It was Biden’s biggest “accomplishment.” The so-called Inflation Reduction Act, which he later admitted had nothing to do with inflation (it actually did, just not in the direction the name suggested) but was really about dumping billions (really trillions) into subsidizing the green new scam. It was the biggest acceleration towards the “Net Zero” climate scam resulting in utilities across the country, especially here in Arizona, spamming the grid with unreliable energy generation such as solar, wind, and battery storage, driving up rates for utility customers while shattering reliability.
What finally made it through Congress and was signed into law on July 4th terminated tax credits for electric vehicles, “energy efficient” home improvements, and residential solar this year. As for the much larger credits, those subsidizing grid scale solar and wind farms, it’s much more complicated.
The Environmental Protection Agency officially proposed to terminate what President Trump has long called the “climate hoax.” If successful, the federal government will be out of the climate regulation business with no hope of returning to it without congressional authorization.
The Trump EPA proposed to rescind a 2009 Obama EPA rule called the “endangerment finding.” In that rulemaking, the Obama EPA determined that emissions of greenhouse gases threatened human health and welfare by causing global warming. Simultaneously with the EPA proposal, the Trump Department of Energy issued a scientific report summarizing why emissions are actually a good thing and threaten nothing.
The scientific findings, however, are superfluous since EPA never had express authority from Congress to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act in the first place. Controversy and litigation about EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases resulted in the 2007 Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA. In that case, the Court determined in a 5-4 holding that EPA could, but did not have to, regulate emissions.
But the decision was controversial. Clean Air Act co-author and famed Democrat Congressman, the late John Dingell, afterwards stated: “I think the Supreme Court came up with a very much erroneous decision on whether the Clean Air Act covers greenhouse gases. I was present when we wrote that legislation and we thought it was clear enough that it did not, and we didn’t clarify it thinking that even the Supreme Court was not stupid enough to make that finding.”
Following the decision, the Bush EPA decided that it would not regulate emissions. When the Obama administration came into power in 2009, it reversed the Bush EPA’s decision and began using the endangerment finding as the basis for regulation of smokestack and tailpipe emissions of greenhouse gases.
Although many questioned the scientific basis of the Obama EPA’s decision, it was impossible to get a judicial hearing on the science. Federal judges informally decided decades ago that they would defer to regulatory agency decisions on questions of science.
With the endangerment finding apparently firmly in place, the Obama administration, and later the Biden administration, proceeded to regulate tailpipe and power plant emissions of greenhouse gases.
Cracks in the ability of EPA to use the endangerment finding soon began to appear. In 2014, the Supreme Court determined that the Clean Air Act did not authorize EPA to use the endangerment finding to regulate emissions of greenhouse gases from industrial smokestacks. In 2022, the Supreme Court in West Virginia v. EPA nullified an effort to regulate emission from power plants, holding that EPA could not launch major regulatory programs without express congressional authorization.
Today, all that remains of EPA’s endangerment finding-based rules are tailpipe regulations in the form of the Biden EPA’s de facto EV mandate, a rule that the Trump administration is in the process of reversing.
Since the Obama EPA made the endangerment finding, electricity prices have soared. Gas prices and inflation soared during the Biden administration. Tens of thousands of high-paying coal miner jobs have been destroyed and their communities devastated.
Our electricity grid has been made less reliable by the advent of existentially subsidized wind and solar power. Periods of peak electricity demand like summer heat waves and winter cold spells now routinely result in blackout/brownout warnings. This problem will get worse before it gets better with the ongoing electricity demand from AI data centers and the re-industrialization of America.
Blue states and their climate activist allies will no doubt sue the Trump EPA to stop the rescission of the endangerment finding. But all this will accomplish is the Supreme Court almost certainly reversing its original sin committed in Massachusetts v. EPA. Some of us can’t wait.
Steve Milloy is a contributor to The Daily Caller News Foundation, a biostatistician, and lawyer, who publishes JunkScience.com and is on X @JunkScience.
