Right now, as I’ve highlighted briefly before, there’s a hot negotiation underway between almost every other Democrat in the House & Senate and two Democratic Senators — Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin. Republican Party politicians are non-existent in the negotiations*, and since the US Senate is split 50–50, with Vice President Kamala Harris as the deciding vote, we need 100% of Democratic senators onboard in order to pass anything. (Fun.)
The big push right now is to deliver on Biden’s agenda, what Biden promised and what ~99% of Democrats in office (if not 100%) made promises about when they ran for office. Why that’s something that needs to be negotiated within the party may seem like a mystery, but it appears to just come down to the financial interests of Sinema and Manchin. Though, there is some misleading handwaving and muttering going on about the US budget and economy that might confuse some passersby nonetheless. So, I wanted to take a moment to put a few things into perspective, and to also highlight what is actually in the Build Back Better proposal at the moment. (Also, though, let’s be frank — there’s much more on the line than just what’s in the proposal.)
Build Back Better … Over Next 10 Years
First of all, it should be noted that the “$3.5 trillion bill” most Democrats, Biden included, are pushing for is covering a 10-year period, so the actual annual cost is $350 billion. That us half of the annual cost of U.S. defense spending. One would think that the richest nation on Earth could find some money to spend on something other than the military, right?
So let me get this straight: we can afford to spend $700 billion a year on defense, but we can’t afford to spend $350 billion a year to defend ourselves against the climate crisis?
Even more poignantly, Bill McKibben (who I recently interviewed) highlighted that the “cost” to these investments is peanuts compared to the cost of unchecked climate change/catastrophe. It’s like saying, I don’t want to spend $1 to drive to work, so I’m just not going to work any more. Not intelligent.
When someone moans about $3.5 trillion spending over 10 years, perhaps remind them that the estimates for the cost of unchecked climate change top out at $551 trillion, which is more money than there is on earth at the moment.
But I just fell into the same trap others in the media and politics have fallen into with this bill, focusing on the price tag of the bill rather than what’s in it. Let’s look at what 99% of Democrats are trying to get passed, what the majority of the American public has indicated it would like to see passed (large chunks of Republicans as well), and what two seemingly self-serving senators (plus the 50 on the Republican side) are blocking. Who better to explain it than a congressman who knows how to speak in plain English. But he can also start with some perspective on the price tag (I know, I know):
A brief thread to try and demystify the infrastructure convo in Washington, and hopefully correct some misconceptions:
4/ (b) Lowering prescription drug costs for seniors by allowing Medicare to negotiate with pharmaceuticals (just like your private insurer and the VA already does)
6/ (d) Ensuring everyone has 12 weeks of family and medical leave so that you don’t have to choose between paying your rent and caring for a loved one.
8/ (f) Lowering the Medicare eligibility age to 60. (Fact: cancer diagnoses spike at 65, not because cancer rates go up but because of how many people have gaps in health coverage until they become Medicare-eligible.)
modest but important funding to accelerate the adoption of electric vehicles, solar energy, and wind energy
giving Medicare the ability to negotiate drug prices so that pharmaceutical companies don’t rip them off as much
instituting a long-term version of the current child tax credit so that less wealthy families with young kids can afford food, housing, and a bare minimum quality of life in the richest nation on Earth (note: aside from the fact that this is just the moral thing to do, helping these families to have a basic foundation with regard to the necessities of life will make it more likely the kids will become productive members of society as they grow up)
not nearly as much as Europeans get (after all, “we can’t afford” to have the nice things Europeans have), but some guaranteed time off for when people have medical or family needs to take care of
dental and vision coverage for seniors on Medicare — because, you know, those are thing that old people may need help with, and we supposedly care for our neighbors in this country.
So, that’s some of the key stuff in this bill. You can see more here as well. How anyone can oppose this is beyond my moral comprehension. The level of selfishness and warped logic required to oppose those things are truly bewildering.
But we’re not done yet. The price tag is supposedly the concern.
How To Pay For The Build Back Better
Again, that make no sense on the surface considering that the annual federal budget is $5 trillion, meaning that $350 billion is a drop in the bucket, but there’s much more to note at all. This is not a check to an alien society on a foreign planet. The “cost” also comes with significant returns on the investment. In actuality, the economic benefit will easily surpass the cost. Here’s a partial explanation from Mr. Casten:
10/ (a) A big one is 4(b) above. Allowing Medicare to negotiate prescription drug costs lowers the cost of drugs that are purchased by the federal government for seniors. That saves a lot of patient and taxpayer money. It’s a win/win.
12/ (c) Setting the global minimum tax rate to 15% so as to stop the process of US companies using US roads, legal systems and courts but off-shoring profits to avoid having to pay for those services on which their revenue depends.
