None Of These Woke Appliances Can Handle My Ginormous MAGA Dumps!
Oh, the whining is all based on appliance industry talking points? Cool, cool.
Last month, the US Department of Energy proposed new energy efficiency standards for washing machines, refrigerators, and standalone freezers, the first update in energy efficiency rules for those appliances in a decade. The new standards may actually come into effect in 2027, giving manufacturers time to reengineer product lines to meet them. The DOE generally reviews efficiency standards every six years, but Donald Trump tried to roll back all the standards when he was in office, so the new proposed rules are a bit behind schedule.
In a statement, the DOE said the new standards would reduce home energy costs and significantly reduce pollution. The news release noted that since regularly updated energy standards went into place more than 40 years ago,
Today, the typical new refrigerator uses 75% less energy than its 1973 counterpart—while offering roughly 20% more storage capacity and more useful features. In that 40-year span, DOE raised the efficiency standard for refrigerators three times. Similarly, today’s clothes washers use 70% less energy than in 1990 and offer 50% more tub capacity. The new proposed rules will continue this trajectory of innovation and savings.
Or at least that's what the woke mob of communists bent on controlling every aspect of your lives wants you to believe. Thank goodness, Fox News and other rightwing outfits are here to counter all that green woke Critical Fridge Theory with good old fear and distrust, coming straight from industry lobbyists who would rather not change anything because it would cut into profits. Or rather, thank goodness Fox News is willing to crib generously from a Washington Free Beacon story sourced mostly to industry shills and also a Heritage Foundation shill, as if there were a lot of difference.
Still, chootz-pah points to whoever at Fox came up with this attention-grabbing headline:
Credit where due, we suppose: At least Fox notes right up front that the claims are coming from the manufacturers, who of course only have consumers' best interests at heart.
No such distinction from Fox's on-air talkers, who just know for sure that this is all a lot of foolishness, because just look how terrible these new appliances are (the ones that won't be on the market for at least four years). Here's some chat from Fox's "Outnumbered" yesterday, with the hosts getting very upset about how hypocritical energy efficiency is, because you have to wash everything twice to actually get it clean, and how does that save any energy or water at all?
A quick census of the Wonkette Sekrit Chatcave didn't turn up any members of the staff who need to run clothes more than once through the washer; only one of us has a washer that's more than 10 years old. This was not, however, a scientific survey. But if the appliance industry warns that we'll all be dirty and smelly under these regulations, it must be true!
Harris Faulkner asked, "if in fact you're doing it longer and you're not getting the clothes as clean ... aren't you breaking with the regulations for usage?" See, Joe Biden wants to force us to become criminals! (Fact check: The energy efficiency standards are for manufacturers. You won't be arrested if you run your washer twice, although that really shouldn't be necessary anyway.)
That was the springboard for a lot more condemnation of how terrible energy saving is, and did you know you aren't even allowed to plug in your EV in California for more than 10 minutes (no idea where she got that one), "so where am I going, the driveway and back??!?" Faulkner summed up, "It makes no sense! It's like they're punching each other in the face, but they're hitting us!"
That was followed by Tall Beardy Guy, who made a funny joke about how "Before long, you'll have to say your preferred pronouns to get the dishwasher to work," and wow, liberals aren't just stupid and hypocritical, they're tyrants! He just wants high pressure shower heads to come back, and nothing even works, and the Green Agenda is taking over!
Also, Biden is still coming for your gas stove!!!!! (Fun fact: Gas stoves are most popular in blue states. So hey, Fox, thanks for making gas stoves a rightwing avatar; it may help more libs go with induction stoves instead. Did we mention: There's a tax credit!)
The new energy standards were clearly in the Memo of the Day for Fox News yesterday; here's Sean Hannity leading a panel with failed Michigan gubernatorial candidate Tudor Dixon, about how those crazy climate alarmists want you to be dirty and smelly because they're just monsters.
Hannity asked, "First they want my stove, now they want my dish washer, what's next? They gonna take away my iron next? I dunno."
This is where we remind you that new energy efficiency standards do not actually require the seizure of old appliances, and never have. My old apartment had a 30-year-old fridge whose tiny freezer compartment had to be manually defrosted. No one came for it, not even when I asked the landlord.
Dixon was ready with a whole monologue about all the mom work she does, and how nothing is ever clean anymore since President Joe Biden stole Obama's time machine and started requiring water-saving toilets and shower heads in 1992.
