The Indefensible Republican Defense of the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act

By Paul H. Tice

As President Trump works with the Republican-controlled Congress to pass his big, beautiful tax bill, it is exposing some ugly truths about the policy conviction of certain GOP members.

Extending the lower tax brackets of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) was already a challenge due to the razor-thin GOP margin in the House and the federal government’s unique budget math, which mandates spending cuts to offset the estimated $4.5 trillion “cost” of not raising tax rates over the next decade.

Complicating matters, several Republican Congressman from high-tax states have been publicly agitating since election day for the repeal of the state and local tax (SALT) deduction cap included in the TCJA, which would mean additional pay-fors must be found.

Now, a new fault line has developed with many of these same SALT Republicans over the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), the deceptively named and structured climate legislation signed into law by President Biden.

In a public letter sent to the Chairman of the House Ways & Means Committee on March 9th, 21 Republican House members warned against repealing or reforming “current energy tax credits” as part of the reconciliation process. The letter does not mention the IRA by name, which is not surprising since no Republican—including the gang of 21 now defending it—voted in favor of the partisan climate law back in 2022.

In fact, Andrew Garbarino (NY-02), the ringleader of the breakaway Republican group, stated at the time of the IRA’s passage: “This bill is bad for Long Islanders and bad for the American people. Shame on Congressional Democrats for forcing through this irresponsible legislation to score a political win at the expense of American taxpayers.”

But that was before the free federal money started flowing.

Based on data compiled by E2, a climate advocacy group, approximately 62% of the $131 billion of clean energy projects announced since the passage of the IRA in August 2022 are located in Republican districts, along with the lion’s share of IRA energy tax credits and other subsidies dispensed to date. This is why 21 GOP members are now circling the wagons to protect the law ex post.  

Making matters worse, many of the clean energy projects now being defended by these Republican guards have not moved past the approval phase or even broken ground on construction, including many greenlighted prior to the passage of the IRA. Moreover, the list of corporate sponsors includes large public U.S. companies (such as Dominion Resources and General Motors) and foreign owners, neither of which need or deserve U.S. government handouts.

In the latter case, Representative Nick LaLota (NY-01) is now going to the mattresses for a $3.8 billion offshore Long Island wind project backed by Orsted, the Danish developer that recently walked away from two offshore New Jersey wind farms after not receiving all the financial subsidies that it demanded from the Garden State.

From a spending perspective, any latter-day Republican support for the IRA is wholly indefensible given what we now know about the workings of the controversial climate law. The headline number of $369 billion in IRA clean energy spending over ten years was highly misleading. The actual figure is much higher because of the national emissions test used to sunset the law’s myriad tax credits, which effectively creates an open-ended liability for the federal government.

Recent studies by both the Breakthrough Institute and the Cato Institute have estimated the true budgetary cost of the IRA at close to $1 trillion in its first decade and upwards of $4.7 trillion by the year 2050. Basically, the IRA is a ticking fiscal time bomb for the U.S. government.

Apart from being fiscally irresponsible, promoting the continued subsidization of wind, solar and battery storage projects only abets bad energy policy at the state level. Contrary to the Republican group’s claim, cutting clean energy tax credits will not “increase utility bills the very next day.” Rather, it will do the opposite. It will help to lower energy and electricity costs for American consumers by reversing ill-conceived net-zero grid targets in blue states such as California, New Jersey and New York.

And for all the rationalization that these Republican dissenters represent swing districts and, therefore, must strike a bipartisan pose, the majority of the 21 won their current seats by five percentage points or more in November 2024. This fact should help to steel up their collective spine for making the right legislative call to repeal all the IRA’s energy tax credits with immediate effect.

The sausage-making aspect of making law is never a pretty sight, especially when unprincipled Republicans try to use green pork to clog up the machinery works.

Mr. Tice is a senior fellow at the National Center for Energy Analytics and author of “The Race to Zero: How ESG Investing Will Crater the Global Financial System.”

This article was originally published by RealClearPolicy and made available via RealClearWire.

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
4.6 14 votes
Article Rating
28 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Some Like It Hot
March 25, 2025 10:49 pm

Speaker Johnson needs to have a word with some of his members. Hate to give Nancy credit but she didn’t put up with this kind of thing.

Reply to  Some Like It Hot
March 26, 2025 12:23 am

Johnson is compromised by AIPAC money, as are nearly ALL his colleagues. Johnson needs to check with his AIPAC controller before any action is taken..Massie is practically the only one in Congress free of such control. Trump berates Massie since Trump is deeply beholden to the same people – to the tune of over $150 million for his election.
Money talks, competence walks.