14/ (e) Sadly, it does not include provisions to eliminate existing fossil fuel subsidies. It should, but we couldn’t get that through. So rest assured, fossil lobby: you still don’t have to face up to the rough & tumble reality of market capitalism.
Difficult? No. Risky? No. Completely sensible and good for the United States? Yes!
This is simply about investing in the American people and taking care of our elderly rather than letting the 0.1% continuously explode their wealth to levels they can’t fathom and that don’t even change their lives in any notable way.
Remember, aside from 50 Republicans in the Senate (feel free to call their offices or the companies that fund them if any represent you), there are just two Democratic politicians blocking the above bill — Senator Kyrsten Sinema and Senator Joe Manchin. Contact them and let them know how you feel and how inclined you are to support them in the future. You have contact forms above, and here are the phone numbers:
Give them a call now. Tell them we support the Biden agenda to build back better. pic.twitter.com/79PnZxBDDz
*Since they have become the party of do-nothing-but-cut-taxes-on-the-richest-of-the-rich robots and authoritarian, brainwashed seditionists (which are enabled by the former). I think the former outnumber the latter, but who knows these days? Look at the detailed history of the rise of Mussolini, Hitler, and other fascist authoritarians.
Featured photo by Gage Skidmore (CC BY-SA 2.0 license)
Toyota is now a battery supplier? That’s the plan. Honda will use Toyota’s batteries to power up its around 400,000 hybrids sold in the US.
Toyota will supply batteries for Honda hybrids in the US
Toyota’s $14 billion battery plant in North Carolina is ready for business. The facility will begin shipping out batteries next month, and it looks like Toyota already has its first customer.
According to a new Nikkei report, starting in fiscal 2025, Toyota will supply batteries for the roughly 400,000 Honda hybrids sold in the US.
Honda currently uses batteries from China and Japan for vehicles sold in the US, but the company is (like most) preparing for changes under Trump.
Advertisement – scroll for more content
Honda’s electrified vehicles, including EVs and hybrids, accounted for over a quarter of US sales last year. The company sold over 308,500 hybrids and 40,400 electric vehicles in the US in 2024. The batteries will likely be used in the CR-V and other Honda hybrid vehicles.
Honda Prologue Elite (Source: Honda)
Earlier this month, an extra 10% tariff on imports from China took effect. And that’s on top of the 10% imposed in February.
With more expected, including a 25% increase in vehicles imported from Japan, automakers are tightening up their supply chains.
Toyota’s new bZ4X AWD model introduced in Europe (Source: Toyota)
A 25% tariff on Japanese vehicles, up from 2.5% currently, is estimated to cost the six major Japanese automakers about $20 billion in the US.
Tariffs on imports from Mexico and Canada could cost Honda roughly $4.7 billion alone. Teaming up with Toyota to use its batteries for its hybrids is part of Japan’s broader global plans to ween off dependence on China and others for batteries and other emerging tech.
(Source: Toyota)
The new US plant, Toyota Battery Manufacturing North Carolina (TBMC), is over seven million square feet, or about the size of 121 football fields.
As Toyota’s first in-house battery factory outside of Japan, the plant could be a game changer as Trump’s tariffs take effect. Securing Honda as a buyer will already help Toyota cut costs as it ramps up output.
Toyota plans to ramp up electrified vehicle (EV, PHEV, and hybrid) sales in North America from around 40% last year to 80% by 2030.
Electrek’s Take
Trump’s tariffs are already causing havoc, with nearly every automaker warning that they put the US further behind. Overseas automakers are not the only ones feeling the heat, either.
The “Big Three,” GM, Ford, and Jeep maker Stellantis all build vehicles in Canada and Mexico. GM cut output at its plant in Mexico in January, where the electric Chevy Equinox, Blazer, and Honda Prologue are made. Stellantis halted operations at its Brampton Assembly Plant in Canada last month, where it was expected to launch the Jeep Compass EV production. What’s next?
For Toyota, it looks like its $14 billion bet to build batteries in the US is already paying off. Now, we just need it to introduce more EVs.
After unveiling three new electric SUVs in Europe last week, including the updated bZ4X, Toyota hinted more is on the way for the US. Check back soon for updates.
What do you think? Do you want to see more Toyota EVs in the US, like the new C-HR+? Let us know your thoughts in the comments.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.
U.S. President Donald Trump looks on as military strikes are launched against Yemen’s Iran-aligned Houthis over the group’s attacks against Red Sea shipping, at an unspecified location in this handout image released March 15, 2025.