"I do laundry for six people every week, and so I know a little bit about this, and the last thing I need is my laundry taking longer. I'm already dealing with a low flow shower head and my kids are coming out with conditioner smashed to their heads like an old Seinfeld episode and I have to tell them to get back in and re-wash. I can't even flush my toilet one time to get toilet paper down because it's a low-flow toilet. I don't need a low-flow washing machine, that's ridiculous!"
Apparently every one of these idiots have been buying Donald Trump's old toilets that you have to flush a dozen times. That, or maybe they're pooping in their clothes because of the woke toilets and then the woke washers are failing to wash all the MAGA poop out of their clothes.
In conclusion, MAGA world is stuck in an old Dave Barry column about low-flow toilets from 1994, only not funny, and the poor dears will just be going around all stinky and dirty because the appliance manufacturers really hope they won't have to modernize their products, the end.
[Utility Drive / Department of Energy / Washington Free Beacon / Fox News / Click on Detroit / Image generated in StableDiffusion 2.1 AI]
Yr Wonkette is funded entirely by reader donations. If you can, please give $5 or $10 monthly so we can keep your news bright and fresh-smelling, unless it involves Fox.
Elizabeth Warren Said This Bank F*ckbungle Would Happen, Maybe Let's Listen To Her This Time?
Why would we do that? She's a radical progressive who just happened to be exactly right.
With the weekend's failure of two big banks — Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank — America is once again vaguely aware that banking regulations have an actual effect on the economy, and, to a lesser degree, that money is imaginary anyway, just a collective agreement about numbers and who has piled them up in particular ways. So here's Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts) in the New York Times yesterday, to remind us that the failure of both banks probably could have been prevented if Donald Trump and congressional Republicans — with the aid of more Democrats than there should have been, which would have been "zero" — hadn't rolled back significant parts of the Dodd-Frank banking regulations in 2018.
Remember how we had that huge financial crisis in 2008, and then Congress actually did something to prevent another one? Elizabeth Warren does!
In the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Act to protect consumers and ensure that big banks could never again take down the economy and destroy millions of lives. Wall Street chief executives and their armies of lawyers and lobbyists hated this law. They spent millions trying to defeat it, and, when they lost, spent millions more trying to weaken it.
As Warren points out, one of the bankers insisting that Dodd-Frank was too strict was Greg Becker, CEO of Silicon Valley Bank, who along with others in the industry argued that great big banks like SVB weren't actually big enough to need rigorous oversight by the Federal Reserve, which they said was holding them back from doing great things for America.
And hey, for a while there, SVB was flying pretty high, becoming a top funder of tech startups and racking up a 40 percent increase in profits in the last three years. And everything would have been great if it weren't for the tiny problem that SVB plowed most of its capital into long-term federal bonds, which are a great investment as long as you don't need access to those funds to cover a little panic among depositors when interest rates go up. And as Warren points out, mostly having tech companies as customers also made SVB vulnerable to any wobble in the tech sector. (Same for Signature, which served a lot of crypto companies.) Oopsie!
Warren explains,
Had Congress and the Federal Reserve not rolled back the stricter oversight, S.V.B. and Signature would have been subject to stronger liquidity and capital requirements to withstand financial shocks. They would have been required to conduct regular stress tests to expose their vulnerabilities and shore up their businesses. But because those requirements were repealed, when an old-fashioned bank run hit S.V.B., the bank couldn’t withstand the pressure — and Signature’s collapse was close behind.
On Sunday night, regulators announced they would ensure that all deposits at S.V.B. and Signature would be repaid 100 cents on the dollar. Not just small businesses and nonprofits, but also billion-dollar companies, crypto investors and the very venture capital firms that triggered the bank run on S.V.B. in the first place — all in the name of preventing further contagion.
Hooray for the small businesses and others (as well as their employees) who might have been wiped out if the FDIC hadn't stepped in to cover losses beyond that normal $250,000 limit on FDIC-insured accounts. But was it really necessary to make whole the very largest depositors? Warren notes that, yes, the idea is to cover all the depositors from both banks using bank funds from the pool the FDIC uses to insure against bank failures. But she adds that it's hardly surprising that Americans "are skeptical of a system that holds millions of struggling student loan borrowers in limbo but steps in overnight to ensure that billion-dollar crypto firms won’t lose a dime in deposits."
