One of the biggest money-in-your-pocket policies from the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) is causing a major stir in the U.S. and abroad. The new $7,500 electric vehicle tax credit went into effect Jan. 1, but at least one Senate Democrat wants to temporarily yank back the perk.

Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., introduced a bill last week to delay the program he helped write over a major disagreement he’s having with the Treasury Department on its implementation. The Treasury is also facing pressure from U.S. allies over the requirements to qualify for credits.

The challenge

From the moment the IRA passed, it was clear that it would be pretty hard to even find a vehicle to buy that qualified for the full $7,500 EV tax credit.

The new rules state that in 2023, at least 40% of the car batteries’ minerals must be extracted or processed in the U.S. or in a country with which the U.S. has a free-trade agreement. That percentage goes up to 80% by 2027.

On top of that, in 2023, 50% of the battery components must be manufactured or assembled in North America. That percentage goes up to 100% by 2029. Final assembly of the vehicle must also take place in North America.

The glaring issue of these requirements is that the supply chain to meet them doesn’t yet exist. According to the International Energy Agency, in 2021 China controlled about 75% of the battery market, compared with 7% from the U.S.

The legislation will no doubt incentivize more American-sourced and made battery components – and reduce reliance on China – but it won’t happen overnight.

Manchin’s issue

Three days before the new EV tax credit policy was set to take effect, the Treasury announced it was delaying the mineral and battery component requirements until March so it could have more time to figure out how to measure those percentages to determine which vehicles would qualify under the terms.

But it wasn’t delaying credits from taking effect, so starting Jan. 1, people could score the extra $7,500 tax credit by buying a vehicle that met the other guidelines, battery requirements not included.

“It is unacceptable that the U.S. Treasury has failed to issue updated guidance for the 30D electric vehicle tax credits and continues to make the full $7,500 credits available without meeting all of the clear requirements included in the Inflation Reduction Act,” Manchin said in a statement.

His proposed legislation would stop EV credits until the Treasury issues guidelines in line with the IRA. And what about the scores of EV buyers who already claimed the credit since Jan. 1? Manchin’s office confirmed with Straight Arrow News that those taxpayers would need to refund the money.

U.S. allies’ issue

Manchin’s concern is not the only backlash the Treasury is facing. Major U.S. allies like the EU and Japan are taking issue with the minerals requirement that mandates a certain percentage come from the U.S. or a country with which the U.S. has a free-trade agreement.

The EU and Japan do not have traditional free-trade agreements with the U.S. and the language in the legislation is sparking threats of a trade war. The EU claims the U.S. subsidies discriminate against European EV makers.

Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said the EU and Japan could negotiate new trade agreements to come into mineral compliance, but that solution will not satisfy the other two parts of the deal, where battery components must be made in North America and final vehicle assembly must also happen on the continent.

Some EU leaders have proposed introducing competing subsidies for vehicles built on the bloc, to counter the U.S. tax breaks.

The Biden administration is reportedly considering cutting off Huawei from all American technology. The move would be the biggest crackdown on the Chinese telecommunications company to date.

The Financial Times was the first to report the possibility, with a source saying it would be “catastrophic” for the company. The harsh course of action is in part inspired by the U.S. government’s fears that Huawei helps China engage in spying. Huawei has denied this claim.

The Trump administration first blacklisted Huawei in 2019 by adding it to the Entity List. The list contains those suspected of being involved in or at risk of getting involved in activities that risk national security. Since being added to the list, U.S. suppliers like Intel and Qualcomm have needed government approval to sell to the tech giant.

The Biden administration has continued the squeeze on the company in the name of national security. According to multiple reports, a decision has not yet been made on whether to indefinitely halt export licenses previously granted to U.S. suppliers in limited circumstances.

“We are gravely concerned about the relevant reports and keeping a close eye on how things will develop,” Chinese Foreign Affairs Ministry spokeswoman Mao Ning said. “China firmly opposes the United States’ generalization of the concept of national security and its abuse of state power to suppress Chinese companies unreasonably and without any bottom line.”

Huawei was once the world’s largest smartphone seller, overtaking Samsung in 2020, but the U.S. trade ban has hurt its standing. It’s also a global leader in 5G, mainly expanding out of Asia and Europe. However, the U.S. fears Huawei’s 5G infrastructure could contain backdoors giving the Chinese government access to spy on and attack telecommunications systems.

Trade restrictions have certainly hurt the tech giant over the past few years, but U.S. suppliers also stand to lose business over the standoff. Intel declined to comment on this report and Qualcomm did not respond to requests for comment.

