By Morgan Jacobsen
Alexandria Ocasio Cortez - also referred to as AOC - is the U.S representative for New York’s 14th Congressional District, a member of the Democratic Party, and a self proclaimed “Democratic-Socialist.” In this article, I will be discussing the flaws in reasoning and practicality behind AOC’s rhetoric, the “Green New Deal,” and why some are considering her to be “the future of the Democratic Party.” In this excerpt from AOC’s 60 Minutes interview, the Congresswoman first claims that President Trump has been “manufacturing” the crisis on the border. Meanwhile, AOC notes that “the world is going to end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change.” She goes on to say that climate change is our “WW2.” I would first like to point out that we have already had a WW2. That would make this our WW3. Secondly, it is highly hypocritical to claim that the President is manufacturing a crisis on the border to secure funding for his border wall while simultaneously claiming the world will end in 12 years if we do not immediately adhere to the congresswoman’s “Green New Deal.” Next, Anderson Cooper asks AOC how she plans to pay for her proposed reforms (Medicare for all, college for all, Green New Deal). After explaining what a progressive tax rate is, she notes that those at the “tippy tops,” should be paying a 70% tax rate on their “10th million dollar.” AOC is subsequently questioned about her “socialist policies.” She claims that the policies she advocates are meant to resemble countries such as Norway, Finland, or Sweden. There are numerous reasons why such policies would not be effective in the United States. For one, the countries cited have small homogeneous populations and benefit from the strength of the global economy. Given that the United States contributes a disproportionate amount to the global economy, our adoption of such policies could weaken the world economy, leading to the collapse of “Nordic Socialism.” Lastly, AOC is questioned about her habit of spreading falsehoods in the from of misinformation, she responded., “I think there’s a lot of people more concerned about being precisely, factually, and semantically correct than about being morally right.” One cannot be “morally right” without being factually correct.
Let’s discuss the Green New Deal. The Green New Deal proposes the following:
This resolution calls for the creation of a Green New Deal with the goals of
- achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions;
- establishing millions of high-wage jobs and ensuring economic security for all;
investing in infrastructure and industry;
- securing clean air and water, climate and community resiliency, healthy food, access to nature, and a sustainable environment for all; and promoting justice and equality.
The resolution calls for accomplishment of these goals through a 10-year national mobilization effort. The resolution also enumerates the goals and projects of the mobilization effort, including
- building smart power grids (i.e., power grids that enable customers to reduce their power use during peak demand periods);
- upgrading all existing buildings and constructing new buildings to achieve maximum energy and water efficiency;
- removing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation and agricultural sectors;
- cleaning up existing hazardous waste and abandoned sites;
- ensuring businesspersons are free from unfair competition; and
- providing higher education, high-quality health care, and affordable, safe, and adequate housing to all.
Achieving the goals of the Green New deal would result in a massive expansion in the power of government, the collapse of the United States economy, and cost an estimated 51-93 trillion dollars over a 10 year time span. Surprise! Exclusively taxing the ultra rich will not cover the cost of such reforms. Upon reviewing the proposals made by the Green New Deal, I would like you to ask yourself what sort of government we would need to achieve such goals.
- “Economic Security for All,”
- “providing higher education, high-quality health care, and affordable, safe, and adequate housing to all,”
- “upgrading all existing buildings,”
And all of this would be ensured by the Federal Government.
- “Businesspersons are free from ‘unfair’ competition”
What does this even mean? What sort of competition is categorized as unfair? How do you conclude that? Is competition not a vital part of capitalism and innovation?
The most important question one could ask after viewing the proposed Green New Deal: How will this all be achieved?
The Congresswoman isn't exactly sure, but it will probably involve taxing the “tippy tops” and utilizing the fear of environmental crisis to harness the power of the federal government and spend more of other people's money. Disagree with the congresswoman’s plan? Well too bad, because she’s the BOSS. Oh, and the “little minute thing” that the Green New Deal does not address is how any of the ideas will be executed.
Congresswoman AOC can be added onto the list of politicians who attempt to garner votes and gain acclaim by simply promising people things that will be paid for at the expense of evil billionaires. The Green New Deal, which would lead to the breakdown of the United States economy and does not address how goals will be achieved, also fails to address the emissions expelled by developing countries, which are continuing to increase. At this point you may be asking, “Why does AOC matter?” The ideas expressed by AOC matter because they are a characterization of the leftward shifting of the Democratic Party. Democrats are being exposed to the young and ill-informed, and they ignore the tenets that have made the United States a world power. Congresspeople who are more concerned about moral rather than factual correctness further reflect the idea that elected officials are becoming increasingly inept.
Comments