Well yes, that is certainly a thought-provoking comparison. Say, what was Wonkette saying about all this in 2018? It was so long ago, we barely remember (Wayne and Garth make go "doodley-oo, doodly-oo" while waving their fingers) ...
Oh look! We were block-quoting a warning from Cassandra Elizabeth Warren:
“On the 10th anniversary of an enormous financial crash, Congress should not be passing laws to roll back regulations on Wall Street banks,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said in an interview. “The bill permits about 25 of the 40 largest banks in America to escape heightened scrutiny and to be regulated as if they were tiny little community banks that could have no impact on the economy.”
The new regulations passed in 2018 allowed all but the very biggest banks — those with assets of over $250 billion — to avoid the liquidity requirements and stress tests (Dodd-Frank had set the "too big to fail" bar at $50 billion). Even before the 2018 bank bill passed, we noted, several banks subjected to Federal Reserve scrutiny "have already been found to have been taking supposedly prohibited risks with investors' money."
Well gosh, it turns out that if you leave big banks to their own devices, they get up to mischief in pursuit of profits. Who could have predicted such a thing?
In her op-ed, Warren calls for the 2018 deregulation to be reversed by "Congress, the White House and banking regulators," at a minimum. Rep. Katie Porter (D-California), who's running for the Senate in 2024, is already working on a bill to do that, and President Joe Biden has also called for the regulations to be tightened.
But beyond that, Warren adds,
Bank regulators must also take a careful look under the hood at our financial institutions to see where other dangers may be lurking. Elected officials, including the Senate Republicans who, just days before S.V.B.’s collapse, pressed Mr. Powell to stave off higher capital standards, must now demand stronger — not weaker — oversight.
In addition, she says regulators should make changes to how deposit insurance works,
so that both during this crisis and in the future, businesses that are trying to make payroll and otherwise conduct ordinary financial transactions are fully covered — while ensuring the cost of protecting outsized depositors is borne by those financial institutions that pose the greatest risk.
We could certainly get behind that. And finally, says Warren, for Crom's sake the people responsible for these failures should be kept from being rewarded, not simply by refusing to bail out the investors, but also by clawing back the big bonuses paid to the executives who drove both banks into the ditch. Beyond that, she adds,
Where needed, Congress should empower regulators to recover pay and bonuses. Prosecutors and regulators should investigate whether any executives engaged in insider trading or broke other civil or criminal laws.
But wouldn't that be socialism? If you punish banking executives for making the occasional irresponsible bet, aren't you really just coming after the ordinary small businessperson who won't have the chance to be trickled down upon? Besides, as Rep. Nancy Mace (R-South Carolina) tweeted yesterday in reply to Warren, is a bank failure any time to be talking about politics? There certainly wasn't anything political about rolling back Dodd-Frank to please Wall Street in 2018, so why get all political now?
Best to offer the banks our thoughts, prayers, and bailout money and save the blame for ... oh, how about the gays?
Yr Wonkette is funded entirely by reader donations. If you can, please give $5 or $10 monthly to support our little part of the class war.
What Is 'Right-To-Work'? Why Does It Suck? What Is Big Gretch Doing To Murderize It In Michigan?
Very good job this week, Michigan!
Exciting news! Michigan is set to become the first state in 60 years to reverse a so-called "right-to-work" law, which is a very big deal. It was also a very big deal when, in 2012, Republican Gov. Rick Snyder initially signed the right-to-work-for-less legislation into law, given the state's robust history of unionization as the home of United Auto Workers. Especially since he had promised not to and then reversed because he felt he had to punish unions for lobbying for collective bargaining rights to be put into the state constitution.
Democrats in the Legislature and Gov. Gretchen Whitmer are going to correct that nonsense — but if you're not super familiar with right-to-work-for-less laws, here's a nice refresher on why they suck.
What Is Right-to-Work?
Sadly, right-to-work in this country does not mean guaranteed employment for all job seekers through a vibrant public works program — though that would be awesome! What it means is that workers can't be required to join a union and pay dues as a condition of employment.
For decades, Republicans have worked hard to present this as an issue of "freedom" — claiming that it is unfair to force people to pay dues to unions if they don't believe in unions. It is easy to see how people could find that very reasonable.