The body camera footage of Tyre Nichols’ death has restarted conversation regarding police reform. Nichols, a 29-year-old Black man, died three days after police pulled him over for reckless driving and beat him when he tried to flee the scene.

“First, it’s about making sure that the president knows that this is an important enough issue for him to talk about at the State of the Union,” Rep. Steven Horsford, D-Nev., said. “I’ve invited the Nichols family as the guests of the Congressional Black Caucus so they will be there on that day to hear from the president and members of Congress on both sides of the aisle how we will finally take action.”

Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., tweeted, “I’ll never stop working to create the coalition necessary to pass policing reform and to help end this.”

While some are calling for legislative change, House Oversight Chair Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, doesn’t think that’s the solution.

“Well, I don’t know that there’s any law that can stop that evil that we saw—that is just difficult to watch,” Jordan said. “What strikes me is just the lack of respect for human life.”

The most recent effort to advance police reform legislation in Congress came in 2021 after Minneapolis Police Officer Derek Chauvin was convicted of second and third-degree murder charges for the death of George Floyd. Sen. Booker worked across the aisle with Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., to negotiate the legislation, but they ultimately failed to come to an agreement. The sticking points reportedly included qualified immunity and disagreement from police unions.

The labor market may have been much weaker than the government let on in 2022. While the Bureau of Labor Statistics initially reported the U.S. economy added 1.2 million jobs last spring, a new report shows the private sector had a net loss of 287,000 jobs during the same time period, a difference of nearly 1.5 million.

The latest data comes from the Business Employment Dynamics report by the BLS released last week, looking at private sector job gains and losses from March to June 2022.

Last year, the same agency said in monthly Current Employment Statistics reports that in April, May and June, the U.S. nonfarm economy had gained a collective 1.19 million jobs. That was later revised down to 1,047,000.

While the two data sets are not an apples-to-apples comparison, the total discrepancy in second-quarter data is rather large, especially coming from the same agency.

“Although the BED and CES have scope and methodological differences, series from the two sources tend to show the same general trends over the long term,” BLS told Straight Arrow News in an email response, adding that both are subject to revisions.

This is the second major report to come out showing significant job growth discrepancies in the second quarter. Last month, the Philadelphia Federal Reserve Bank released a report saying it thought the government overestimated job growth by more than one million. The Philadelphia Fed calculated 10,500 net new jobs added versus the 1,047,000 revised estimate by the BLS.

At the time, BLS diminished the findings in an email to Straight Arrow News.

“Using a simple methodology and a series of assumptions, the Philadelphia Federal Reserve Bank benchmarked to a less complete version of the [Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages] data than is available to BLS,” BLS economist Emma Sillman responded. “BLS does not believe that the monthly [Current Employment Statistics] data dramatically overestimated employment growth.”

But now, BLS’s own data may indicate otherwise, and several months later, data revisions cannot revise actions taken during that time period.

“Look at the labor market, you’ve got growth, I think payroll jobs averaging 450,000 per month,” Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell said in a press conference in July after raising the benchmark interest rate another 75 basis points.

The Fed repeatedly cited strong job growth as it aggressively pushed interest rates up to fight inflation. But the “strong economy” might have been showing cracks even the Bureau of Labor Statistics didn’t see at the time.

BLS is releasing its latest national data revisions on Friday with the January jobs report.

The emergence of name, image and likeness (NIL) deals to college sports recruiting has significantly altered the landscape of how NCAA programs acquire talent. Now, new legislation being discussed in California is attempting to level the playing field by bringing even more changes to the process.

Introduced earlier this month, the College Athlete Protection Act aims to require schools that play major college sports to pay some student athletes as much as $25,000 annually. The bill would also compel colleges to cover the cost of six-year guaranteed athletic scholarships and post-college medical expenses.

“This is an extremely competitive and comprehensive bill that I believe will provide the income and health services that our college athletes deserve,” said California Assembly Member Chris Holden.

Division I schools in California would have to share 50% of their revenue with athletes who are considered undervalued because the amount of their athletic scholarships does not match their market value. Additionally, the legislation calls for schools to establish and enforce safety standards and transparency in recruiting, certify college athletic agents, preserve all sports programs and ensure that they are Title IX compliant.

“It’s a bill that will end the blatant exploitation of California’s college athletes,” said Ramogi Huma, executive director of the National College Players Association. “The NCAA’s economic model is illegal and based on racial injustice. The NCAA uses amateurism as cover to systemically strip generational wealth from predominantly Black athletes from lower income households to pay for lavish salaries of predominantly white coaches, athletic directors, commissioners and NCAA administrators.”

