top of page

AFF Sentinel-Vol 20#17-Piling On: Part II

Regulations Plus,

False Vaccine Fears Carry Over to Beef Eating

Steve Dittmer | AFF Sentinel

Colorado Springs, CO

Originally sent to subscribers 04/05/23

Edi. Note: Ever since decreasing cattle numbers and increasing advertising costs crimped the checkoff’s capacity to advertise, the CBB has worked hard to utilize social media to promote beef and educate consumers.

However, social media can have its downside. Today, NCBA issued a statement addressing false information circulating on social media about mRNA vaccines and beef consumption. Evidently, there have been rumors that eating beef could put mRNA fragments in the eaters system.

NCBA’s statement makes it clear this is impossible: "There are no current mRNA vaccines licensed for use in beef cattle in the United States. Cattle farmers and ranchers do vaccinate cattle to treat and prevent many diseases, but presently none of these vaccines include mRNA technology."

Regarding regulations, the latest news is a perfect example of re-writing laws passed by Congress by unelected bureaucrats in a federal agency. Read enough legal briefs and legislation and you discover that definitions are the key to everything. In this case, the Treasury Department is changing the definitions of the Inflation Reduction Act’s law regarding electric vehicle (EV) subsidies to drastically change the law’s effect. And guess who will pay the bill?

It seems there is another chapter in the Hornswoggling Joe Manchin saga. Manchin wanted to encourage EV manufacturing, parts sourcing and battery making in the U.S. If the practice of subsidizing EV purchases was to continue, he wanted average Americans to get the benefit. Incomes for individuals could not top $150,000 and prices for pickups and SUV’s couldn’t top $80,000 and $55,000 for sedans.

Half of the $7,500 credit was tied to battery mineral components extracted or processed in the U.S. or by a free trade partner. The other half was for battery components made in North America (“A Bait-and-Switch on Electric Vehicles,” Wall Street Journal, 04/1-2/23).

Most EV’s available in the U.S. now wouldn’t qualify. So the Treasury Department went to work. They raised some of the income levels. Their proposed rule would allow leases to evade all the restrictions. Free trade agreements could just be one-off deals struck to get around the law. The White House is busy striking those kinds of deals with EU countries that are angry at Biden for dumping billions in subsidies on our green energy industries anyway.

Manchin is angry that Treasury is actively eviscerating his conditions. But we like this quote too:

“It is a pathetic excuse to spend more taxpayer dollars as quickly as possible…,” he said.

That defines much of Biden’s administration and Congress’ perception of its role in the country.

Incidentally, there was news today that the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals again blocked previous approvals for the pipeline Manchin has been trying to get permitted in West Virginia. We saw one headline about Manchin as the star of more episodes about Charlie Brown, Lucy and the football.

What is the bottom line of Treasury’s blatant moves to push EV’s on consumers and damage taxpayers? Goldman Sachs calculated that Treasury’s work would raise the cost of the subsidies in the bill for climate and energy subsidies from $391 billion to over $1.2 trillion over ten years.

So it seems the Biden administration’s bureaucrats have figured out most of us are not interested in buying EVs unless the government coughs up bribes to do so. Even with the subsidies they have been offering, most people aren’t interested.

And we’re not going to get much help from automakers. They are already in the midst of spending hundreds of billions to tool up to make EVs. Ford last year laid off hundreds of people in gas engine design because they aren’t going to need to develop new engine technology for cars they’re going to quit making. With planned bans in place already in certain markets, and mere consumers’ inability to know if those bans will be delayed or rescinded, how do we plan for our last purchases of gas-powered cars and diesel trucks? We have to back time it and plan to have our last ones for many years because new ones will not be available. And the last step in coercion will, of course, be banning or destroying spare parts for cars they don’t want you to have.

The overburdened taxpayers can comment for 60 days after the proposed rule is published in the Federal Register, scheduled for April 17, 2023. When they do, look for a comment post for IRS proposed rule REG-120080-22 on the regulations site:

This whole economic morass and historic inflation cycle was deliberately planned, not to serve the average citizen or make life better for everyone but to serve activists -- and the uninformed who slavishly follow their lead -- to serve what they term short-term pain for long-term gain. Problem is, their version of short-term is ridiculous. Those who follow them don’t realize “short-term” could last three or four decades, i.e. long after the politicians and bureaucrats forcing this stuff on us are out of office or retired…if anyone can afford to retire ever again if we allow them to keep running the government and economy.

Recent Posts

See All


bottom of page