Home
/
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
/
The Inflation Reduction Act Won’t Reduce Inflation
The Inflation Reduction Act Won’t Reduce Inflation
Mar 11, 2026 7:38 PM

But you knew that already.

Read More…

President Biden has signed the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), his attempt at delivering on his campaign promises of new investments bat climate change, improve healthcare, and impose “fair” corporate taxes. The IRA is a revival of the now defunct and unpopular Build Back Better (BBB) Act, ushered in at a whopping $3.5 trillion. Penn Wharton estimates that the IRA will reduce cumulative budget deficits by $264 billion over the 10-year budget window. The Tax Foundation e in at a $178 billion reduction—and both studies suggest a near-zero effect on inflation. The promise for the inflation reduction lies in the new spending being offset by increases in taxes, as well as promises to lower prices in healthcare and energy. But keep in mind that this just piles on to massive existing spending and the new student-debt relief, to the tune of $1 trillion.

But first, some basic principles. Inflation is the purview of the Federal Reserve. We need to remember the wisdom of Nobel laureate Milton Friedman (1970): “Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon in the sense that it is and can be produced only by a more rapid increase in the quantity of money than in output.” The Federal Reserve has historically followed a dual mandate: stabilize prices and maximize employment. Inflation, the persistent rise in prices, falls squarely within the domain of the Federal Reserve. And the Fed has not been pulling its weight. The newly released Consumer Price Index (CPI) data reveal an 8.3% inflation rate year over year. The Fed needs a mitment to price stability by ensuring that money supply is in line with money demand. This means not getting further embroiled in the unorthodox monetary policies of the past several years, which have included nontraditional asset purchases and direct loans to businesses and to municipal and state governments, tactics that economist Alexander Salter deems “monetary mischief.” Getting inflation under control requires reining in the Fed, which means we will need not just temporary rate hikes but also mitment to honest monetary policy. The IRA has nothing to do with the Fed, as such, and so it will fail, even if it does have a trendy name. Moreover, it is window dressing on the BBB Act, which was a Trojan horse of special interest perks and trendy boondoggles in healthcare and climate change.

There are several significant issues the IRA emphasizes, including corporate tax provisions, healthcare, and the ubiquitous climate. Uncoincidentally, these are of great importance to the elite progressive left, which fully intends to delegitimize corporations and instill greater federal governance. Just this week, Lindsey Graham offered to team up with Elizabeth Warren and Josh Hawley to spawn a new regulatory agency that would oversee and panies like Twitter and Facebook. Bernie Sanders wants to make healthcare “free,” and AOC is pursuing a radical climate-change agenda to battle a crisis she asserts only the government can wage. Our brave new world has arrived.

Corporate Provisions

The IRA establishes a corporate alternative minimum tax of 15%, which, according to the White House, is aimed at leveling the playing field by making corporations pay their “fair share.” It also imposes a 1% excise tax on the corporate net repurchase (buyback) of stock. It provides $79 billion in new IRS funding over the next 10 years, which will in part be used to hire more IRS agents. Biden promises that if you make less than $400,000 per year, you will face no new tax burdens. It leads one to wonder how all the new IRS agents will spend their time. Certainly, they e after more than just the billionaires. The obvious answer to all this is to simplify rather plicate the tax code.

Healthcare Provisions

The IRA allows Medicare to negotiate the prices of certain prescription drugs and extends the Premium Tax Credits of the Affordable Care Act. It also mandates rebates to Medicare from drug manufacturers that increase prices faster than inflation. It also caps out-of-pocket costs for insulin at $35 per month. The White House touts these as wins for ordinary Americans and views it as a heroic effort to tame the privilege of panies. Let’s extend the benefit of the doubt and argue that their intentions are good. After all, we want diabetics to afford their insulin, and in general we want to increase the quality and availability of pharmaceuticals at decreasing costs to the consumer.

What the legislation misses, however, is the necessity of the market economy. Rather than living in a world where a giant health bureaucracy negotiates prices, why not let the market do that? If we reduce barriers to entry, we will encourage “start up” panies and petition, which would do away with the current boutique panies that use the regulatory process to petition difficult. The regulatory process has a dismal track record because it possesses neither the knowledge nor the incentives to manage industries. The FDA has to manage both the safety and the efficacy of drugs, a difficult balancing act at times. In many cases, it has over-invested in safety, which has the unintended consequence of delaying safe and lifesaving drugs. We call this a Type II error—the drug should have been introduced but it was delayed. For example, the delayed approval of beta-blockers is estimated to have cost at least 250,000 lives.

Climate Provisions

The IRA also includes $368 billion for energy and climate programs, including tax credits and efforts to encourage domestic production of solar panels, wind turbines, and batteries. This is nothing more than old-fashioned mercantilism dressed up as modern industrial policy. Don’t worry if you can’t afford a high-end Tesla—there’s are subsidies for that, like the $7,500 tax credit for new electric-powered vehicles and $4,000 for used ones. We can see how well this is working in the climate-friendly state of California, which is phasing out the sale of gasoline-powered cars to force new purchases of electric cars while simultaneously asking electric-car owners not to charge their electric vehicles amid the current California heat wave. It’s a “let them eat drive cake” manifestation of technocratic planning.

The lessons we can learn from this are clear. It is good to have a tax code that is transparent and fosters innovation. Just because a corporation is large doesn’t make it bad (or good, for that matter). Market conditions determine firm size, so the best the government can do here is provide an environment of economic freedom that fosters innovation and problem-solving. It’s unquestionably desirable to have cheap, high-quality, and easily accessible drugs, but we need to free the market, not further bureaucratize it, to obtain that goal. Finally, stewardship implores us to care for the environment, but fostering what amounts to domestic subsidies will further fan the flames of special interest group politics. Even if this bill pays for itself through increases in taxes, we must look at whether it can even achieve its stated goals of lowering drug and energy prices and whether it will further entangle markets in corporate welfare through subsidies that generate petitions for ever-greater future subsidies, expanding the culture of corporate cronyism.

