In this week's Liberty Update we highlight the potentially catastrophic threat of H.R. 3, the healthcare…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
Quote of the Day: WSJ on H.R. 3, Biden & Pelosi's Dangerous Healthcare Bill

In this week's Liberty Update we highlight the potentially catastrophic threat of H.R. 3, the healthcare and drug price control bill that Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi are attempting to rush through Congress.  The Wall Street Journal helpfully offers further insight this morning on how H.R. 3 would threaten lifesaving U.S. pharmaceutical innovation and leadership, including on things like the Covid vaccines:


Companies that refuse the government’s price must pay a 95% excise tax on all revenue they generate from that drug in the U.S.  They’d also have to offer the government price to private insurers.  There’s no “negotiation” when a gun is pointed at your head.  A new study in the Journal of the American Medical Association estimates that drug spending in the U.S…[more]

September 17, 2021 • 12:55 PM

Liberty Update

CFIFs latest news, commentary and alerts delivered to your inbox.
While U.S. Suffers Crippling Infrastructure Cyberattack, Biden Pushes Electric Vehicle Subsidies Print
By Timothy H. Lee
Thursday, May 13 2021
So EV subsidies divert needed resources from more important infrastructure security needs, they overwhelmingly benefit the wealthy, they aren’t succeeding in making EVs preferable to consumers and they don’t offer the environmental benefits that advocates assume.

Here’s a crazy thought.  

If a consumer product is a good one, government needn’t subsidize it for it to gain popularity, right?  

Government certainly shouldn’t have to mandate its purchase or gradually eliminate competing products from the marketplace, thereby removing any consumer choice in the matter.  

Yet that’s precisely the wasteful, indefensible state of affairs when it comes to electric vehicles (EVs) and the automobile market.  

Whatever one’s opinion of EVs, positive or negative, what’s beyond dispute is that they require enormous government subsidies and mandates to remain viable.  Some in government insist on forcing the EV business model upon a persistently disobedient American public.  Recent events only amplify the foolishness of that ongoing boondoggle.  

With inflation beginning to rear its ugly head, fueled in part by the wasteful federal spending blowouts, the Biden Administration presses forward with another multitrillion-dollar spending proposal, this one $3 trillion in the name of “infrastructure.”  And the single biggest transportation line item in the proposal?  That would be $174 billion toward the EV industry.  In comparison, only $110 billion goes to traditional infrastructure like roads and bridges, while railroads and public transportation only receive $80 billion apiece.  

Meanwhile, this week witnessed gas lines and shortages across wide swaths of the nation following a cyberattack on the nation’s largest fuel pipeline, the 5,500-mile Colonial Pipeline from Texas to New Jersey that transports approximately 45% of the east coast’s fuel consumption.  

That’s precisely the sort of infrastructure that actually could benefit from federal support.  That could assist in fortifying the technological elements on which fuel lines and other vital infrastructure rely to operate, especially as sophisticated cyberattacks and ransom hacking become increasingly common against U.S. businesses and federal, state and local governments.  

Instead, the Biden “infrastructure” blowout casts its focus toward 500,000 new EV charging stations, despite the lack of need or demand.  In contrast, the internal combustion automobile of a century ago didn’t need massive taxpayer subsidies to succeed with American consumers.  

The fact that the EV-industrial complex diverts critical resources from far more pressing infrastructure security needs, however, is merely one of its disqualifying defects.  

Perhaps most outrageously, EV subsidies constitute welfare for the wealthy, as the Pacific Research Institute found:  

There are also distributional impacts from these EV subsidies. IRS Statistics of Income data illustrate that, for the 2014 tax year, 78.7 percent ($207.1 million) of the federal consumer tax credits were received by households with an adjusted gross income (AGI) of $100,000 or above. A further 20.5 percent of the tax credits ($54.1 million) were received by households with an AGI between $50,000 and $100,000. Therefore, over 99 percent of the total tax credits went to households with an AGI above $50,000. Further, the tax credit data indicate that the manufacturing subsidies, which also benefit the consumers of EVs, primarily benefit households who are in the top-half of income-earners.  

Weren’t leftists supposed to be against income inequality and handouts to the rich?  

Then there’s the problem that generous federal subsidies just aren’t persuading American consumers to purchase EVs.  Over ten years ago, Congress passed legislation offering $7,500 tax credits to EV buyers.  Taxpayers were assured that subsidies would be temporary, “in order to help get these products over the initial stage of production, when they are quite a bit more expensive than older technology vehicles, to the mass production stage, where economies of scale will drive costs down, and the credits will no longer be necessary.”  

That was in 2007.  Fourteen years later, the subsidies still haven’t become unnecessary.  In fact, as part of the Biden spending scheme that credit may be increased to $10,000.  

Moreover, EVs aren’t the ecological advancement that supporters complacently believe.  Although EVs don’t emit carbon at the point of propulsion like internal combustion automobiles, they draw their power from our electric grid, which generates power from energy sources that often produce more pollution than modern gas-powered engines.  Additionally, their batteries and other components require extensive mining and transport of rare earth materials.  In pro-EV Germany, the IFO Institute found that EVs actually have a larger “carbon footprint” than internal-combustion counterparts.  

So EV subsidies divert needed resources from more important infrastructure security needs, they overwhelmingly benefit the wealthy, they aren’t succeeding in making EVs preferable to consumers and they don’t offer the environmental benefits that advocates assume.  

Whatever EVs’ merits and novelty, the simple fact is that government shouldn’t be engaging in crony capitalism, tipping the scales in favor of one consumer product over another.  And it certainly shouldn’t be doing it with taxpayer dollars.  

Quiz Question   
What is the single deadliest disease epidemic to the U.S. population in history?
More Questions
Notable Quote   
"US presidents rarely look to make waves with speeches to the annual United Nations General Assembly, but President Joe Biden's nearly 40-minute talk Tuesday actually challenged global leaders ... to stay awake.The world, Biden lectured, needs to 'act together.' This is a 'decisive decade.' We must work to prevent pandemics and fight climate change. 'We stand at an inflection point in history,' have…[more]
—New York Post Editorial Board
— New York Post Editorial Board
Liberty Poll   

Of the presidents who have presided over the Afghanistan war, which one deserves the worst grade as the U.S. observes the 20th anniversary of 9-11?