Back in 2019, it was California that opened the floodgates to all the NIL deals that are arising today. Known as the Fair Pay to Play Act, the state was the first to pass a law that gave college athletes the right to be compensated for name, image and likeness. Since then, more than two dozen other states have ratified NIL laws, but these new pieces of legislation have made it difficult for the NCAA to create uniform rules on NIL deals that can be applied nationwide.

“The coaches and the athletic department not having oversight of the people brokering deals that are bringing in the talent or paying the current talent, is part of this disconnect, the mess that the NCAA has found themself in,” said Pete Thamel, a senior college football writer for ESPN.

College sports leaders are hoping that the U.S. government can provide a strategy that will regulate compensation and protect the NCAA from state laws that undercut its authority, as the association is already in the midst of combatting another push to pay its athletes. Next month, the NCAA plans to ask a federal appeals court to block a lawsuit that seeks to have student athletes treated as employees who are paid for their time.

“Turning student-athletes into employees will have a sprawling, staggering and potentially catastrophic impact on college sports broadly,” said Baylor University President Linda Livingston, who also serves as chairperson of the NCAA’s board of governors. “We need Congress to affirm student-athletes’ unique relationship with their universities.”

Meanwhile, California’s latest push to alter the rules of college sports has been met with optimism over its chances of passing. Though similar bills have failed at the federal level, like the College Athlete Bill of Rights sponsored by Sen. Cory Booker, California’s recent history of being at the forefront of this movement could ultimately play a factor in advancing this legislation.

George Santos appears to be enjoying the nightlife in Washington D.C. He was recently spotted at a local bar dancing and taking selfies. But in the halls of Congress, and in some prosecutors’ offices, his life is under the microscope as investigators try to determine if any of his lies are criminal.

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., said if an ethics investigation finds Santos broke the law, he will be removed from Congress.

“I will hold him to the same standard, I hold anyone else elected to congress. If for some way when we go through ethics, that he has broken the law then we will remove him. But it’s not my role. I believe in the rule of law, a person is innocent until proven guilty,” McCarthy said.

The Constitution gives Congress broad authority to discipline its members. That includes expulsion, censure and a formal reprimand. The Constitution allows the House to expel a representative who engages in “disorderly behavior.” Ultimately it requires a two-thirds majority vote.

Former Rep. David Skaggs, D-Colo., who chaired the board of directors for the Office of Congressional Ethics, explained that after the ethics committee investigates a matter, it brings an expulsion resolution to the House floor for a vote.

Santos has seemingly lied about nearly every detail of his life, from where he worked to where he went to college. But the lies that could get him into the most legal jeopardy are about his finances. Investigators are now trying to determine if he lied about how he funded his campaign and how he spent his campaign’s money.

Two Democratic representatives filed a complaint with the ethics committee accusing Santos of failing to file timely, accurate and complete financial disclosure reports.

“That said, normally, the ethics process is about conduct that happens while you’re in Congress, not conduct that happens before you get elected. So that’s gonna be a jurisdictional question that they’re gonna have to resolve,” Skaggs said. 

However Skaggs explained that if a finance violation was first committed when Santos was a candidate, an investigation could find that the offense was repeated since he’s been elected.

“Filing accurate financial disclosures is an ongoing matter. So even though that had to have happened when he first was a candidate, maintaining the accuracy of those filings with the Clerk of the House is an obligation you have everyday,” Skaggs said.

Only five members have been expelled in the history of the House, three of which fought for the Confederacy during the Civil War. Most recently, Rep. James Traficant, D-Ohio, was expelled after being convicted of a laundry list of crimes including bribery. 

“I think the resignation is usually the preferred exit door. To bring a matter of expulsion to the floor, or the House, doesn’t happen very often at all,” Skaggs said. “And besides who wants to have what is left of their reputation, completely obliterated by being one of the very, very few people who’s ever been expelled?”

Expulsion or pressuring Santos into resigning appear to be the only two courses of redress right now, because unlike state and local elections, constituents have no avenue to force a new election through a recall. 

M&M’s is turning some strange backlash over the footwear choices of their animated mascots into opportunity. Earlier this week, the brand announced it ditched its now-divisive spokescandies in favor of actress Maya Rudolph, who is already making some changes to the famous treat. M&M’s decision appears to show it bowing to backlash for being too “woke” (but for the record, the authors of this article suspect it’s a stunt). Still, Straight Arrow News has the companies that are instead embracing the nation’s divide in this week’s Five for Friday.