Just this week, Biden celebrated the IRA at the White House, calling it a bill that will cut costs for families, is pro-worker, and will raise taxes on “billion-dollar corporations.” This is hard to reconcile with pressing inflation and constant fears of a looming recession. This bill seems much more like a Hail Mary to pacify voters ahead of the midterm elections. We shouldn’t be fooled.

Comments
Welcome to mreligion comments! Please keep conversations courteous and on-topic. To fosterproductive and respectful conversations, you may see comments from our Community Managers.
Sign up to post
Sort by
Show More Comments
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
Economic man is a myth, but ‘nudging’ is a distraction
The University of Chicago’s Richard Thaler recently won the Nobel Prize for his contributions in behavioral economics, much of which centers on challenging rational choice theory. “Renowned for his use of data to observe and predict how people behave in the real world,” writes Derek Thompson, “Thaler’s career has been a lifelong war on Homo economicus, that mythical species of purely rational hominids who dwell exclusively in the models of classical economic theory.” Victor Claar has helpfully summarized Thaler’s work...
More victims of the $15 minimum wage
The deleterious side effects of the $15-per-hour minimum wage have continued to manifest across the country, affecting cities from Seattle to Minneapolis and states from California to New York. To illustrate the damage, the Employment Policies Instituteis maintaining a catalog of suffering businesses across the country, highlighting stories of raised consumer prices, increased unemployment, reduced working hours, and outright business closures. I’ve pointed to several of those stories in the past, and in four new videos, EPI offers fresh glimpses...
3 Reasons income tax cuts (almost) always benefit the wealthy
Death and taxes may be the only certainties in life, but there is a close third: e tax cuts mostly benefit e workers. As Congress discusses tax reform, the debate about who will benefit from tax cuts is back in the news. And many people are concerned with how the changes will favor high e earners. Even President Trump has promised that the reforms won’t give wealthy Americans a massive tax cut. The reality is that there is almost no...
Marketers ‘nudge’ us, but should government?
On Monday the University of Chicago’s Richard Thaler won a Nobel Prize for his work in behavioral economics. “Thaler’s work raises important questions about the state’s influence over human action,” says Victor V. Claar in this week’s Acton Commentary. In some years two or three economists share the prize for their collective contributions to a specific line of inquiry, but this year the 72-year-old Thaler was the sole recipient for his accumulated plishments in behavioral economics. Put simply, behavioral economics...
Radio Free Acton: Ben DeGrow on school choice; Econ Quiz on tax reform; Upstream on Ray Bradbury
On this episode of Radio Free Acton, Caroline Roberts talks with Ben DeGrow, Director of Education Policy at The Mackinac Center for Public Policy, about school choice, previewing his panel presentation at Acton’s ingEducation & Freedom conference. Then, Caroline Roberts hosts another Econ Quiz with guest Dave Hebert, Professor of Economics at Aquinas college on the topic of the week: tax reform. Finally, on the Upstream segment, Bruce Edward Walker talks with Jonathan R. Eller, Chancellors Professor of English at...
Christian education is not safe
“Each generation needs to re-own the rationale for Christian education,” says philosopher James K.A. Smith, “to ask ourselves ‘Why did we do this?’ and ‘Should we keep doing this?’” In answering such questions, Smith notes, “it might be helpful to point out what Christian education is not”: First, Christian education is not meant to be merely “safe” education. The impetus for Christian schooling is not a protectionist concern, driven by fear, to sequester children from the big, bad world. Christian...
Sin taxes: The ‘nudge’ that benefits terrorism
Richard Thaler won the Nobel Prize for describe how even small economic incentives can affect behavior. One of those nudges, high “sin taxes,” has helped finance terrorism and organized crime. Sin taxes played some role in his winning the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences this week. The Nobel Committee that awarded Thaler’s prize in economics noted, “The insights of behavioral economics can also be used to inform more traditional policy interventions, for example the taxation of ‘sinful goods,’” adding...
Samuel Gregg: Ideas, intellectuals and the free economy
In another round of conservative debate on the virtues — or vices — of the market economy, Acton Research Director Samuel Gregg published a new piece at Public Discourse in which he takes on the critiques of writer Matthew McManus. MacManus’ criticisms were written in reply to an earlier piece in which Gregg addresses the growing criticisms of a free economy by editors and writers at First Things magazine. In Gregg’s article, Capitalism, Conservatives, and the Intellectuals: A Reply to...
Does bundling benefit social welfare?
Note: This is post #53 in a weekly video series on basic microeconomics. Bundling refers to when two or more goods are sold together as a package. Cable TV is a prime example of bundling. What if there was no bundling and you had to pay for Cable TV by channel rather than purchasing channels in bundles? Would you end up paying more or less? In this video by Marginal Revolution University, economist Alex Tabarrok explains the benefits of bundling....
The ‘nudge’ that separated families
Richard Thaler, the co-author of Nudge, has won the Nobel Prize for his contributions to behavioral economics. While he decides how best to spend his $1.1 million in prize money, less prosperous families are paying the price for government policies advancing economic paternalism. Thaler suggested in a 2012 New York Times op-ed that the United States follow Europe’s lead in raising the price of gasoline in order to preserve the environment. Hiking the gas tax would be a more efficient...
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2026 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved