Happy Birthday, Inflation Reduction Act!

It feels a bit like Groundhog Day in Washington at the moment. Returning after a week’s vacation, I plugged back in this morning to discover that Donald Trump is bracing for another indictment, this time for his post-election antics in Georgia; that none of his Republican rivals show any sign of making a dent in his primary lead; that Hunter Biden’s misdeeds continue to dog the president; and that Team Biden is gearing up for yet another week trying to win America over on “Bidenomics.”The excuse for Biden’s latest bit of economic salesmanship is the…

It feels a bit like Groundhog Day in Washington at the moment. Returning after a week’s vacation, I plugged back in this morning to discover that Donald Trump is bracing for another indictment, this time for his post-election antics in Georgia; that none of his Republican rivals show any sign of making a dent in his primary lead; that Hunter Biden’s misdeeds continue to dog the president; and that Team Biden is gearing up for yet another week trying to win America over on “Bidenomics.”

The excuse for Biden’s latest bit of economic salesmanship is the one-year anniversary of the Inflation Reduction Act. This means we will be treated to tired catchphrases that refuse to catch on, such as “grow the economy from the middle out and the bottom up, not the top down.” It also means we will watch Democrats get frustrated that Biden isn’t getting the economic credit they think he deserves. That frustration makes little allowance for the important point (covered before in this newsletter) that Biden’s economic track record isn’t nearly as rosy as they seem to think it. Instead, Biden’s problem is a messaging one.

Last week the president identified what he sees as the source of the confusion: the name of the Inflation Reduction Act. “I wish I hadn’t called it that,” he said at a Democratic fundraiser last week, adding that “it has less to do with reducing inflation than it has to do with providing alternatives that generate economic growth.”

In other words: the president now acknowledges the obvious fact that the name of his flagship legislation was a cynical and short-sighted bit of spin that strained credulity by branding a massive spending bill as an act of inflation-busting fiscal responsibility.

If you need reminding of the Orwellian extent of the misrepresentation, consider former Obama economic advisor Jason Furman’s assessment of whether the Inflation Reduction Act deserves any of the credit for reduced inflation: “I can’t think of any mechanism by which it would have brought down inflation to date,” he told the Associated Press.

In complaining about the Inflation Reduction Act’s confusing name, Biden and his allies demonstrate a remarkable degree of political amnesia. Their massive climate-focused spending bill had to be renamed for a reason: that a more straightforwardly branded piece of legislation was a nonstarter in the Senate and unpopular with voters.

If that was true in 2022, would 2023 be any different? A cheerier inflation outlook certainly helps, but the IRA is also set to be far more expensive than initially promised. A Brookings analysis from April forecast that the ten-year cost of the legislation will be around $900 billion, more than double the $400 billion estimated by the Congressional Budget Office. (Anger at this ballooning cost is part of the reason why Joe Manchin will be skipping White House celebrations of the IRA’s one-year anniversary this week.)

For Bidenworld, the Inflation Reduction Act grows in world-historic significance as memories of its passage fade. What was a hastily assembled compromise tagged with a misleading title is, in their minds, is now remembered as a momentous step into the sunlit, and very green, uplands. The number of voters who agree may be smaller than they think.

On our radar

RFK’S ABORTION CONFUSION In the latest example of his not being entirely sure of which party’s presidential nomination he is seeking, RFK Jr. found himself committing to a nationwide fifteen-week abortion ban in Iowa this weekend, before backtracking. Kennedy’s team claimed their candidate misunderstood the question.

LOSE YOURSELF IN IOWA The road to the White House is a long and winding one. And so it’s important for candidates to pace themselves, to take it all in, to stop and smell the roses, to touch grass. Or to deliver a rendition of “Lose Yourself” at the Iowa State Fair.

Why Blinken’s Iran guarantees are meaningless

According to multiple outlets, four US nationals have been moved from Evin prison in Iran to house arrest. This is reportedly part of a process that became public in June which may release about $6 billion in funds to Iran that have been held in South Korea under sanctions. A one-for-one release of Iranian prisoners in the US would also be implemented. Secretary of state Antony Blinken has said that “Iran will not be receiving any sanctions relief” and that any money-for-hostages deal would use “Iran’s own funds” that could “only be used for humanitarian purposes.”

But are these assurances what they seem? Michael Rubin of the American Enterprise Institute says that “This [restricting the money to humanitarian purposes] is not possible to ensure.” He continued: “We heard similar guarantees during the Obama administration and the funds disappeared into [Iranian] Revolutionary Guard coffers.” The Wall Street Journal editorial board points out that the claim of Iran “not receiving any sanctions relief” is “a semantic distinction without much of a difference.”

Blinken says that “none of these efforts take away from” US moves to “push back resolutely against Iran’s destabilizing activities in the region and beyond,” calling them “entirely separate tracks.” Unfortunately, separating these issues is not possible when billions of dollars are involved. The Journal argues that “Iran will use the cash the same way it did the money it received from the Barack Obama-John Kerry 2015 nuclear deal — to spread mayhem in the Middle East and beyond.”

–John Pietro

Memo to pols: stop mixing sports and politics

Fumble! Everyone is dropping the ball when it comes to mixing sports and politics. President Joe Biden tried to relate to former Democratic senator Martin Heinrich with a ham-fisted football reference, telling him, “I’m glad I was a flanker back. I’m glad I didn’t have you on the other side as a tight end.”

Unfortunately, the term “flanker back” is only known to anyone under the age of eighty as a wide receiver. Plus a flanker would never be squaring off against a tight end, since they’re both offensive positions. Oh, Uncle Joe!

Meanwhile, one of Biden’s potential 2024 opponents, Florida governor Ron DeSantis, clearly should have stuck to baseball. The DeSantis campaign’s new “game plan” ad features a litany of football no-nos. There are only two defenders on the field, two of which appear to be offside, and an illegal formation on the part of the offense. Perhaps another attempt to out-Trump Trump, who is currently fighting off three indictments for his own alleged criminality.

Clay Travis, the guy who started a sports website called Outkick the Coverage and used to commentate for Fox Sports, didn’t fare much better. His new book, American Playbook, which is meant to be a guide to beating the Democratic Party, also depicts an illegal offensive formation on the cover. Travis only has six players on the line of scrimmage, meaning the GOP’s attempts at winning back the country will immediately suffer a five-yard penalty after being flagged for too many men in the backfield. A preview of the 2024 debate stage perhaps?

–Cockburn