#5: Black Rifle Coffee Company

In certain circles, owning the libs is a winning business strategy. Black Rifle Coffee Company is a veteran-founded java maker that became the darling of conservatives for being pro-gun, pro-military and pro-police. Black Rifle Coffee offers products like Freedom Fuel and AK-47 Espresso. Its Instagram presence is enough to siphon even the strongest of liberal tears. But, after its logo was worn by the likes of Jan. 6 rioters, the company’s founder took issue with groups that “hijacked” its imagery.

#4: Nike

Former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick became an incredibly polarizing figure for kneeling during the national anthem prior to games in protest of racial injustice. Many of the same folks who thought female M&Ms can’t wear sneakers took issue with his activism and he was eventually run out of the league. But just a few years later, Nike embraced Kaepernick, featuring him in billboards and television ads with the slogan, “Believe in something, even if it means sacrificing everything.” It didn’t sit well with everyone, even prompting some former customers to burn their Nike products in effigy.

#3: Goya Foods

It may seem strange that making donations to U.S. food banks as part of the Hispanic Prosperity Initiative could cause controversy. But Goya Foods CEO Robert Unanue is special in that regard. During a 2020 event at the White House, he said the nation was “truly blessed” to have former President Donald Trump as its leader. Liberals ended up calling for a boycott of Goya Foods, claiming Trump’s rhetoric had been anti-Latino. This prompted Trump supporters to embrace the brand, rushing to stores to buy up Goya products. In fact, the company’s sales jumped 22% in the weeks that followed.

#2: Patagonia

Patagonia is 100% a self-proclaimed tree-hugging company. At the forefront of embracing sustainability, Patagonia even released a Black Friday ad once that told people not to buy one of its products in a commentary about consumerism. In 2020, the company took all of that one step further. The company put a tag on a pair of shorts that said, “Vote the assholes out.” Apparently Patagonia’s founder Yvon Chouinard had been using the phrase for years about “politicians from any party who deny or disregard the climate crisis.”

#1: Hobby Lobby

There are pages of Hobby Lobby controversy, from illegally procuring biblical artifacts to opening a museum that features fake Dead Sea scrolls. But it really embraced the divide when it sued the U.S. government to deny contraceptive coverage to employees on religious grounds. It won that fight in the Supreme Court. Then, at the height of the pandemic, Hobby Lobby refused to close its doors as the nation entered lockdowns, with its owner David Green telling employees he did so after receiving a message from God. Crafting really took off during the pandemic, so in the end Hobby Lobby might have been essential to some people.

Known as the “Super Bowl of surfing,” the Eddie Aikau Big Wave Invitational was held for the first time since 2016 in Hawaii over the weekend, as organizers said an estimated 50,000 people were packed on the beach to watch. This also marked just the 10th time the event has ever been held due to the tournament’s rules which require open-ocean swells to reach a minimum height of 20 feet before it can commence.

However, those waves would actually be considered twice as large anywhere else in the United States because of how Hawaii measures waves, meaning waves needed to the hold the Eddie must be at least 40 feet tall on a normal scale.

The Eddie was founded in 1987 to honor the memory of its namesake, a local lifeguard who was revered for saving over 500 people during his career. Known for his impressive surfing prowess, Aikau lost his life in 1978 after canoeing into stormy weather with the Polynesian Voyaging Society.

The group was attempting to retrace an ancient seafaring path that spanned thousands of miles when disaster struck and the vessel capsized far from shore. Aikau then volunteered to paddle out and get help for the others who had been stranded on the boat with him, but was never seen again.

“To do the ultimate sacrifice to save others, is what Eddie’s legacy is all about” said Aikau’s brother, Clyde Aikau.

So it’s fitting that another local lifeguard emerged victorious in this year’s tournament. Luke Shepardson took approved breaks from his lifeguarding duty at Waimea Bay so he could compete in the event and put up a near perfect score to defeat defending champion John John Florence. Shepardson won $10,000 for taking first place with scores of 30.0, 30.0 and 29.1 across his three best waves, just shy of the 90-point maximum.

“I’m super humbled and super honored and try to live up to the legacy of all the guys before me. To surf in the Eddie Aikau and perpetuate his legacy as a lifeguard and riding big waves and being in the ocean, being a waterman, it’s what I live for,” Shephardson said. “I don’t think I’ll ever come close to what he did but I’ll try my hardest.”

Other competitors also made waves during the Eddie, as the tournament featured women for the first time ever. Brazilian surfer Andrea Moller made history as the first woman to catch a wave during the event, as she was one of six women to participate in the field of 40 surfers on Sunday.

