Well, let's see here...
This is, of course, total horseshit. As I have pointed out for years, Medicare for All -- whether iterated as a "public health option" or a full-on single-payer national health system -- would cost far less money than what is now being spent on healthcare coverage in the U.S., much of which goes into the obscene profits of the health insurance industry.
And of course you can't even theoretically get these off-setting savings without eliminating the private insurance system, which as
I have pointed out is a course of action supported by a whopping 13% of the American people:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=19000&p=266061&hili ... ce#p266061
I hope you're not suggesting that a policy proposal on an issue that is consistently at the top of voter concerns that has 13% support can possibly get passed into law...
Because that would be...
Oh,
what's the phrase....
Oh yeah, total horseshit....
At present, a "Green New Deal" program is just a concept and is still too undefined to allow for any meaningful estimation of its costs and savings. But considering the actual existential threat posed by climate change, whatever the costs may be they are better spent there than on giving tax cuts to the rich and to large corporations.
For the past couple of weeks I have been meaning to start a thread about the so-called "Green New Deal"...I've tried to do some research on it, thinking that it might actually be a good idea to learn something about what it's supposed to mean before I talked about it...(I realize that might constitute a serious breach of the Terms Of Service for this board, but I thought I'd risk it...
)
What I've learned is that there are a whole lot of proposals out there being touted by their authors as "The Green New Deal"...
The other thing that I have learned is that if you believe that "The Green New Deal" is just some sort of action plan directed at dealing with climate change, you believe something that could best be characterized as total horseshit...
For the purposes of this discussion, I will reference two of the many "Green New Deal" proposals out there...
What I take to be the original template for "The Green New Deal"; The Green Party's version:
https://www.gp.org/green_new_deal
And the version proposed by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortz and Massachusetts Senator Ed Markey (which I shall hereafter refer to as AOC-Markey):
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-con ... n/109/text
The original Green Party "Green New Deal" can fairly be described as a very comprehensive Socialist/Pacifist Manifesto...
The AOC-Markey version, (I suppose recognizing that a comprehensive socialist/pacifist manifesto may not be a winning platform in the US) takes out a lot of the most over the top stuff, and replaces it with some hilariously vacuous verbiage...
Here are a couple of examples of the prose from AOC-Markey:
(A) providing and leveraging, in a way that ensures that the public receives appropriate ownership stakes and returns on investment, adequate capital (including through community grants, public banks, and other public financing), technical expertise, supporting policies, and other forms of assistance to communities, organizations, Federal, State, and local government agencies, and businesses working on the Green New Deal mobilization;
(E) directing investments to spur economic development, deepen and diversify industry and business in local and regional economies, and build wealth and community ownership, while prioritizing high-quality job creation and economic, social, and environmental benefits in frontline and vulnerable communities, and deindustrialized communities, that may otherwise struggle with the transition away from greenhouse gas intensive industries;
Well
that certainly makes everything perfectly clear...
And there's this:
(G) ensuring that the Green New Deal mobilization creates high-quality union jobs that pay prevailing wages, hires local workers, offers training and advancement opportunities, and guarantees wage and benefit parity for workers affected by the transition;
(H) guaranteeing a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States;
(I) strengthening and protecting the right of all workers to organize, unionize, and collectively bargain free of coercion, intimidation, and harassment;
(J) strengthening and enforcing labor, workplace health and safety, antidiscrimination, and wage and hour standards across all employers, industries, and sectors;....
O) providing all people of the United States with—
(i) high-quality health care;
(ii) affordable, safe, and adequate housing;
(iii) economic security;
I'll stipulate that "family-sustaining wages" family leave, paid vacations, retirement security, affordable housing, higher education, etc, etc, etc, etc are all nice things, but I have to say that it's not immediately apparent to me what
any of them have to do with fighting "climate change"...
What
is immediately apparent to me is that they are all very expensive things, and noticeably lacking from AOC-Markey are any meaningful proposals for paying for them...
