Redistribution of wealth comparison: climate programs vs. private sector contractors
Speaking Security Newsletter | Advisory Note for Organizers and Candidates, n°130 | 4 November 2021
If you find these notes useful, you can support this newsletter here and SPRI, here. Sharing these newsletters also helps. Thank you!
Now that it’s been cut in half, the largest chunk of Biden’s social spending plan (aka reconciliation bill, Build Back Better Act) is obligated for climate, accounting for $555 billion of the 10-year, $1.75 trillion bill. That’s not enough to reach Biden’s own (modest) emissions target, but that hasn’t stopped conservatives from railing against the $55.5 billion in annual climate funding as a massive ‘redistribution of wealth.’
Wealth redistribution is what Congress does
The charge of redistributing wealth is often invoked as a slur, but it’s better used to describe rather matter-of-factly what Congress does. The most direct way Congress does is through the authorization and appropriation of funds.
Conservatives can whine about climate finance contradicting the whims of the free market, but that’s not a critique they level at the considerably larger, state-run war economy.
Besides, the amount of climate finance in Biden’s Build Back Better (BBB) Act isn’t worth getting worked up over anyways (unless you care about the climate crisis, of course). Lockheed Martin will likely receive more federal funding next year than climate programs will get through Biden’s (shell of a) reconciliation bill, at least if Pentagon contracts are distributed anything like they were in FY2020:
Thanks for your time,
Stephen (@stephensemler; email@example.com)
Find this note useful? Please consider becoming a supporter of SPRI. Unlike establishment think tanks, we rely exclusively on small donations.