Biden Exposed for Using Tax Dollars on Woke Causes

LISTEN HERE:

Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz, along with his colleagues from the Senate Commerce Committee, are critically discussing some of the progressive approaches to climate change found in President Biden’s 2024 budget request.

As the committee’s ranking member, Cruz is actively voicing these concerns to the GOP constituents in the Senate Appropriations Commerce, Justice, Science Subcommittee. He’s appealing to these colleagues to frontally oppose certain provisions he finds objectionable.

The meticulously organized memo provides a detailed analysis of specific aspects of the budget that affect organizations like the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), and National Science Foundation (NSF).

Outlining its stance first with NOAA, the memo emphasizes the organization’s mission to provide daily weather updates, severe weather warnings, fishery management, and coastal restoration services. It raises concerns about the funding directed towards goals that appear to deviate from this mission.

The memo stresses that lawmakers should consider objections to any budget allocations for the NOAA that seek to ‘promote equity’ or address climate and environmental justice. It expresses apprehension over these areas as they could potentially distract from the organization’s primary responsibilities.

Moreover, it highlighted issues with proposals within NASA’s inclusivity programs. More specifically, its Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) plans – including a sizable $22 million fund for the agency’s Office of Diversity & Equal Opportunity.

Echoing the same sentiment, it expressed reservations over NASA’s request for a considerable $278 million increase directed towards its Earth Science program, due to its significant focus on the climate crisis.

This large sum is allotted to the NASA Sustainable Flight National Partnership. The focus of this initiative is to reduce fuel consumption and facilitate aviation’s journey towards zero carbon emissions by the mid-century mark. Cruz has noted his reservations about this mission, citing it as a potential diversion from NASA’s central pursuits.

Adding to the conservative critique, a proposal involves NASA supporting ‘climate smart agriculture’ with a $2 million funding request, described as ‘mission creep’ by the Texas Senator. Cruz argued this was oddly placed in the proposal and strayed from the agency’s authentic mission.

The memo also touches upon a request from NIST, an influential body established to back U.S. industrial competitiveness, for an additional $5.5 million. The extra funds would be channeled into the Climate Change and Environmental Sustainability program, a suggestion that Cruz and his cohort are less than enthusiastic about.

Furthermore, Cruz has taken umbrage at NIST’s request for a smaller, yet noteworthy, sum of $2.2 million dedicated to supporting DEI programs. The senator’s critical take on this reflects a broader conservative stance.

As documents reveal, Cruz also has reservations about NSF’s strong focus on climate change, clean energy-related operations, and DEI-related plans. He described this tendency as an ‘overemphasis,’ hinting it might lead to a dilution of the NSF’s primary responsibilities.

Indeed, NSF has requested a notable 65% year-over-year rise for its 2024 budget, a soaring $1.6 billion under its ‘Build a Resilient Planet’ banner. Such a significant rise could not pass without stirring discussion in Congress.

Specifically, NSF’s budget request includes $30 million for the National Discovery Cloud for Climate and a separate $25 million for the OISE Global Centers program. The latter program is explicitly focused on encouraging international climate-aligned research.

The requested funds aren’t limited to areas directly associated with climate and research. The NSF has extended its request to include funding for green housing affordability and sustainable systems for clean water, clean transit, and other infrastructural elements.

Cruz was quick to flag these elements as straying from the agency’s original duties, labeling them as barely having any correlation with NSF’s designated responsibilities. It was noted that such initiatives could be better handled by other departments more oriented towards these goals.

Finally, an additional request from the NSF for over $550 million dedicated explicitly to Clean Energy Technology further fanned the flames of Cruz’s hesitation. Undoubtedly, the sheer magnitude of the number coupled with its intent has invited conservative scrutiny.