Conservative group targets Utah Sen. Curtis over support for clean energy tax credits
The conservative Club for Growth is targeting Utah Sen. John Curtis over his support for clean energy tax credits, raising the stakes for Republican leaders as they scramble to pass their massive tax reconciliation bill.
The fiscally conservative group will launch an ad series this weekend targeting a handful of GOP lawmakers over their policy stances at odds with President Donald Trump's massive budget framework. The ad taking aim at Curtis specifically focuses on his support for preserving some green energy tax incentives passed under the Biden administration through the Inflation Reduction Act.
'Republicans were elected up and down the ballot in 2024 to reverse disastrous Biden policies — not protect them,' said Club for Growth President David McIntosh. 'If the tax cut bill fails because John Curtis is against it in order to protect Biden giveaways, every family in Utah will be hit with the largest tax increase in history. We are confident his constituents in Utah will remind Sen. Curtis how misguided his approach is.'
The 30-second ad, which will run statewide beginning on Sunday, claims Curtis is threatening Trump's plans to reverse former President Joe Biden's signature climate policies.
The commercial specifically refers to the 1,038-page megabill making its way through Congress seeking to advance Trump's policies on the border, energy production, national defense and more. The budget resolution also contains extensions for a slew of tax cuts set to expire at the end of this year.
The budget package greenlights about $4.5 trillion to extend the tax cuts previously approved in Trump's 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and make them permanent. To offset those costs, lawmakers must find at least $1.5 trillion in spending cuts elsewhere.
However, internal disagreements on where to cut spending has delayed progress on the bill as some Republicans push for deep cuts while others caution against them.
One of the most controversial provisions tucked into the budget resolution is language repealing clean energy tax credits that were passed under the Biden administration with only Democratic support.
Curtis is among those pushing to preserve some of those policies, particularly those dealing with nuclear energy, net-zero emissions, battery storage and more. The first-term senator has long centered his climate policies on clean energy solutions, suggesting earlier this week he will push for those changes as the Senate considers the bill.
'We must build a thoughtful, principled bill that doesn't pull the rug out from under American innovators,' a spokesperson for Curtis told the Deseret News. 'Doing otherwise risks freezing investment, delaying domestic production, increasing costs, and forfeiting our energy edge and national security to China and Russia.'
The Club for Growth has previously targeted Curtis, spending millions of dollars on ad campaigns claiming the Utah senator is not conservative enough. But Curtis contends those big-money efforts by national groups have only boosted his message — arguing his victories over the last eight years have been a result of Utah voters rejecting out-of-state meddling in local elections.
The ad campaign targets other Republicans who have threatened to vote against Trump's megabill, such as New York Reps. Mike Lawler and Nick LaLota, who pushed for expansions to federal deductions for state and local taxes paid, also known as SALT.
While LaLota and Lawler have outright said they would vote against the reconciliation package if it didn't include those demands, Curtis has so far stopped short of saying he would reject the budget framework if it nixed green energy credits. Still, the Utah senator said he would fight to include them in the final bill.