I have to say that the Green Party version actually
does contain a proposal to raise a substantial chunk of money (though still not enough to pay for it's envisioned far-reaching government take over of the economy)
It's an
horrendous proposal based on a complete fantasy, but at least it's a proposal:
The implementation of the Green New Deal will revive the economy, turn the tide on climate change and make wars for oil obsolete. This latter result, in turn, enables a 50% cut in the military budget, since maintaining bases all over the world to safeguard fossil fuel supplies and routes of transportation could no longer be justified. That military savings of several hundred billion dollars per year would go a very long way toward creating green jobs at home.
Gee whiz, somehow the 50% cut in defense spending didn't make it into AOC-Markey...
Hmm..I wonder why that is...
More broadly, I am sick to death of hearing about how we Americans "can't afford" the basic social supports and infrastructure that every other industrialized democracy provides. It's simply not true.
I'll tell you what's simply not true...
The idea that you can pay for European level social services by some formula of having "the rich" pay their "fair share"...
That's total pony poop...
And it's certainly not the way the Europeans do it...
They've done it by having massively higher taxes of all types imposed on all working people across the board...
Federal income tax rates are
substantially higher for average wage earners than in the US:
https://digitalnomadeurope.com/income-t ... ean-union/
Let's look at a couple of examples from that link, Austria and Belgium:
Austria
You will not get taxed on income lower than €11.000. Income between €11.000 and €18.000 will be taxed at 25%. There is a grading scale for higher income, with a 50% tax rate for income over €90.000 and below €1 million.
Belgium
There is no tax-free personal allowance. Income up to €11.070 is taxed at 25%. Income between €11.070 and €38.830 is taxed at a rate between 30% and 45%, while all income over €38.830 is taxed at 50%.
By contrast, US tax payers earning the dollar equivalent of between 38,000 and 90,000 Euros annually pay a federal income tax rate of between 12 and 24 per cent:
https://smartasset.com/taxes/current-fe ... x-brackets
But of course it doesn't stop there...
Let's look at the sales tax rates:
The Sales Tax Rate in European Union stands at 21.50 percent.
https://tradingeconomics.com/european-u ... s-tax-rate
While in the US (no national sales tax):
Forty-five states and the District of Columbia collect statewide sales taxes.
Local sales taxes are collected in 38 states. In some cases, they can rival or even exceed state rates.
The five states with the highest average combined state and local sales tax rates are Louisiana (10.02 percent),
Tennessee (9.46 percent), Arkansas (9.41 percent), Washington (9.18 percent), and Alabama (9.10 percent).
https://taxfoundation.org/state-and-loc ... ates-2018/
So regarding sales taxes we're talking about anywhere between zero and 10%, versus 21.5%...
And don't even get me started on the gas taxes:
60% tax on petrol gives Britain, France and Germany some of the highest pump prices worldwide.
http://www.uhy.com/european-companies-s ... uel-costs/
So, if there's a Democratic candidate out there who wants to say "The way I'm going to pay for
my goodie super tanker is by more than doubling the federal income tax rate on average working people, more than double the sales tax they pay for everything they buy, and slap a 60% tax on gas at the pump"...
I'll say "Well at least the there stands an
honest guy/gal, but good luck with that"...
Forgive me if I don't hold my breath...
The last national Democratic political candidate who was honest about how they were going to pay for all their largess was Walter "I'm going to raise your taxes" Mondale...
Also known as Walter "Loser Of 49 States" Mondale...
Ever since then in election cycles for decades, Democrats have tried to sell the American people on the idea that they could pay for all their good deeds just by getting the "fair share" of taxes out of "the rich"...
But of course that math has never added up, and in this election cycle with the vastly expanded wish lists many candidates are touting, the numbers are even further apart...
It's total horseshit...
ETA:
Note to wes:
You see there wes...
I'm perfectly capable of being a relentless and uncompromising Never Trumper, and pouring scathing condemnation on the Republicans who have collaborated with him, while at the same time still having
plenty of criticism left over for the Democrats...
So you can drop your ridiculous attempts to try to tie me to Maxine Waters, or the "antifa"...
When it comes to finding fault and handing out criticism, I'm an accomplished multi-tasker...