White House | Via Reuters
Oil prices rose on Monday after President Donald Trump said the U.S. would hold Iran responsible for any future attack by the Houthis, a militant group in Yemen that has launched missile strikes on commercial shipping in the Red Sea and on Israel.
U.S. crude oil futures rose 40 cents, or 0.6%, to $67.58 per barrel. Global benchmark Brent traded higher by 44 cents, or 0.62%, at $71.02 per barrel.
“Every shot fired by the Houthis will be looked upon, from this point forward, as being a shot fired from the weapons and leadership of IRAN,” Trump said in a post on social media platform Truth Social. “IRAN will be held responsible, and suffer the consequences, and those consequences will be dire!”
Trump’s threat comes after the U.S. launched a new wave of airstrikes against the Houthis over the weekend. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said Sunday the U.S. campaign will continue until the militant group halts its attacks.
“This campaign is about freedom of navigation and restoring deterrence,” Hegseth told Fox News’ “Sunday Morning Futures.” “The minute the Houthis say we’ll stop shooting at your ships, we’ll stop shooting at your drones, this campaign will end. But until then, it will be unrelenting.”
The Houthis began targeting commercial shipping traversing the Red Sea in late 2023 in support of Hamas, after the Palestinian militant group launched a surprise attack on southern Israel and Israel responded with a ground and air campaign in Gaza. The Houthis and Hamas are both allied with Iran.
The Houthi missile strikes have forced international shipping companies to reroute container ships that would normally pass through the Red Sea and the Suez Canal.
Trump has reimposed a “maximum pressure” campaign against Iran with the goal of driving down the Islamic Republic’s oil exports. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent recently said the Trump administration’s goal is to collapse Iran’s economy.
The White House believes Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon, an allegation the Islamic Republic denies. Trump’s national security advisor, Mike Waltz, said Sunday that “all options are on the table” to ensure Iran does not acquire a nuclear bomb.
“We cannot have a situation that would result in an arms race across the Middle East in terms of nuclear proliferation,” Waltz said on ABC’s “This Week.”
Elon Musk wants to sell Tesla cars to conservatives, but if that’s the strategy, the automaker should start with having stores and service centers in red states and rural areas.
It’s no secret that Elon Musk’s approval ratings with progressives have been plummeting over the last few years and even more so in the previous few months.
Since he has control over Tesla and he is the only official spokesperson since he let go of the PR department in 2020, the CEO is dragging the automaker along for the ride.
This is a problem for Tesla as Democrats are much more likely to buy electric vehicles than Republicans:
Advertisement – scroll for more content
Tesla’s sales have been crumbling over the last few months, and after the stock crashed 15% last Monday, President Trump held a controversial commercial for Tesla with Musk on the steps of the White House on Tuesday.
It could be that people see through Musk and Trump’s quid pro quo and, therefore, don’t value Trump’s “Tessler” endorsement seriously. Still, there’s also a more practical reason why Trump’s fans and conservatives generally don’t buy more Tesla vehicles: the locations of Tesla’s stores and service centers (hat tip to Ben).
Even if some Trump fans were interested in buying a Tesla after the White House commercial last week, they might have been turned off by the idea of having to drive several hours to a store or service center.
Tesla does not have stores or service centers in Alabama, Arkansas, North and South Dakota, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, or Wyoming.
In some cases, it’s not entirely Tesla’s fault, as some of these states have laws against Tesla’s direct sale models. They force automakers to go through third-party franchise dealerships. This is an abuse of old state laws aimed at protecting dealers against unfair competition from the automakers they represent.
Car dealer lobbies use their influence on state legislatures to use these laws to block Tesla, Rivian, Lucid, and other automakers who never had franchise dealerships from operating their own stores and service centers.
But on top of not having locations in several red states, Tesla also primarily has locations in urban areas, whereas conservatives disproportionally live in rural areas.
The automaker has several dead zones and doesn’t operate locations in smaller cities and towns where there are several Ford, GM, Toyota, and other car dealers:
While it certainly does happen, it’s hard to convince someone to buy a car if they have to drive several hours to pick it up and have it serviced.
Electrek’s Take
In short, it’s not only harder to convince conservatives, on average, to buy an electric vehicle, but Tesla is also not correctly set up to sell and service cars in conservative regions of the US.
Though, I think that’s a small part of the problem.
Cars are not supposed to be political.
Even if Tesla successfully converted a significant percentage of conservatives to electric vehicles, it wouldn’t stop the company’s brand destruction.
Tesla’s reputation amongst Democrats and independents has sharply decreased over the last few years, and especially over the last few months, and that’s thanks to Elon Musk alienating them.
It’s tough to be a successful consumer product company when you have alienated 50% or so of your market.
Tesla is basically becoming the MyPillow of Trump’s second term.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.