We’ve just had our big roll-out of the Rainbows and Unicorns Resolution of 2019. It didn’t go very well. Amused as I am by a proposal that promises “economic security for all who are … unwilling to work,” today’s jokes often become tomorrow’s legislation or even policy. It’s important to push back against the cuckoo bird wing of the Democratic Party.
I hate to obsess over the proposal that every single Democratic presidential candidate seems to be endorsing, but, well, every single Democratic presidential candidate seems to be endorsing it. So, given that there’s a decent chance the next president will have run with the “Green New Deal” as a central campaign promise, I think we should take it seriously.
The trick of the “Green New Deal,” or GND, is that its adherents want to propose a resolution instead of an actual bill. This allows them to make ridiculous promises that appeal to their radical base without including any details or facing any accountability. Even more importantly, they get to hold this vote without a score from the Congressional Budget Office, a full accounting of its effect on the budget and the economy.
So, here’s an idea for Republicans in Congress: Propose the legislation for them.
Make some backbencher from a safe Red district serve as the sponsor , ideally someone with a winning sense of humor. The bill itself should be as simple as possible, so as to avoid any disputes about whether it is faithful to the letter and spirit of the GND.
It should authorize “such sums as are necessary” to meet the main goals set out in the GND: First, to decommission all or as many nuclear and fossil-fuel electrical plants as possible within 10 years; Second, to build windmills and solar panels and acquire the land to place them on, in sufficient quantities and amounts and in appropriate configurations as to replace all the lost generating power; Third, to end all oil leases and forfeit all revenue involved in fossil fuel exploitation on federal land; Fourth, to build a high-speed rail network that will replace plane travel between, say, the top 20 U.S. cities, just as a start. The ban on plane travel will not be ready in just 10 years, as the GND outline acknowledges, so bear in mind that it will have to come later (sorry, Hawaii, you’re screwed), along with the ban on raising cattle. Finally, be sure to set aside money for the anticipated legal challenges that will come from environmentalists or landowners who choose to fight eminent domain.
There will probably be a few important decisions to make on topics where the GND outline is silent. For example, should this bill ban natural gas production outright, including for export? There are references in the outline supporting such an idea, against “exporting pollution,” although natural gas is, itself, never mentioned. Also, should the GND bill replace natural gas it in its traditional uses for heating and cooking? I think the answer has to be yes; zero net emissions will require as much. That means we’ll need to produce even more electrical capacity. But then, should the government replace everyone’s natural gas stove? That could be pricey. Perhaps it should be considered as an optional amendment.
Anyway, there’s no need for this bill to do absolutely everything in the GND. Just do enough to meet its main goals. Then, ask the CBO for a cost estimate, as well as an estimate of its economic impact.
And while you’re at it, bring it to the floor and force a vote. Yes, Democrats will pretend it’s some kind of trick and offer that as an excuse for voting against it, but they won’t be fooling anyone. Most importantly, make the cuckoo birds vote against it, especially the ones in the Senate who are running for president. After it goes down in flames in a 100-0 vote, you’ll be able to spend the next 10 years telling voters what Democrats did when they had a chance to zero out emissions.
Republicans don’t have to stand on the sidelines amid this silliness, especially if the Democratic candidates for president are going to get behind this thing. They should get right in the middle of it. And I suspect that even House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., will be quietly grateful if they choose to play a role.