'I think if I have anything to say about it, I'll make sure that we're taking into account our energy future,' Curtis said earlier this week.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
How Trump's Tariffs and Immigration Policies Could Make Housing Even More Expensive
President Donald Trump owes his second electoral victory, in no small part, to voter frustration over the rising cost of living. Over the course of Joe Biden's presidency, the price of a typical American house increased by nearly 40 percent, and rents followed a similar trajectory. As of 2024, approximately 771,480 Americans lack reliable shelter—at once a new high and a new low. All of these issues are most acute in states governed by Biden's fellow Democrats. In California, the median home price is now more than 10 times the median household income. Economists generally view three to five as a healthy ratio. Polling data suggest that many key voting blocs in the 2024 presidential election were primarily motivated by the rising cost of living and by out-of-control housing costs in particular. For all the network news preoccupation with transgender athletes and campus protests, it was mortgages and rents—the single largest line items in a typical household's budget—that moved voters to toss out incumbents. On April 2, after months of empty threats and false starts, the administration finally launched its global trade war, including a 25 percent tariff on various goods from Canada and Mexico. But Canadian softwood lumber and Mexican gypsum used for drywall—the (literal) pillars of a typical American single-family home—would be exempt. The National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) was quick to celebrate it as a win: Canada accounts for 85 percent of all U.S. lumber imports. If the tariffs had taken effect as planned, the per-unit cost of a home might have increased by as much as $29,000. In a sector characterized by thin margins, that would have meant a lot of idle construction sites. And yet the partial rollback will offer only a temporary reprieve. Tariffs already in effect will increase the cost of a new home by $10,900 on average, according to an April 2025 estimate by the NAHB—an increase of $1,700 over its March estimate. This is on top of a 41.6 percent increase in building materials since 2020, brought on by pandemic-related supply chain disruptions. Those cost increases could hit renters hardest. After a decade of underbuilding in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, America is short roughly 5 million homes—most of them apartments. Perhaps the most robust finding in urban economics is that when vacancy rates increase, rents fall. But driving up vacancy rates requires cities to build more housing. Thanks to the YIMBY ("yes in my backyard") movement, a handful of cities—including Austin and Minneapolis—have recently had building booms that have brought prices back down. But those cities have been the exception. Meanwhile, a new wave of tariffs is about to make it a lot more expensive to build. On February 11, the administration imposed a 25 percent tariff on steel and aluminum—much of it imported from allies such as Brazil and Germany. On February 25, the administration announced an investigation into copper imports, presumably with future tariffs in the works. Depending on their country of origin, other key inputs like iron and cement are also now subject to steep tariffs. Even if you can get new housing built, the appliances needed to make all these new homes livable could soon cost hundreds of dollars more. Not only are microwaves, refrigerators, and air conditioners now more expensive to import, but tariffs on key inputs mean they are also more expensive to produce domestically. Uncertainty around tariffs has put many construction projects on pause, sending homebuilder stocks plummeting. Many small, local developers are exiting the market altogether. Following in the mold of autarkic Cuba—where international trade is strictly limited and medical doctors drive taxis for a living—your next Uber driver could very well be an out-of-work former developer. Never mind that the typical American city desperately needs them to build. If tariffs weren't bad enough, the administration's program of mass deportations could kick the housing crisis into overdrive. As things stand, the construction industry is already short 250,000 workers. This is partly a legacy of Trump's first term, in which an immigration clampdown suppressed what might have been an overdue housing construction boom. Even today, approximately 30 percent of construction workers are immigrants, many of them undocumented. In California, which is already a basket case on housing affordability, immigrants make up 41 percent of all construction labor. In Texas—one of the few bright spots for housing affordability in recent years, thanks to an ongoing construction boom—nearly 60 percent of all immigrant construction workers are undocumented. If 2024 was any indication, expecting voters to put up with all this in 2026 is a risky gamble. On some level, the Trump administration must appreciate that this is an existential threat. And yet its current proposals are out of sync with the scale of the housing crisis: Releasing more federally owned lands for housing development remains the only proposal the administration has seriously offered up to address the housing shortage. It's a fine enough idea if properly designed. But it would, at best, provide only modest relief to a handful of Western cities. Worse yet, the administration seems to have regressed to the implicitly regulatory "protect the suburbs" rhetoric that so failed Trump in the 2020 election. In February, Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) chief Scott Turner announced that he would be scrapping the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) rule in order to "cut red tape" and "advance market-driven development." Except the rule was essentially just a reporting exercise that required local governments to disclose—and ideally