Reply to  whsmith@wustl.edu
March 26, 2025 1:08 am

Are the Rothchilds in the room with us right now?

Reply to  whsmith@wustl.edu
March 26, 2025 4:00 am

Trump is the one that can’t be bought.

Trump berates Massie for voting with the radical Democrats, and thus, putting the United States in great danger..

I think Trump is going to support Massie’s Republican primary opponent in 2026. I think Musk is probably going to contribute to Massie’s Republican primary opponent’s campaign.

These 21 Republicans supporting giveaways to windmills and solar should think twice about opposing Trump.

Trump doesn’t like windmills and solar.

Anybody have a list handy of these 21 Republicans?

Reply to  Tom Abbott
March 26, 2025 5:42 am

Andrew Garbarino (NY-02) – Leader of the effort.

Buddy Carter (GA-01)
Lori Chavez-DeRemer (OR-05)
Juan Ciscomani (AZ-06)
Tom Cole (OK-04)
Anthony D’Esposito (NY-04)
Gabe Evans (CO-08)
Brian Fitzpatrick (PA-01)
Vince Fong (CA-20)
Mike Garcia (CA-27)
Jeff Hurd (CO-03)
John James (MI-10)
Jen Kiggans (VA-02)
Nick LaLota (NY-01)
Ryan Mackenzie (PA-07)
Mariannette Miller-Meeks (IA-01)
Dan Newhouse (WA-04)
Jay Obernolte (CA-23)
David Schweikert (AZ-01)
Michelle Steel (CA-45)
Rob Bresnahan (PA-08)

Reply to  Charles Rotter
March 26, 2025 7:57 am

Kiggans had signed an earlier letter, too. Her Tidewater Virginia district still has many dreaming of an offshore wind economic bonanza. And the Dominion project underway is reliant on federal largesse.

EmilyDaniels
Reply to  Charles Rotter
March 27, 2025 3:03 am

Seeing Tom Cole and John James on that list us disappointing. Most of the others are from blue states, so their opposition kind of makes sense. I’m not familiar with most of the names

Reply to  EmilyDaniels
March 27, 2025 3:13 am

It is disappointing to see Tom Cole’s name on that list.

I’m going to write his and tell him that.

People all over Oklahoma are protesting windmills and solar and eminent domain. Tom Cole should wake up and smell the coffee. I’ll tell him that, too.

Reply to  Charles Rotter
March 27, 2025 3:10 am

Thanks, Charles.

One of them is from Oklahoma.

I’ll be writing to him to explain how I don’t support give-a-ways to windmills and solar companies. I don’t care if he has a constituent who will benefit from the subsidies because this is money coming out of my pocket in taxes and in increased electricity prices.

Windmills and Solar should stand on their own ecomonically, without taxpayer subsidies, or they should go out of business. It’s as simple as that, Mr. Cole.

MarkW
Reply to  whsmith@wustl.edu
March 26, 2025 9:36 am

Another Jews run the world nut job.

Duane
Reply to  Some Like It Hot
March 26, 2025 4:32 am

And now Nancy is out of a job.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Some Like It Hot
March 26, 2025 5:50 am

Pelosi was the USA’s first dictator.

March 25, 2025 10:51 pm

Republicans in mostly blue states are often left-leaning. They pander to both sides, espouse bipartisanship, and work the pork to advantage local interests. That’s how they get elected, or did, before the Trump Counter-Revolution.

There’s a Republican Climate Caucus that endorses “all of the above” energy sources including the unreliable intermittent heavily subsidized kind. Plenty of Republicans, not just neo-cons, favor massive spending on foreign wars. The unsustainable National Debt was not incurred by Democrats alone, but by the erstwhile Uni-party.

None of this is news. Everybody knows. What may be new is Trump 2.0 and the dismantling of the Deep State. The old guard RINO’s may be going extinct. The 2026 primaries are going to rock this country. The GOP is not your grandfather’s party anymore.

Rod Evans
March 25, 2025 11:58 pm

Nothing shows up the corruption and bribery at the heart of government than the IRA funding mechanisms.
Everyone knows it is a crock of the proverbial but they go along with it because it allows easy access to other peoples money….for now. Those working the system expect to be long gone retired on a fat pension, overlooking the blue ocean sipping their cocktail before the time to pay up arrives.

