The Bad Parts of Biden's $3.5 Trillion 'Build Back Better' Bill

AP Photo/Evan Vucci

We’ve been talking about Joe Biden’s “Build Back Better Act,” the huge budget reconciliation bill that he’s trying to push past Congress.

So, I wanted to do a little bit of breakdown of some of the problematic aspects of the bill.

First, let’s start with how huge it is. It’s 2,465 pages and 444,311 words long. That’s not a bill; that’s a treatise. Can we really anticipate that people are going to be able to competently read it and absorb all that’s in it? That’s one of the reasons that Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) called for a strategic “pause” to even be able to understand what’s in it — rather than going along with the plan to try to pistol-whip it through.

With the effort trying to shove it through, you know there are going to be a ton of things in there that they hope they can slip right by everyone, because it’s such a huge monstrosity of a bill. That’s just the wrong way to do things, and it’s a disservice both to the members of Congress and the American people to do things that way.

Then there’s the cost. We’ve been told repeatedly that it’s $3.5 trillion. That alone is giving the moderate Democrats like Manchin fits. Now, Joe Biden and some of the other Democrats, with help from the media, are trying to sell that it really will cost “zero dollars.”

Of course, as we said, that’s nonsense. Even if you found a way to pay for some of it, such as through more taxes, that doesn’t make the cost nothing. But beyond that smoke and mirrors lie that they are currently pushing, there’s a bigger problem — it may actually cost far more than that estimate.

According to the non-partisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget in July, the true cost is more likely to be around $5.5 trillion. Even The New York Times reported this week that the current bill is “likely to cost well over $3.5 trillion.” So, to put it plainly, when they can’t even get the basic bottom line number right, are we really to believe anything else that they are saying about this bill?

Then, on top of all that, let’s talk about some of the provisions within the bill.

The plan proposes almost $80 billion in mandatory spending for the IRS, according to Politico, basically doubling the work force with a proposed 87,000 new workers over the next decade. Given the past history of the bad use of the IRS by Obama-Biden, does this make anyone feel comfortable that they are so empowering the agency? On top of that, as we’ve previously reported, is the far reaching ability to look into virtually everyone’s bank accounts. At the moment, that applies to every account with $600 in it.

There are also additional reporting requirement for Pay Pal accounts, foreign accounts, and cryptocurrency, reportedly as well. Banks are flipping out, because that is a ton of work dropped in their lap that they didn’t have to do before — never mind the invasion of privacy.

But let’s not forget. It’s a Democratic bill, so it’s about pushing crazy agenda items.

There are their “equity” provisions. One of the ones that reads the funniest is the one for $3 billion for “tree equity.” Now that sounds like the Democrats are crying about racist trees. But, what it is is a tree- planting program that would plant trees in lower income neighborhoods that have fewer trees.

American Forests defines “tree equity” as identifying “the cities that can gain the most significant health, economic and climate benefits by increasing tree canopy in places of high need.” So it will provide that your tree count will be more ‘socially equitable.’

Then there’s the $15 million for older people who are “underserved” with gender identity issues. Why either of those provisions are really something that the federal government should be spending so much money on is a mystery to me. But that’s just the start of their “equity” provisions.

Then there’s the ideological indoctrination part. Twenty-five million dollars would go toward developing “anti-discrimination and bias training” for the health care sector. There’s also $4 billion for “neighborhood access and equity grants,” and $1 billion for a “electric vehicle charging equity program.” Are they going to put electric vehicle charging stations in poor neighborhoods for people who can’t afford those expensive electric cars? That sounds like something the federal government would do.

That leads us into all their climate change agenda items. There’s $7.5 billion for Biden’s “Civilian Climate Corps” — that would pay thousands of young people to do conservation and climate change-related projects on public lands. There’s also $5 billion for environmental and “climate justice” block grants for disadvantaged communities, $1.4 billion in climate change research, and $300 million to the government to conduct more efficient and effective environmental reviews.

Oh, and let’s not forget the $12 billion to outfit the federal fleet with electric cars — $7 billion of which would go to the U.S. Post Office — as well as the $1 billion to convert the General Services Administration facilities into “high-performance green buildings” over the next 10 years.

Now, of course, there have to be the pay-offs for their buddies. Not that a lot of the provisions we have already mentioned don’t also include some of that. But the union provisions are rather explicit.

There’s a provision that you get a tax deduction of $250 for paying dues to a labor organization. Basically, they’re trying to make people more inclined to join a union. But the fact they have to do that says something about how people are rejecting unions. If they had something worth anything, why would you be forced to pay people to increase membership? Then, there’s also the $5 million to buy  electronic voting systems for union elections. And exactly why does the federal government have to pay for this? It makes absolutely no sense, but as a payoff.

Then there’s there’s $2.8 billion to increase the capacity of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Now, I do think they need to do more to improve their system for those who legally enter. But I suspect that the aim of the Democrats here is less about that and more about thinking they can make as many new Democratic voters as possible.

Bottom line? This is an incredible boondoggle of massive proportions that should never pass.