What’s in the House’s Build Back Better Act?

T he House of Representatives just passed President Joe Biden’s climate and social-welfare bill, the “Build Back Better Act.” While the text of the bill was not made public in advance of the vote, it reportedly closely resembles the president’s BBB Framework released on October 28 and the House’s previous version of the 2,466-page legislation, along with a 137-page “summary” published on November 4.

Regardless, you can be sure that no more than a handful of congressional representatives who voted for the massive spending bill have read it. The press has largely followed the administration’s talking points and its well-branded headlines on the program’s contents, with little critical inquiry or analysis. As a result, the American people — who Democrats and many major news outlets confidently claim “overwhelmingly support” this legislation (though recent polls suggest otherwise) — are virtually in the dark about what their tax dollars are going to pay for.

In short, it is a massive income-transfer program (stated as $1.75 trillion, but likely twice that amount) to liberal constituency groups — the climate-change lobby and powerful unions — drafted by only one party. Very little in the bill actually would benefit most Americans.

Let’s start with the big stuff.

The big winners are the climate-change activists and their powerful lobby, who would walk away with $555 billion in subsidies to move America from one source of energy to another, but which will not likely change the standard of living for anyone who is alive today — except for those drinking from the climate-change trough. Wealthy Americans will drive more expensive union-built cars with less range, subsidized by federal tax dollars for up to $12,500 per car, and Elon Musk will get richer. Americans will live in the same houses with different government-subsidized heating or power systems. Contrast the climate provisions with the $3 billion (0.15 percent of $1.75 trillion) allocated to pandemic prevention and preparedness, and the mere $124 million for combating substance abuse. BBB neglects clear and present dangers, pandemic risk and the opioid crisis, to combat a so-called existential threat that will not materialize for decades or centuries, if at all.

Close behind the climate activists are the teachers’ unions. The framework boasts $400 billion for universal pre-school and day care. Who will benefit from this new entitlement? Not most kids. Study after study about the effectiveness of pre-K programs suggests that while children of low-income families can benefit long-term from pre-K, children from middle- and upper-income families do only slightly or no better educationally or socially from the experience. In fact, most of the educational benefits that poor kids get from pre-K disappear if they attend sub-standard K–12 schools. So how much does the bill provide for our failing K–12 system? Very little, and what BBB does provide goes only to hire more unionized schoolteachers. So why do teachers’ unions so strongly press for universal pre-K, rather than K–12? Because universal pre-K would inflate their membership rolls by tens of thousands. K–12 reform would include more educational choices for parents (including non-union charter schools) and hold bad (union-dues-paying) teachers more accountable for educational outcomes, both prescriptions that teachers’ unions abhor. A solid argument can be made for some sort of means-tested approach to pre-K education for disadvantaged families, but such a program would cost a fraction of the amounts proposed in the current BBB legislation. A potential argument could be made that universal pre-school and child care would expand employment participation, providing a boost to families and the overall economy; however, the data to support this position is spotty, and more important, that is not what motivates the administration and teachers’ unions. The legislation contains no work requirement to receive its benefits.

The framework allocates $200 billion to extend and expand both the Child Tax Credit and the Earned Income Tax Credit, despite the fact that Congress has refused for years to fix these programs to allow the IRS to properly administer them. In 2020, the Treasury inspector general for tax administration found that $20.5 billion (20 percent) of the $105 billion of total EITC and CTC payments made in the most recent years studied were “improper” (a total of $42 billion of the tax gap annually is attributable to these sorts of refundable credits). The emergency extension and expansion of these programs to assist poor families during the pandemic recession, even with the suspended work requirement, were appropriate. To extend and expand these further in the current economy (with over 11 million unfilled jobs), and to do so without addressing improper payments, is foolish.

Finally, the framework includes $90 billion for what the White House describes as “Equity and Other Investments,” but which most Americans would recognize as a bow to the woke agenda.

Now, let’s look at some of the fine print:

• $9 billion to higher-learning institutions for “qualified environmental justice programs” to make sure that universities perpetuate the Left’s green agenda.
• $7 billion more to create new climate-justice warriors in places like Americorps and other service groups for projects related to “climate resilience and mitigation,” and another $450 million for nontraditional climate apprenticeship programs.
• $3 billion in “climate justice block grants” that go into projects in disadvantaged communities. The criterion for grants is based not on efficacy but on the race of the projects’ sponsors.
• $85 million for studying the risks of climate change for “pregnant, lactating or post-partum individuals.” It is unclear exactly what dangers pregnant individuals are now facing from climate change that could not be remediated with more air-conditioning.
• $3.5 billion for ports to purchase “zero-emission” equipment, but no money to actually fix broken supply chains in which ports are a bottleneck.
• $275 million to upgrade the health-care system in one state — Hawaii. Hawaii also gets $5 million to save endangered plants there.
• $200 million to preserve Native American languages. Note: There is nothing in the bill to further the study of English as a second language.
• $350 million to “rebuild” the National Labor Relations Board and $321 million to “rebuild” the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, two federal agencies that lead Democratic attempts to bypass Congress by passing regulations that discourage hiring.
• $300 billion for restoration of the SALT tax deduction that benefits mostly wealthy residents of blue states.
• $38 billion in new energy taxes . . . because gasoline prices are not high enough.

My favorites:

• $50 million to train and certify more doulas. No comment.
• $5 million to save “desert fish.” I didn’t even know there were fish in the desert, but (after researching) I found that a Desert Fish Council actually exists.
• $150–$250 million (estimated) as tax credits to “local” news organizations, excluding government entities — except, of course, NPR and PBS (surprise!). Note: “Local” is broadly defined, and appears to include almost all news organizations, including the New York Times and Washington Post. The bill also contains a rich new deduction for trial lawyers, a group that is one of the Democratic Party’s most generous contributors.

In addition to the meager $3 billion (0.17 percent) that goes to fund pandemic preparedness and $124 million that goes toward combating substance abuse, veterans receive only $3 billion of the $1.75 trillion for better records and hospitals. But, then again, most vets do not vote Democratic.

Traditionally, every major provision of a large spending bill would be vetted (with hearings and data submissions) by congressional committees with experience and expertise in the subject matter, with opportunities for members to debate and offer amendments. This process, known as “regular order,” also provides significant transparency and opportunity for public and media scrutiny. In contrast, BBB was drafted by a small number of Democratic congressional staffers, operatives, and lobbyists who, left unchecked, have unsurprisingly crafted this massive income-transfer program to Democratic constituency groups.

The above summary provides a small sampling of the waste and self-serving spending that BBB contains. If the Democrats insist on spending $1.75-plus billion of taxpayer money, the American people deserve to know a lot more about where it is going. If they did, I am sure that the Senate would reject BBB.