March 26, 2025 4:10 am

Trump might compromise on “the state and local tax (SALT) deduction cap”, but I don’t think he will look kindly on more subsidies for windmills and solar and EV’s.

And in case these 21 Republicans hadn’t noticed, there is a lot of pushback going on right now over windmills and solar and eminent domain.

Subsides and special payments for windmills and solar are the reason for the increased costs of electricity and we should do away with them immediately. High electricity costs hit all of us where it hurts. Lobbying for more windmill and solar subsidies is lobbying for higher electricity prices, plain and simple.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
March 26, 2025 5:08 am

Trump should use the powers of EPA, etc, to do serious environmental reviews and cancel licenses.
No license, then no financing, no insurance could be obtained.

He declared a national energy emergency. Wind and solar are unsuitable for an emergency

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Tom Abbott
March 26, 2025 5:53 am

Not all of us. The rich elite, including politicians, do not have any impact of rising electric prices. They can cover those with the 10% for the Big Guy color of money.

Duane
March 26, 2025 4:30 am

This may sound excessively cynical, but I rather doubt these Congressmen really want to protect the Federal giveaways just because they happen in their districts. Rather, it’s a bargaining ploy. What they most definitely DO want – as pointed out in this post – is removing the cap on SALT deductions. By doing that they are protecting their own constituents – which all Congressmen are expected to do – but they are also insulating themselves from criticism from the interests that want the money to flow to so-called renewable energy. If in the end these guys vote to repeal IRA, but catch hell from the renewables crowd, at least they can tell their constituents that, hey, at least I got your Federal taxes cut.

Frankly this is no different than what Trump does all the time. Lay out an initial position that is a non-starter (but which, in fact, “starts” it as a point of serious negotiation) … then wait for the wailing to cease and let the other side come back with a “deal” where everybody gets something. All of Trump’s threats about tariffs, for instance, somehow seem to keep getting delayed and reduced. Trump never actually intended to levy such big and wide ranging tariffs, but it is a tool to get other things that he really wants.

Welcome to Negotiation 101.

Duane
Reply to  Duane
March 26, 2025 4:41 am

If you’ll recall during the Senate debate on the Obamacare bill back in 2010, the Dems actually held a filibuster proof majority of exactly 60 votes. However, even for such a rock solid Dem priority like government controlled health care, there was still resistance from a small handful of Senate Dems who had to be coaxed into voting for Obamacare. Given that one of them was from the State of Louisiana, his bargaining (of course, he voted for the bill) which granted him certain demands, became infamously known as “The Louisiana Purchase”.

It’s how all legislatures work.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Duane
March 26, 2025 5:56 am

And that you vote for mine and I’ll vote for yours negotiations have been obliterated by the use of omnibus bills that includes everything for everyone regardless of value (or lack thereof).

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Duane
March 26, 2025 5:54 am

I am so pleased someone besides myself understands Trump’s tacctics.
Well done!

Reply to  Duane
March 26, 2025 3:44 pm

The other side knows his tactics as well. That’s why they all said that they would put tariffs on the US goods coming into their countries from the US to counter his tariffs.

Tom Johnson
March 26, 2025 5:48 am

The title of the article informed me that the purpose of the article is to influence the readers, not to inform them. so, I didn’t read it. I did skim it, and that simply reinforced my initial reaction. At this stage of any negotiation, and particularly a multi-faceted political one I try to stick with being informed, not influenced. In my view, this one fails miserably.

OldRetiredGuy
March 26, 2025 6:03 am

Sounds like another Obamacare. Bait and switch. Totally misrepresent the costs. And the impact.

Reply to  OldRetiredGuy
March 26, 2025 6:38 am

And the name was essentially opposite of the reality of it.

If honestly named, it would have been called “The Inflation Enhancement Act.”

MarkW
March 26, 2025 9:35 am

Deducting state and local taxes from federal income taxes, is just a subsidy for high tax states.

Giving_Cat
Reply to  MarkW
March 26, 2025 11:27 am

Or is it a partial compensation for paying State and Local taxes that save Federal government spending? I’m just saying it isn’t that simple.

Bob
March 26, 2025 3:21 pm

Government subsidies, grants, tax preferences and other forms of hand outs are a bad idea. And tax deductions for state taxes paid is the highest order of nonsense. If politicians and taxpayers in a state think their taxes are too high they need to lower the rates. We should never ask others to shoulder the burden of your crappy tax policy.