Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act, U.S. Supreme Court and Rep. Newhouse among Herald letters

Bill means more inflation not less

In the recent guest opinion by Madeleine Para and Steve Ghan, “The passage of the Inflation Reduction Act is a victory,” namely; 1) greenhouse gas emissions reduction, 2) reduced disasters, 3) reduced methane and 4) restored US global leadership.

Taken separately:

1) A 40% reduction in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions will reduce global emissions by about 5%. This will have no appreciable effect on global temperatures.

2) From 1895 to 2020 the average temperatures in the middle U.S. have not increased. So, the Missouri and Kentucky flooding was not likely impacted by global warming.

3) The article states that methane is a “big contributor” to global warming. For current concentrations…, it may be “many times more potent than CO2,” however, its contribution to warming is small due to its much lower atmospheric concentration.

4) Yes, it will help restore U.S. leadership. At the next Climate Summit in 2023, developing nations will demand hundreds upon hundreds of billions of dollars to follow the newly restored U.S. leadership.

The Inflation Reduction Act will cost over $739 billion, paid for by raising U.S. taxes and borrowing. It has about as much chance to change the climate as it does to reduce inflation.

Craig Brown, Richland

Alito: Court view tilting on church

A July 29 article in Slate magazine recently reported on a speech given by Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito. The speech was at an event sponsored by the Notre Dame Law School’s Religious Liberty Initiative, which had filed briefs arguing for overturning the Roe v. Wade decision.

In “economically advanced countries,” Alito said, religious liberty or faith is threatened by an “increasingly secular society” and its new “moral code” such as women’s equality, reproductive rights, LGBTQ rights and secular public education. He complained that many Americans think religion is not that important or worthy of special protection.

Alito said now that the Supreme Court consists of a majority of Christian conservatives, they will not accept the current separation of church and state.

This is a “breathtaking conflict of interest” when a justice gives a faith-based speech at a faith-based event sponsored by a faith-based party who filed the briefs before the court. Without any special knowledge of law, this doesn’t appear ethical.

I believe many Christians, as well as citizens of other faiths (Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc.) would question the justice’s premise and ethics. Government involvement in matters of faith harms both church and state. Matthew 22:21

William Petrie, Richland

Rep. Newhouse: Where’s $ going?

Rep. Dan Newhouse just published an article on his site titled “Student Loan Forgiveness Hurts Everyday Americans” in which he stated that all of the forgiven debt would mostly fall upon the shoulders of those who had never taken one out.

Perhaps, but I must ask the question where he thinks those forgiven dollars are going? They don’t just disappear. Rather than paying the banks, those $500 billion to $1 trillion dollars will end up being either spent or saved by those borrowers. Those dollars will help spur the economy and help those burdened with student loans get on with their lives. So, Mr. Newhouse, rather than just spewing out the party line, please show us that you have really thought these things through.

Alan Wicks, Kennewick