In a new piece, Allahpundit points and laughs at Sen. Ed Markey for angrily accusing Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of committing "sabotage" against his 'Green New Deal' bill by, um, bringing it to the Senate floor for a vote. In a string of incoherent tweets, Markey whines that holding a vote on his legislation would "silence voices" and "avoid debate," attacking the Republican leader for "rushing" the process. It's quite a spectacle to see an elected representative claiming victimhood over being given the opportunity to...vote for his own idea. It's even richer when a companion complaint is needless haste, given Green New Deal proponents' apocalyptic insistence that time is of the utmost essence. They should frame this one and hang it in the Smithsonian, as part of an exhibit showcasing the stupidity of our times:
This isn't a new Republican trick. By rushing a vote on the #GreenNewDeal resolution, Republicans want to avoid a true national debate & kill our efforts to organize. We’re having the first national conversation on climate change in a decade. We can’t let Republicans sabotage it.
— Ed Markey (@SenMarkey) February 12, 2019
David Harsanyi summarizes:
“The Green New Deal is the only way to save the Earth from utter extinction. If you keep standing in the way, troglodytes, we are doomed.”
“Ok, Democrats, let’s vote on your non-binding resolution.”
“Why are you sabotaging our legislation!”
It's a non-binding resolution. Why not just vote for the thing, as Kamala Harris and others are apparently prepared to do (as opposed to voting 'no' or 'present' en masse, as they did when McConnell played this card on single-payer a few years back)? Perhaps it seems some Democrats are rather nervous about casting on-the-record votes in favor of a document that amounts to a fantasyworld laundry list of insanely expensive and unpopular left-wing fever dreams:
The 10-year Green New Deal calls for generating 100% of power from renewables and removing greenhouse gas emissions from manufacturing and transportation—to the extent these goals are “technologically feasible.” Hint: They’re not. The plan also calls for “upgrading all existing buildings in the United States and building new buildings to achieve maximal energy efficiency, water efficiency, safety, affordability, comfort and durability, including through electrification.” That’s all existing buildings, comrade. Millions of jobs would have to be destroyed en route to this brave new green world, but not to worry. The resolution says the government would also guarantee “a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States.”
Another goal would be to nearly eliminate air travel (never mind that the most-watched high speed rail project in the country, that ran shockingly over budget and blew past deadlines, just got canned) -- oh, and to guarantee full healthcare and quality, healthy food for all. This would all cost tens of trillions of unpaid-for dollars, would require stunning government interventions across numerous economic sectors, and would be directed by the sort of people who couldn't even execute the rollout of their press release about their proposed top-to-bottom remodeling of the US economy. But don't worry about all that; it's popular, even among Republicans. Or so we're told. Here's the question people were asked by the super unbiased fact-finders at Yale's program on Climate Change Communications:
Some members of Congress are proposing a “Green New Deal” for the U.S. They say that a Green New Deal will produce jobs and strengthen America’s economy by accelerating the transition from fossil fuels to clean, renewable energy. The Deal would generate 100% of the nation’s electricity from clean, renewable sources within the next 10 years; upgrade the nation’s energy grid, buildings, and transportation infrastructure; increase energy efficiency; invest in green technology research and development; and provide training for jobs in the new green economy.
Back to Allahpundit: "In other words, they laundry-listed a series of appealing outcomes without devoting a syllable to trade-offs, cost, feasibility, or any of the other extremely basic considerations serious legislators need to deal with. Turns out when you mention only the fantasyland best-case scenario for a policy proposal, with no apparent drawbacks, voters like the idea." Gee. That somehow sounds vaguely familiar. I'll leave you with this scathing review from a very liberal policy writer:
The botched rollout has grabbed all the attention, but the real problem with the Green New Deal is the plan itself https://t.co/oF5IZ2ZWno
— Jonathan Chait (@jonathanchait) February 13, 2019
Join the conversation as a VIP Member