Indeed, part of the trouble with overturning right-to-work legislation has been that the language used by proponents does make it seem fair and reasonable. Right-to-work sounds good. When people are polled about it, they get asked questions like whether or not they believe that "no American should be required to join any private organization, like a labor union, against his will." That's the kind of thing people are going to say yes to without thinking much about, especially if they are not deeply familiar with the subject.
So Why Is It Bad?
The problem, however, is that they are not fair. Or reasonable. The unions are still required to represent employees who don't pay dues, making them free riders who benefit from the dues paid by their co-workers. This decreases a union's overall budget and therefore the effectiveness of collective bargaining, leading to lower wages and benefits across the board for all full-time employees, whether or not they belong to the union.
Without a true union, employees simply don't have the leverage to get what they need through striking — like the Alabama coal miners who went on strike for a year and got nothing.
Workers in right-to-work states make, on average, almost $9,000 a year less than workers in free-bargaining states. Not just union workers, all workers — because good union jobs mean that non-union jobs have to pay their own workers more in order to compete. Poverty rates are higher, the percentages of workers in low wage jobs is higher (24 percent vs. 14.5 percent in free bargaining states). Workers in these "right to work" states are also less likely to be insured and far more likely to die in a workplace accident (37 percent more likely!). They also have higher maternal and infant mortality rates, probably because of the healthcare situation.
So if we were going to phrase a poll question, we might ask people if they would be willing to accept lower wages and fewer benefits as well as being more likely to die on the job or in childbirth just so some chooch could get all of the benefits of belonging to a union without having to pay for it. We can probably guess what their answer would be.
Aren't Union Members Usually White Midwestern Guys In Flannel Shirts Who Probably Voted For Trump Anyway? Why Should We Help Them?
Actually, no! Women make up about 47 percent of all union members and all people of color make up 37 percent (compared to 24 percent of the general population). Black people are more likely than any other demographic to be covered by a union contract. In 2020, union members voted for Democrats in far greater numbers than non-union members did. There are no statistics, however, on their sartorial preferences.
Additionally, like pretty much every other economic justice issue, this is also a social justice issue.
It would be so super great if we could eliminate discriminatory employment practices by changing people's hearts and minds or if the civil rights laws we have in place actually prevented that from happening. We can't and they don't. The next best thing, however, is throwing up roadblocks that make it extremely difficult for employers to pull that off. Unions do that by making it difficult to fire people for stupid, discriminatory reasons and by ensuring that everyone is getting paid fairly.
Why Does 'Right-to-Work' Even Exist In The First Place?
Surprise, it is racism.
Like many other stupid laws or statutes we have — jaywalking, felon disenfranchisement, subminimum wage — "right-to-work" is rooted in racism and a desire to preserve white supremacy. Long story short, unions are an equalizer and a lot of white people, especially in the South, were not too keen on that. They didn't want to be in unions if Black people were also going to be in their same unions.
Originally coined in 1941 by Dallas Morning News Editor William B. Ruggles, it was most notably promoted by a conservative Texas lobbyist/avowed white supremacist/antisemite/anti-women's suffragist named Vance Muse. Muse was the leader of the Christian American Association and the editor of the Christian American newspaper, both of which he used to fight against unions. He also worked for a group called the Southern Committee to Uphold the Constitution (SCUC) which was organized against re-electing FDR.
Muse's opposition to unions was rooted in both greed (he was getting paid by wealthy industrialists and plantation owners to push anti-union legislation) and extreme racism, having been quoted as saying, "From now on, white women and white men will be forced into organizations with black African apes whom they will have to call 'brother' or lose their jobs." Many Southerners bought into this line and soon enough both Arkansas and Florida were passing "right-to-work" laws.
Some of this may sound familiar, via the American Constitution Society:
By the early 1940s, Muse and his Christian American Association allies, like many southern conservatives, focused their wrath on the labor movement, especially the unions associated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations that were organizing sharecroppers and challenging the legal underpinnings of white supremacy. The Christian American Association solicited wealthy southern planters and industrialists for funds to help break the “strangle hold radical labor has on our government” through the enactment of anti-union laws. The Christian American Association warned that the CIO—which had become shorthand for Jewish Marxist unions—was sending organizers to the rural South to inflame the contented but gullible African-American population as the first step in a plot to Sovietize the nation.
Truly, they never come up with anything new.
But You Don't Have To Take My Word For It!
This very same week, Sen. Rand Paul did this:
In the video above, Paul states that all Americans deserve the glorious benefits Kentucky residents have "enjoyed" as a result of right-to-work laws. “Kentucky’s Right-To-Work law has been an incredible draw for jobs and investment. Our entire country should have that same advantage.”