In a new report from Common Sense Institute (CSI) Arizona, inflation as measured by the Consumer Price Index (CPI) in the Phoenix metro area, remained under the 2% target for the sixth consecutive month. In February, CSI Arizona recorded a year-over-year inflation rate of 1.8% for the metropolitan area. The national rate is currently +2.8% year-over-year, although it is down since President Donald Trump took office.
According to CSI Arizona, the largest driver of inflation has long been the cost of shelter, which was up +0.7% in February with annual shelter costs rising 1.2% year over year. In a post to X, CSI summarized the report stating, “Phoenix is outperforming most of the country when it comes to rising prices.”
Phoenix’s inflation rate has stayed below 2% for six straight months—offering relief for local households. Meanwhile, national inflation remains at 2.8%—showing that Phoenix is outperforming most of the country when it comes to rising prices.
— Common Sense Institute Arizona (@CSInstituteAZ) March 12, 2025
The report noted, “Among the 23 metro areas measured in the CPI each month, Phoenix ranks 22 in year-over-year inflation (2nd lowest). This is a dramatic change from 2022-2023, when the region consistently ranked among the highest.”
CSI Arizona goes on to observe in the report that the rate of national inflation has historically followed trends in the federal deficit with an approximate lag of 12-24 months and local or state levels are subject to regional dynamics as well, but tend to correspond with the national rate. In December, Fox 10 reported that homelessness in Arizona saw a 3.5% increase since 2023, with over 14,000 people experiencing homelessness.
Nathan Smith, CEO of Central Arizona Shelter Services told the outlet, “The cost of living continues to outstrip what people are making, and we’re seeing that we’re at a bit of an inflection point here in Arizona as we are facing the highest eviction rate that we’ve ever had.”
Arizona lawmakers are facing mounting backlash over a proposed pay raise bill that would increase the salaries of state legislators by a significant margin. Senate Concurrent Resolution 1003, introduced in the Arizona State Senate, seeks to boost the base pay for Arizona legislators, raising concerns about the timing of the proposal and the growing burden on taxpayers in an already financially strained state.
The bill, which passed initial stages in the legislature, aims to increase the base salary of lawmakers from $24,000 to $48,000, a 100% increase. Additionally, it proposes an increase in per diem payments and other benefits. The bill’s sponsors argue that this pay increase is necessary to attract qualified candidates to public office as well as keeping up with inflation.
The bill’s sponsor, Senator John Kavanaugh, says that he’s not worried about potential pushback from Arizona voters. “I do not think those voters wanted their $24,000 raise diluted by inflation to about $11,000,” Kavanaugh said. He said this calculation was based on the buying power that figure had in 1998—the last time Arizona lawmakers received a pay raise.
However, critics of the bill argue that such a significant pay raise for lawmakers comes at a time when many Arizonans are struggling to make ends meet due to rising costs of living and a housing crisis that has left many families in financial hardship. The proposal has raised questions about whether elected officials are out of touch with the economic realities faced by their constituents.
The timing of the bill has led some to question the motivation behind it. Critics argue that lawmakers, many of whom already have full-time jobs outside of their legislative duties, should not be seeking a pay raise while so many Arizonans are still struggling financially. Others believe the pay raise is necessary to ensure current lawmakers can make ends meet.
Democrat Senator Eva Burch recently announced her resignation from the legislature, citing that she’s struggling to make ends meet and to find balance with her legislative work and her job as a healthcare provider. “I know that I am not the first, nor will be the last, good person to find themselves a casualty of legislative pay,” said Burch.
As SCR 1003 makes its way through the Arizona Legislature, the controversy surrounding the proposed pay raise for state lawmakers is unlikely to subside anytime soon. With many Arizonans still feeling the financial pressure from rising living costs, the bill has become a flashpoint in the ongoing debate over government priorities and fiscal responsibility.