“Goosebumps just to be the first woman to surf a wave out there,” Moller said. “I think it just really brings back all the efforts that us women surfers put out there. To be recognized, to prove that it’s possible that we’re athletes, we want to do this. We have the passion for big wave surfing just like the guys do.”

Though there are no guarantees for when the world will see this competition again, but it’s evident that the memory of Eddie Aikau remains alive in Hawaii.

At this time, the only clinic in Nebraska performing abortions up to 20 weeks is in Bellevue – an Omaha suburb on the far eastern border of the state. But if this grassroots initiative gains enough momentum, it could be forced to shut down. The initiative is part of a push to ban abortion within city limits.

“This is a way that local citizens can say, ‘you know what, the Supreme Court gave us this right back to decide what’s okay for our community,’” Bellevue resident Judith Mansisidor said. “And we do not think that the loss of children in the womb is okay for our community.” 

Mansisidor helped file a request to declare Bellevue a “sanctuary for the unborn.” Because Nebraska allows abortion up until the 20-week mark, this group is bringing the battle over abortion from the state to local level.

If she and the other organizers can collect 7,400 signatures from their fellow residents, the proposal will move forward.

“The city does not want to be known for the death and loss of life, for the death and loss of sons and daughters,” Mansisidor said. 

In Nebraska, five such ordinances passed in the November elections, but a ban in the city of Bellevue would have a more significant impact.

“The real difference is that this is where the abortions are happening,” Nebraskans Embracing Life Executive Director David Zebolsky said. “So it’s not just a Bellevue, Nebraska problem. It’s a statewide problem. But this abortion mill, because it’s so close to the interstate, is really a destination for people from other states, for misguided mothers from other states, to make this a destination.” 

The effort to pass abortion bans at the local level is part of a nationwide initiative that has succeeded in Texas, New Mexico, Ohio and Iowa.

“We believe that this is a tried and true method,” Sanctuary Cities for the Unborn founder Mark Dickson said. “It worked in Lubbock, and we believe you know, it worked for Texas, we believe it’ll work for Bellevue, Nebraska.”

While the push in Bellevue is to prohibit abortion, local initiatives can also be used to establish and maintain abortion access.

Just this month, pro-choice Texans submitted a petition, with more than 35,000 signatures, to prevent police from enforcing the state’s abortion ban in San Antonio. 

It was a debacle that Taylor Swift fans will remember forever and always. It all goes back to November, when Swift announced her Eras tour. A presale began Nov. 15, but Ticketmaster’s system wasn’t ready for it and crashed. The company then canceled the sale for the general public.

Now the Senate Judiciary Committee wants to take action to increase competition in the ticketing industry and possibly break up Live Nation, which owns Ticketmaster. 

In an attempt to defend his company’s reputation, which some contend has never been worse, Live Nation’s president told senators to blame bots.

“They came after our verified fan password servers as well. While the bots failed to penetrate our systems or acquire any tickets, the attack requires to slow down and even pause our sales,” Joe Berchtold, president and CFO of Live Nation Entertainment, said.

But sparks flew when concert promoter Jerry Mickleson, sitting there in his best suit, fearless, said Live Nation’s response was unacceptable.

“One of the things they’re supposed to do is have solutions to bots. And for the leading ticket company not to be able to handle bots is, for me, a pretty unbelievable statement. But you can’t blame bots for what happened to Taylor Swift. There’s more to that story that you’re not hearing,” Jerry Mickelson, CEO and president of JAM Productions, said.

There was another problem discussed that many concert goers know all too well. There is a listed ticket price, but when it comes time to check out, fees add an average 27% to the final cost. Live Nation controls 70% of the ticket market and also owns many venues. Senators said Live Nation has too much power in the market.

“This is all a definition of monopoly because Live Nation is so powerful that it doesn’t even need to exert pressure,” Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., said.

Clyde Lawrence, of the band Lawrence, said the problem is that for many concerts, Live Nation is the promoter, the venue and the ticketing company, all in one.

“We can trust that the promoter will look to get the best deal from the venue. However, in this case, the promoter and the venue are part of the same corporate entity. So these line items are essentially Live Nation negotiating to pay itself. Does that seem fair?” Lawrence said.

Here are some of the solutions proposed during the hearing: 

• Make tickets non-transferable, to block bots and scalpers. 
• Pass the Boss Act, which would require ticket marketplaces to disclose their fees and refund policies earlier in the purchase process. 
• Strengthen antitrust rules regarding the ticket industry.