Jeffries flirts with derailing long-overdue permitting reform

Killing a bipartisan deal to reduce electricity costs would signal that Democrats aren't serious about affordability.

Emboldened by the scale of Democratic victories in the midterms, a small group of liberals is trying to blow up a carefully negotiated bipartisan agreement that would make it easier to build in America. Failure to pass this compromise during the lame-duck session would send a loud message that the incoming Democratic majorities aren’t as serious about affordability as candidates said they were on the stump. And a deal this good for the economy is unlikely to materialize in the next Congress, which is why unions for the building trades and electricians are fighting to get it done.

Unfortunately, Hakeem Jeffries (D-New York), the presumptive next House speaker, wants to reopen negotiations. His spokesperson said on Thursday that the deal “falls short in several areas.” Without expressing opposition, Jeffries’s office said: “We must once again support the clean energy economy and combat the climate crisis with the fierce urgency of now.”

Except the deal on the table is great for the environment. Democratic negotiators in the Senate consulted closely with their House counterparts. The agreement would make it much easier to build clean energy projects and the transmission lines needed to connect them to the grid. While some environmental groups criticize the compromise for reducing regulatory barriers to construct fossil fuel infrastructure, a recent analysis by the independent Rhodium Group concluded that the legislation would probably cut carbon emissions overall.

“We must once again support the clean energy economy and combat the climate crisis with the fierce urgency of now.”

But but but but but my gas was high!!! Waaaaaaaaah.

Here comes the usual look on the low info voter’s face as they don’t get what they voted in anger for.

“Even The Washington Post editorial board seems to be admitting that the democRATs were lying about affordability.”

All politicians lie. The difference is, the media is all in for the DSA, so their lies will be ignored, or minimized. With a populace as stupid as the one in this country, it’s easy to cover for the DSA.

I am always wary of bipartisan agreements as it usually means bad news for the tax payers.

That being said beyond federal projects the federal government has no business inserting itself into local building regulations. That is the way you get demands for “affordable housing” and “sustainable zoning” and “green communities”. It usually means that counties and cities become lab rats for the latest ideas coming out of social engineering experts. From messing with traffic patterns to eliminating certain building materials to deciding just what can be built where they are busy coming up with ways to improve our lives. You don’t even have to ask.

Democrats, and especially Democrat Socialists, have no more of an idea about what “affordability” means than a bullfrog.

Their ideas revolve around “subsidy”, “rationing”, “prohibition”, and “tax the rich”.

Real affordability is actually a set of ratios that society has agreed upon, based on the estimated annual income of the individual, and takes into consideration the productivity of that individual in creating wealth, either by the sweat of the brow, or the machinations of intellect. Such and such a percentage of the total gross annual income is apportioned to food, housing, personal investments, lendable capital, and self-improvement, and so long as the individual is satisfied with the personal satisfaction achieved, all these things are “affordable”.

This concept is not at all understood by the Democratic Socialists, or anybody else with socialistic leanings. They think that all capital must be distributed according to the “greater good”, but they have no clue as to HOW the capital is generated in the first place, or that the individual has any rights whatsoever in determining how this capital shall be applied, and that those enterprises that are permitted can survive on subsidies from the largesse confiscated from the achievers who started the collection and investment of the capital. Activities or goods that are prohibited or restricted are managed by a crippling rate of taxation or rationing, which is supposed to be the source of the income the socialists plan to distribute to the greater part of the society, as a “reward”, or withheld to bring the recalcitrant into conformity.

Guaranteed to fail on some level or another, without the application of police power to compel the acceptance of the demands of the governing council of the socialist elite.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.