Jonathan Eberle is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
Donald Trump’s renewed pledge to “Make America Great Again” requires nothing less than reigniting economic growth and prosperity. Wealth creation is essential. Yet as Congress prepares to extend and expand upon Trump’s landmark Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, he can take matters into his own hands by issuing an executive order to index capital gains for inflation.
Taxing inflationary “phantom” capital gains is an unfair and ill-advised policy that punishes risk and success.
Consider this: You invest $1,000, and after four years of Joe Biden in the White House, you sell that investment for $1,100. But since inflation raged during Biden’s tenure, the $1,100 you receive will be worth less in real terms than the $1,000 you invested. And yet, under current law, you will pay a tax on your $100 capital “gain.”
Talk about perverse!
“As has been well documented,” writes Alan Auerbach, University of California economist, “realized capital gains may be subject to tax rates that easily exceed 100% of real gains in the presence of inflation.”
But it’s the law. And not only would eliminating it be the fair thing to do for investors, it would ignite a surge of American prosperity.
Eight years ago, the late Treasury economist Gary Robbins estimated that indexing capital gains for inflation would, by 2025, create an additional 400,000 jobs, grow the U.S. capital stock by $1.1 trillion and boost GDP by roughly $500 billion. Because capital gains were never indexed, average household income today is $3,600 lower than it could have been otherwise.
However, it’s never too late to start doing the right thing.
Congress has repeatedly toyed with indexing capital gains. In fact, indexing capital gains used to be a bipartisan issue. In the early 1990s, congressional Democrats touted indexing as an effective way to boost economic growth and benefit workers.
“If we really want to increase growth,” said a youthful Chuck Schumer, the then-future Senate minority leader, “there are proposals that we can do. I would be for indexing all capital gains, savings and borrowings.”
Having mastered the ways of the D.C. swamp, Schumer now opposes indexing capital gains. Listen to Congressman Schumer, not Senator Swamp.
Indeed, as Trump emphasized in 2019, “Indexing is something that a lot of people have liked for a long time. It’s something that would be very easy to do. It’s something that I am certainly thinking about.”
Looking forward, the Congressional Budget Office estimated last month that federal capital gains tax receipts will total $2.8 trillion over the decade ahead. If only one-fourth of those tax receipts—a conservative estimate—are due to taxing phantom gains, American taxpayers will pay $700 billion in taxes on income that doesn’t exist.
Opponents of capital gains indexation say the subsequent revenue loss would be too great. But inasmuch as inflationary gains should not have been taxed in the first place, a revenue loss is a good thing. It represents the correction of a tax injustice.
The second-order effects that Robbins documents should remove any reservations based on revenue loss. Without the federal tax on inflationary gains, asset prices will adjust until they reach a new, higher equilibrium. Investors will see their portfolios appreciate bigly.
It’s a safe bet that millions of American investors and pensioners would choose a Dow Jones average of 50,000 with indexation over a Dow Jones average of 44,500 without indexation.
As taxpayers realize real capital gains, the federal government will collect billions of dollars in new tax revenue. Federal tax revenue may ultimately be higher with indexation, not lower.
There is the question of whether Trump has the legal authority to issue an executive order instructing the Treasury secretary to issue new regulations indexing the capital gains cost basis for inflation. It comes down to whether the governing Internal Revenue Code section covering the definition of the word “cost” is sufficiently ambiguous to allow regulatory reinterpretation. Congress never specifically mandated that “cost” was to be determined in nominal terms, nor did it prohibit the use of real valuation.
According to a watershed 2012 paper by Charles Cooper and Vincent Colatriano in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, “jurisprudential developments over the last two decades have confirmed . . . that Treasury has regulatory authority to index capital gains for inflation.” With that justification, Trump has little reason to hold back.
James Carter is a contributor to The Daily Caller News Foundation and a principal with Navigators Global. He previously headed President Donald Trump’s tax team during the 2016-17 transition and served as a deputy assistant secretary of the Treasury for then-President George W. Bush.