As for attracting jobs and businesses — these would be businesses that would hypothetically be moving to a given area because they can pay the people there less than they can pay people in other states, no? So clearly they're not very good jobs. Is that really the kind of business one wants to be attracting? Isn't "Hey, come here and pay our worthless citizens half what you'd pay people in other states!" just a little bit insulting?
It would be one thing if this actually worked, but ...
According to US News & World Report, Kentucky ranks 40th in economy, 39th in business environment, 45th in employment, 45th in economic opportunity and 48th in fiscal stability. As for investors, venture capitalists invest $0.925 for every $1,000 per GDP, far less than the national average of $6.05. The state also "enjoys" the nation's 5th highest poverty rate.
One thing that could help with that would be unions. So perhaps instead of pushing for National Right to Work, Kentucky politicians might want to take a better look at what Michigan is doing.
Please keep Wonkette spreading the gospel, if you are able!
Joe Biden's 2024 Menu: The Rich.
:)
President Joe Biden on Thursday rolled out his proposed budget for fiscal 2024, an ambitious plan that would raise taxes on the rich and on corporations while expanding the social safety net. It would cut nearly $3 trillion from the federal deficit over the next decade by imposing a 25 percent minimum tax on the richest Americans. If you want to read the entire 185-page document, have at it!
Of course, it also won't do a single bit of that, because Republicans won't pass any of the major parts of the plan, particularly not the tax increases, but also not the social safety net parts like paid family leave, childcare, or Biden's plan to rescue the Medicare trust fund for at least 25 years.
Not a bit of it will become law except the most routine keep-things-as-they-are parts, which will no doubt end up in yet another omnibus spending bill passed barely in time to avoid a government shutdown. If then. Oh, also, the part that increases defense spending by about 3.2 percent, to over $835 billion, will probably do just fine. But whatever defense budget eventually passes in the fall won't be accompanied by the tax increases that would make the expenditures slightly less odious.
So why even offer a budget that's not going to get passed by Congress? For starters, presidents have to submit a budget request in early February (traditionally by the first Monday, but everything moves slow these days) to get the process rolling, and the budget reflects the administration's priorities, even if the opposition is able to block them. Also, let's remember that Donald Trump's budgets, which zeroed out entire federal agencies, were entirely exercises in rightwing fantasy. And yet somehow we still have the National Endowment for the Arts.
So sure, a federal budget is mostly aspirational, and this year, Biden's budget serves two practical purposes: It sets out markers for where he wants his government to go in a second term (you know, if he runs), and it's also an opening bid in the negotiations over raising the debt ceiling. Republicans say they want to cut federal spending because the deficits are too high, and Biden's budget is over here saying "Yeah? You show me how you'd reduce the deficit by $3 trillion in 10 years, ya mooks."
Former Obama administration official Kenneth Baer, who served in the Office of Management and Budget, explained to the Washington Post,
"As one of the people who has spent many a long night writing and editing a budget, I take umbrage at the people who say it’s a meaningless document. It’s not a meaningless document. [...] It sets the terms of the debate. It shows what’s important to you, your commitments and what you really want."
So let's take a look at what's in this thing and what that says about what Joe Biden wants.
The Rich Still Need To Be Eaten
Speaking at a union hall in Philadelphia yesterday, Biden emphasized that his third budget proposal is aimed at "investing in America and all of America," because "Too many people have been left behind and treated like they’re invisible. Not anymore. I promise I see you."
To that end, the $6.8 trillion budget plan (over 10 years) includes about $5 trillion in tax increases on the wealthiest individuals and corporations, most of which will go to cover new programs that Biden has previously put forward but that haven't yet been enacted.
Some specific tax increase proposals may sound familiar because some of them were in the original version of Build Back Better, but were removed after Sen. Kyrsten Sinema said Donald Trump's 2017 Big Fat Tax Cuts for Rich Fuckwads couldn't be reversed, not even a little.
- Raise the corporate income tax rate from 21 percent to 28 percent, which would still be lower than the 35 percent rate prior to Trump's 2017 cuts. It would also raise the tax rate on foreign earnings from 10.5 percent to 21 percent, to reduce the incentive for companies to move operations out of the USA.
