Well, yes, it isn't exactly free-market when the government chooses, decrees winners and losers instead of the free market. Such as when government was bailing out banks, but not all of them, for example. But much of government spending is like that, not totally conforming to the free market, because they often don't discipline their buying spree, think about getting bang for buck, like most individuals do, and that creates some distortions in the market....., but governments will spend. Not to mention corruption that such plans create between government officials and those companies, or a select company, such as what happened in the Solyndra scandal, in which Obama was pouring taxpayers money on that company for alternative energy, and they took that money and absconded.
So you may be right that it should be vetoed for other economic reasons, which issue didn't come into play during the discussion. There are millions of angles to look at an issue.
But my point was to counter Finley's contention that I should veto the bill just because it incidentally helps global warming when it might have other positive benefits for the environment and unemployment, which is a different angle. I think he could have used a better illustration, because you're right, that should be vetoed, but for an altogether different reason than Finley stated.
One of the great things I like about Trump is that he tries to get good deals for government spending, for the taxpayer, much like individual taxpayers would their own affairs. Business savvy certainly has a place in government spending.