 Mt, 533 g/mile

 

If LDV average would become 40 mpg (by means of carrots and sticks), CO2 would become about 22.7/40 x 56.315 = 32 Mt over 10y, which is not that much more than the 26,490 Mt of a Prius L Eco.

If the NISSAN Leaf is compared with my 30-mpg Subaru Outback, a vastly more useful vehicle than a NISSAN Leaf, the CO2 reduction would be only 17 metric ton over TEN years.

 

“Going EV” to obtain a few more Mt/vehicle would require huge capital investments having a very high cost of CO2 reduction per metric ton.
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/poor-economics-of-elec...

 

Views: 673

Comment

You need to be a member of Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine to add comments!

Join Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine

Comment by Willem Post on December 25, 2021 at 5:37am

Widespread Environmental Destruction due to BBB bill

 

If Biden’s $4.95-trillion BBB bill becomes law, there would be a vast amount of environmental devastation all over the US, including:

 

1) On hundreds of miles of pristine, 2,000-ft-high ridge lines, for mounting 500-ft high wind turbines, in New England. The video shows the massive destruction require to install 500-ft high wind turbines on ridge lines in New England.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSgVpz_7dDg

 

2) On at least 100 square miles of New England meadow land for mounting solar systems, that would produce almost nothing for a few days, after a snow fall, and nothing from about 4 pm in winter, and 5 pm in summer, to about 9 am the next day. The video shows the massive destruction required to install a multi-MW solar system on a wooded area with wetlands.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYYVZKgusU4

 

Such destructions would be common-place, and would create huge turmoil among nearby people, all while China, India, etc., continue burning at least 8 billion metric ton of coal, each year, as agreed to during the Glasgow, COP26

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/wind-and-solar-provide...

 

If all of New England were to disappear, it would not make one bit of difference regarding global warming and climate change.

 

China consumes about 50% of the world’s coal consumption of about 8 billion metric ton

https://yearbook.enerdata.net/coal-lignite/coal-world-consumption-d...

 

Coal consumption

2018

2020

Country

Billion metric ton

Billion metric ton

China

3.770

3.830

India

1.010

0.976

US

0.625

0.419

Russia

0.227

0.205

 

NOTE:

Warren Buffett Quote: "I will do anything that is basically covered by the law to reduce Berkshire's tax rate," Buffet told an audience in Omaha, Nebraska recently. "For example, on wind energy, we get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That's the only reason to build them. They don't make sense without the tax credit." 

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/nancy-pfotenhauer/2014/05/12/e...

Comment by Willem Post on December 25, 2021 at 5:36am

The EU is facing an energy crisis, because:

 

1) Brussels’ RE idiots refused to sign long-term contract for gas from Russia
2) NATO and the US are stupidly trying to contain and pressure Russia.
3 There is minimal wind, minimal solar, and some nuclear plants are down with “issues”
4) Russia retaliated by merely limiting gas flow to the EU to CONTRACTED amounts, plus 5%, to ensure TOTAL compliance with SIGNED contracts.
5) Owners are diverting LNG carriers to the EU to rake in on the bonanza.
6)
US spot price $7/million Btu
EU spot price $65/million Btu

7) The 5% is sold by Gazprom on the spot market at very high prices.

 

EXCERPT from:

WIND AND SOLAR TO PROVIDE 30 PERCENT OF NEW ENGLAND ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION BY 2050
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/wind-and-solar-provide...

 

Energy systems analysts of Denmark, Ireland, Germany, the UK, the Netherlands, etc., have known for decades, if you have a significant percentage of (wind + solar) on your grid, you better have available:
 
– An adequate capacity, MW, of other power plants to counteract any variations of (W+S), 24/7/365
– High-capacity, MW, connections to nearby grids
– An adequate capacity of energy storage, such as:

 

1) Pumped hydro storage
2) Hydro plants with reservoir storage
3) Grid-scale battery systems

 

The more presence of variable (W+S) on the NE grid, the more the other generators have to vary their outputs, which causes these other generators to be less efficient (more wear and tear, more Btu/kWh, more CO2/kWh).

 

Owners in European countries with much wind and solar on the grids get compensated for their losses.

Those compensations are charged to the general public, not to the Owners of wind and solar systems, as part of the political (subsidy + cost shifting) regimen, to make wind and solar appear price-competitive versus fossil fuels.