- Repeal Trump's tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans by returning the top marginal tax rate to 39.7 percent from the current 37 percent. This would affect taxpayers making $400,000 a year for individuals, or $450,000 married filing jointly.
- Tax capital gains the same as income for people making over $1 million, and close the carried interest loopholefor chrissakes finally.
- Increase the surtax on corporate stock buybacks from one percent to four percent
- A new minimum tax on billionaires, assessing a 25 percent minimum tax on all income of the wealthiest tenth of one percent of Americans. That's a follow-up to the minimum corporate tax that was included in last year's Inflation Reduction Act.
- Raise Medicare taxes on those making more than $400,000 a year, and make more types of income eligible for Medicare taxation. We detailed that plan right here. Medicare would also be able to negotiate prices on more prescription drugs sooner, creating additional savings that would go to the Medicare trust fund.
Nice Things We Need
The budget also includes some domestic programs that were good ideas when they were proposed in Build Back Better, and were still good ideas when Joe Manchin demanded they be removed from Build Back Better. A few have been downsized for the budget plan, which also adds some items that weren't in BBB.
- Restore the enhanced child tax credit and make it permanent. Hell yes. It markedly reduced child poverty in the US, and it's damn near criminal that it was allowed to lapse. Also way better for America's children than allowing them to work in meatpacking plants.
- College affordability. The budget calls for higher maximum awards for Pell grants and for a $500 million grant program to make two years of community college free — not quite the full free community college program Biden originally ran on.
- Universal Pre-K and affordable child care. Not quite the full programs proposed in Build Back Better, but as CNN summarizes, this would fund "a new federal-state partnership program that would provide universal, free preschool. The spending plan would also increase funding for existing federal early care and education programs."
- Paid family and medical leave — another big priority that still needs doing. 12 weeks of paid family and medical leave; for fuckssake let's get this done. Yeah, in 2025 after we retake the House and expand the Senate majority.
- More free school meals. During the pandemic, we gave every kid eat. The Biden budget would provide $15 billion to enable wider free lunches, though hey, since it's a wish list, why not just say we want universal free school lunch? Kids learn better if they're not hungry.
- Make the IRA's Obamacare subsidies permanent. The enhanced premium subsidies, which started out as part of the American Rescue Plan, have helped reduce the percentage of Americans without healthcare coverage to record lows. But they're set to expire in 2025.
- Reduce maternal mortality. It's still a crisis, with far greater rates of maternal mortality for Black women than for white women. The budget calls for $471 million in funding to expand maternal health care, particularly in rural areas. It would also require all states to provide Medicaid postpartum care for 12 months instead of the current 60 days.
- $35 per month insulin for all Americans. It was included in the IRA for folks on Social Security, so let's make that the standard for those on private insurance or who have no insurance at all. It's literally a matter of life or death.
- Lower prescription drug prices for seniors. The IRA put a $2000 cap annual on out-of-pocket costs for Medicare beneficiaries (going into effect in 2025). Biden wants to further limit copays for generic prescription drugs for chronic conditions to $2.
Yes, We Still Need Climate Spending
While the Inflation Reduction Act was the biggest American investment ever in fighting the climate emergency, Biden's budget proposal also recognizes that there's a lot more that needs doing, so it calls for still more funding to move America closer to reaching our Paris climate agreement goals. We want to wrap this sucker up, but take a look at this CNBC piece for more details on how the budget would expand our transition to clean power and cutting carbon emissions. Among the basics:
• $24 billion for climate resilience and conservation
• $16.5 billion for climate science and clean energy innovation
• $6.5 billion for energy storage and transmission projects
• $4.5 billion for jobs building clean energy infrastructure
• $3 billion for advancing adaptation finance
• $1.8 billion for environmental justice initiatives
• $1.2 billion for the Energy Department’s industrial decarbonization activities
Want even more info? I'm leaving a tab open with the White House fact sheet on the budget's climate priorities, because this is what the agenda for keeping the planet habitable should look like.
So those are some darn good priorities — and a blueprint for the 2024 campaign, too.
And now, back to two years of hearings on Twitter and Hunter's laptop. Total waste of time, but they may help make a very strong case for not letting Republicans anywhere near power again.
[2024 Budget of the US Government / WaPo / CNBC / NYT / CNBC]
Yr Wonkette is funded entirely by reader donations. If you can, please give $5 or $10 monthly so we can keep bringing you all the reasons we need to keep at this.