remove—local red tape standing in the way of housing. In 2018, then–HUD Secretary Ben Carson embraced the AFFH rule as a way of nudging cities to remove regulatory barriers to housing production, as part of his brief flirtation with YIMBYism. In a move that would make Orwell blush, Carson joined Trump in a Wall Street Journal op-ed two years later announcing that they would "protect America's suburbs" and scrap the rule if reelected. Trump lost that election. It's all a very strange state of affairs—a developer in chief with evidently little interest in getting America building again. It didn't need to be this way. Over the course of the first Trump administration, housing production recovered at a steady clip, with a muted increase in housing costs as a result. The administration's deregulating zeal could have been focused on unnecessary federal mandates that increase costs. Instead, the United States is poised to experience a run-up in housing prices through 2028 that could make the pandemic-era increases like a minor blip. So what could the federal government do? From a constitutional perspective, not much. The bulk of the blame for America's housing crisis lies with local governments that maintain onerous zoning regulations and unpredictable permitting processes—and the state governments that control them. The federal government has little role to play in zoning, even if it once did a lot of the heavy lifting to promote it. But that isn't to imply there is nothing the federal government could do. In recent years, the idea of tying federal dollars to local deregulation has gained acceptance within the Beltway. Bills with unsubtle names like the "Build More Housing Near Transit Act" or the "Yes In My Backyard Act" would variously condition money for transit or other public facilities on local jurisdictions cutting back on red tape. At the same time, the federal government could turn up the tax pressure. If homeowners in cities with high costs and low production were suddenly ineligible for benefits like the mortgage interest deduction or the state and local tax credit, it would transform the local politics of housing. Homeowners who might otherwise be fully bought into government constraints on housing production could flip their script. More likely, however, the onus will fall on state and local legislators to pull out all the stops on housing production. State and local elected officials can't control tariffs or immigration policy. But they can control "make or break" factors such as zoning regulations, permitting timelines, and impact fees. According to a recent RAND study, variations in these policies explain why it's nearly twice as expensive to build housing in California as in Texas. At least some state legislators are rising to the occasion. In recent months, states as diverse as Republican-supermajority Montana and Democratic-supermajority Washington have moved forward legislation restricting the right of local governments to block housing. Even California is starting to see the light. All these bills will help to get more housing built, no matter what's happening at the federal level. The Trump administration had better hope those state-level efforts are successful—and scrap the trade and immigration policies that could plunge America into another housing crisis. The post How Trump's Tariffs and Immigration Policies Could Make Housing Even More Expensive appeared first on
Fox News
29 minutes ago
- Fox News
Amber Heard
Amber Heard has acted in many television shows and movies including 'Aquaman,' and 'Criminal Minds.' Heard also had a lot of press around her very public relationship with now ex-husband, Johnny Depp. She was born on April 22, 1986, in Austin, Texas to parents Paige and David Heard. Heard, whose net worth is now $-6 million, according to Celebrity Net Worth losing the defamation trial to Depp, got her film debut in the movie, 'Friday Night Lights' in 2004. After that movie, she went on to work in many other films like 'North Country,' 'All the Boys Love Mandy Lane,' 'Pineapple Express' and 'Zombieland.' She also had various television appearances in shows like 'The O.C,' 'Criminal Minds,' 'Californication' and 'Hidden Palms.' Some other films Heard was in during the earlier stages of her career were 'The Stepfather,' 'The Ward,' 'Drive Angry,' 'Syrup,' and '3 Days to Kill.' In 2011, Heard played Chenault in 'The Rum Diary.' She and Depp met during the filming of the movie. They were both in relationships at the time, but eventually started dating in 2012. The pair got married in 2015, but got divorced two years later. They have been in a huge legal battle since Heard wrote an op-ed for The Washington Post, implying that she was abused by Depp. After a six week trial in Fairfax, Virginia that millions tuned in to watch, the jury found that Heard had defamed Depp and awarded the actor $10 million in compensatory damages and $5 million in punitive, which were reduced to $350,000 due to Virginia's law. Heard was awarded $2 million in compensatory damages due to the statements made by Depp's attorney Adam Waldman. Heard owes $10.35 million to Depp, an amount that her lawyers have said she cannot afford to pay. Heard and her team have tried to appeal, but have been unsuccessful in their endeavors. One big role that the actress is known for is playing Mera, in 'Aquaman' with Jason Mamoa. She also plays the character in the 2017 'Justice League' and in 'Zack Snyder's Justice League.' She is in the 'Aquaman' sequel, 'Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom' that is set to come out in 2023, even though her appearance in the "Aquaman" sequel has became controversial after the legal situation with her and Depp. Even though Depp was Heard's most public relationship, she has also been connected with painter and photographer Tasya van Ree in 2008, model Cara Delevingne, Tesla founder and billionaire Elon musk on and off from 2016-2018 and art dealer Vito Schnabel. She does however have a a daughter Oonagh Paige Heard, who was born via surrogate April 8, 2021.