 

RE folks often advocate:
 
1) Electricity must be 100% renewable, or zero carbon, or carbon-neutral by 2050
2) Getting rid of the remaining nuclear plants
3) Getting rid of natural gas, coal, and oil plants
4) More biomass burning
 
About This Article

 

This article has four parts and an Appendix

Part 1 provides an introduction to miscellaneous energy topics, and consumption of world energy quantities
Part 2 provides an introduction to existing NE grid conditions
Part 3 provides an introduction to daily NE grid load shaping, to deal with heat pumps and EVs in 2030
Part 4 provides the future NE grid conditions with 20% wind and 10% solar in 2050

 

The Appendix shows various energy topics, such as Turnkey Capital Costs of Grid-scale Battery Systems; Grid-scale Battery System Operating Cost in New England; Energy Losses of Battery Systems; “All-in” Electricity Cost of Wind and Solar in New England

 

Comment by Frank Haggerty on December 14, 2021 at 8:36am

Biden Caught In More & More Lies 

Comment by Thinklike A. Mountain on December 14, 2021 at 12:47am

Sen. Rand Paul tells Dan Bongino COVID restrictions are 'about conditioning the American individual to submit to government'
https://thepostmillennial.com/paul-bongino-covid-conditioning-ameri...

Comment by Thinklike A. Mountain on December 14, 2021 at 12:44am

Solar power advocates slam new California proposal to reduce subsidies
The proposed policy would reduce payments granted to solar customers for the excess power they generate — a policy known as net-energy metering — and add monthly charges for customers to connect to the grid.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/13/solar-power-advocates-slam-new-cali...

Comment by Thinklike A. Mountain on December 14, 2021 at 12:29am

Sen. Richard "Stolen Valor" Blumenthal Helps Conn. Communist Party Celebrate 102nd Anniversary of CPUSA
https://amgreatness.com/2021/12/13/sen-richard-blumenthal-helps-con...

 

Maine as Third World Country:

CMP Transmission Rate Skyrockets 19.6% Due to Wind Power

 

Click here to read how the Maine ratepayer has been sold down the river by the Angus King cabal.

Maine Center For Public Interest Reporting – Three Part Series: A CRITICAL LOOK AT MAINE’S WIND ACT

******** IF LINKS BELOW DON'T WORK, GOOGLE THEM*********

(excerpts) From Part 1 – On Maine’s Wind Law “Once the committee passed the wind energy bill on to the full House and Senate, lawmakers there didn’t even debate it. They passed it unanimously and with no discussion. House Majority Leader Hannah Pingree, a Democrat from North Haven, says legislators probably didn’t know how many turbines would be constructed in Maine if the law’s goals were met." . – Maine Center for Public Interest Reporting, August 2010 https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/wind-power-bandwagon-hits-bumps-in-the-road-3/From Part 2 – On Wind and Oil Yet using wind energy doesn’t lower dependence on imported foreign oil. That’s because the majority of imported oil in Maine is used for heating and transportation. And switching our dependence from foreign oil to Maine-produced electricity isn’t likely to happen very soon, says Bartlett. “Right now, people can’t switch to electric cars and heating – if they did, we’d be in trouble.” So was one of the fundamental premises of the task force false, or at least misleading?" https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/wind-swept-task-force-set-the-rules/From Part 3 – On Wind-Required New Transmission Lines Finally, the building of enormous, high-voltage transmission lines that the regional electricity system operator says are required to move substantial amounts of wind power to markets south of Maine was never even discussed by the task force – an omission that Mills said will come to haunt the state.“If you try to put 2,500 or 3,000 megawatts in northern or eastern Maine – oh, my god, try to build the transmission!” said Mills. “It’s not just the towers, it’s the lines – that’s when I begin to think that the goal is a little farfetched.” https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/flaws-in-bill-like-skating-with-dull-skates/

Not yet a member?

Sign up today and lend your voice and presence to the steadily rising tide that will soon sweep the scourge of useless and wretched turbines from our beloved Maine countryside. For many of us, our little pieces of paradise have been hard won. Did the carpetbaggers think they could simply steal them from us?

We have the facts on our side. We have the truth on our side. All we need now is YOU.

“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

 -- Mahatma Gandhi

"It's not whether you get knocked down: it's whether you get up."
Vince Lombardi 

Task Force membership is free. Please sign up today!

Hannah Pingree on the Maine expedited wind law

Hannah Pingree - Director of Maine's Office of Innovation and the Future

"Once the committee passed the wind energy bill on to the full House and Senate, lawmakers there didn’t even debate it. They passed it unanimously and with no discussion. House Majority Leader Hannah Pingree, a Democrat from North Haven, says legislators probably didn’t know how many turbines would be constructed in Maine."

https://pinetreewatch.org/wind-power-bandwagon-hits-bumps-in-the-road-3/

© 2022   Created by Webmaster.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service