Recognizing the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
(NOTE: The seed link opens a PDF file. The link is for the Green New Deal resolution posted on the House of Representatives web page of Rep. Ocasio-Cortez.)
First it is necessary to recognize that the Green New Deal resolution primarily calls for the creation of a national jobs program. The economic problems enumerated in the House Resolution align fairly well with the economic problems that President Donald Trump has been highlighting: deindustrialization, decline of rural jobs, stagnant wages, and, yes, even income disparities. President Trump has engaged in a so called 'trade war' and demanded tax reform to address many of the economic problems listed in the GND. In terms of economic problems the country is confronting, Trump and Ocasio-Cortez are pretty much on the same page. While the President's approach to addressing those economic problems differs from that of Rep. Ocasio-Cortez both are pursuing the same goals. The differences between President Trump and Rep. Ocasio-Cortez concern process but there is little, if any, difference over desired results.
As we have seen, political arguments over process have been used to thwart President Trump and, now, Rep. Ocasio-Cortez pursuing national goals. Small minded self interests claim that the process is flawed; therefore, the national goals are not worth pursuing.
The Green New Deal presents climate change as a national problem sufficiently large to justify mobilizing the domestic economy to create jobs, economic opportunities, and address the economic problems highlighted by President Trump and many members of Congress from both parties. However, the presentation of the problems associated with climate change creates a political difficulty. The enumeration of environmental problems are consistent with information provided by the scientific community and environmental activists. But the problems are all listed together in simple, stark language without any gloss or overlaid emotional prose. There aren't any drowning polar bears in the Green New Deal resolution. The simple, stark language of the resolution brings into focus the size, scope, and breadth of the problem of climate change that has been presented piecemeal by the scientific community. Climate change as a national problem is monstrously huge and will need more than technological gimmicks, magic tricks, or science fiction promises to solve. The Green New Deal resolution weaves all of the politicized discussion together into plain language that clearly shows addressing the problem of climate change is going to require a lot sacrifice and a lot of work.
Will the Green New Deal really change anything? Highly unlikely. The language in the resolution is too straightforward to allow for wishy-washy ambiguous political rhetoric and demagoguery. The problems listed in the resolution are starkly presented and are gathered together into single monstrously huge national problems. Incremental fixes won't solve the monstrously huge problems so it will be difficult to claim political wins by passing legislation. It will be easier to claim political wins through incremental obstruction of any effort to solve the monstrously huge problems. And those wins through obstruction will work as well for Democrats as for Republicans.
The Green New Deal is the right idea and a right approach. Unfortunately the Green New Deal is too large for our American political institutions.
Tags
Who is online
91 visitors
American politics cannot solve big national problems. The United States addresses and solves big national problems by empowering its citizens. The Green New Deal calls for mobilizing the people of the United States to solve economic and environmental problems. That's the right idea and the right approach.
As it should be.
That's what the Green New Deal calls for. There aren't demands for carbon taxes, reviving Obama's clean power plan, cap & trade, or any of the other political nonsense that has been tossed around. The GND is calling for creating jobs that will address climate change.
That's the right idea and the right approach. Wouldn't you agree?
Depends.
When it involves "cutting the military budget by half", and "eliminating fossil fuels by 2030", then no....it's silly and irresponsible.
It's also a bit strange to be talking about 20 million new jobs when employers can't fill the openings they have now.
If it was 2009, with 10% unemployment and a 21 year window, then it might be more credible.
thought I saw it was numbered house resolution 109 elsewhere , couild be wrong.
One of her arguments is that there has been wage stagnation since the 1970s. Could that stagnation be caused by Minimum Wage increases?
Let's go to the charts of the state and federal minimum wages:
From 1938 to now at the Federal level:
And from 1968 to now at the state level:
Usually when a minimum wage takes effect it does one of two things:
1) Eliminate low paying entry level jobs for high school students and others with no work history
2) Eliminate higher paying jobs for experienced workers to allow more low experienced workers to be hired.
Both of these things end up translating into the same thing: no total increases in wage averages. You either have a lot of people working at a lower wage or fewer people working.