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
CA track meet spotlight should have been on competition, not shaming
Finally, the charade of President Donald Trump and other politicians pretending to care about girls' sports is over with Saturday night's closing of the 2025 California Interscholastic Federation Track & Field Championships at Buchanan High's Veterans Stadium. Well, I hope it's over. I have covered the state track meet off and on since 1979 when I traveled to Berkeley to cover the event for The Bakersfield Californian. I don't recall any politician showing up and cheering for the female competitors. I was there last year, and I'm sure Fresno County Supervisors Garry Bredefeld and Nathan Magsig didn't attend a press conference to promote the girls taking part in 17 track and field finals. This year's edition of a sporting event that draws more than 1,500 boys and girls would likely have come and gone with little notice if not for Trump threatening on Tuesday to withhold federal funds for California if the state track meet included a transitioned girl from Riverside County. 'In the meantime I am ordering local authorities, if necessary, to not allow the transitioned person to compete in the State Finals,' the president posted on Truth Social. 'This is a totally ridiculous situation!!!' What is ridiculous is that the transitioned girl has followed the rules, which have allowed transitioned girls to compete at the high school level since 2013. The CIF did amend its rules for a pilot program to allow any biological girl that was displaced by a trans girl to compete at the state meet. The CIF also released a statement on Wednesday: 'A biological female student-athlete who would have earned a specific placement on the podium will also be awarded the medal for that place and the results will be reflected in the recording of the event.' The pilot program sounds a bit confusing, but blame it on the politicos who should get a gold medal for spotting a microphone and television camera. Saturday, GOP gubernatorial hopeful Steve Hilton spoke at a press conference outside Veterans Stadium where he blasted the state policy that allows trans girls to compete. All the noise – and the extra dose of media attention – is misguided. Last year, finding a place at the media table was no problem. Saturday, the area was inundated by media drawn not so much by the sport of track and field, but by a 16-year-old performer who drew the wrath of Trump. Authentic track and field supporters would show up to cheer for Giselle Fernández of Riverbank High in the 1,600-meter race. Or Khaliq Muhammad of Pittsburg High in the pole vault. Or the Herbst twins (Morgan and Makenna) from Carlsbad. Only those stuck in the Middle Ages would dare root against the trans athlete. The real attention should have been on the competitors named above and others, who transform the California state meet into the best in the nation. Fernández and Riverbank have been a perfect match for the state finals. The senior didn't match her brother Germán's 2008 state double in the 1,600 and 3,200 meters that people still talk about, but Giselle proved she deserves a shot at the title by improving her personal mark in the 1,600 by more than 10 seconds. She placed sixth Saturday in 4:43.8. Does having her brother, who still holds the state record in the 1,600 with a 4:00.9 time, help? Of course, said Giselle, who was a year old when her brother won his state titles. 'My brother has connected with many people that are now professionally running, and that's given me benefits,' said Giselle. 'I'm not finished here. I think next year I can improve even more.' Muhammad is another state competitor with a pedigree. His older sister, Jathiyah, won the girls state pole vault last year. Their father, Gary, is a pole vault coach at Pittsburg. Khaliq dominated the boys pole vault, clearing a personal-best 17-10½ and besting the meet record by half an inch. He missed a try at 18 feet, ½ inch before calling it a day. 'I was tired,' he said. 'I knew I was going to win. I had confidence in my ability to win,' said Muhammad, who credits his father for his success. 'He's been my coach for 12 years, ever since I started.' Morgan Herbst shattered the meet record in winning the girls 300-meter hurdles (39.64 seconds), while sister McKenna won the girls 800-meter race less than a quarter-second off the meet record (2:02.28). I could mention many other athletes who deserve the attention at claiming a medal on a 100-degree-plus day. That is where the focus of this state meet should have been all along.
