Fox Wilmington WSFX-TV

Wilmington, NC

fox-news/topic/green-new-deal

AOC ally pans ‘ridiculous’ Pelosi claim on climate change measure in coronavirus bill

By

A Green New Deal co-author panned Speaker Nancy Pelosi for including “tiny” airline emissions standards in the House’s coronavirus response package, arguing now is not the time for token environmental provisions when Americans’ livelihoods are hanging in the balance.

Saikat Chakrabarti, the former chief of staff to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, called Pelosi’s idea “ridiculous” to include carbon emission language in legislation designed to keep Americans from losing their incomes, homes and businesses during the pandemic.

“I helped write the #GreenNewDeal and I think this is ridiculous,” tweeted Chakrabarti, who helped author the Green New Deal while working with Ocasio-Cortez and Massachusetts Sen. Ed Markey’s office. “The tiny little emissions standard increase doesn’t even do anything meaningful to stave off climate change and gives the @GOP leverage to get rid of real help for working people. Solve the problem at hand.”

Chakrabarti was reacting to a TV interview where Pelosi defended the airline carbon emission language in the House bill.

TRUMP ON HOUSE DEMS’ CORONAVIRUS RELIEF BILL: ‘NO WAY I’M SIGNING THAT DEAL’ WITH ‘GREEN NEW DEAL STUFF

“There is a whole concern in our country that if we’re giving tens of billions of dollars to the airlines, that we could at least have a shared value about what happens to the environment,” Pelosi said.

The House stimulus bill, which hasn’t passed, includes aid to the flagging airline industry but requires the airlines to fully offset their carbon emissions starting in 2025. The House Democrats’  legislation also calls for airlines to reduce their carbon emissions by 25 percent by 2035 and 50 percent by 2050.

Republicans panned the House bill as being bogged down with unrelated goodies, including climate change provisions. President Trump and Republicans ripped the legislation as an effort to try to pass the “Green New Deal,”  while Americans are struggling to keep their homes, businesses and health.

However, the Green New Deal isn’t in the House legislation. The Green New Deal aims to move away from old environmental regulations, such as airline emission and carbon cap and trade deals. The blueprint of the Green New Deal is a manufacturing initiative to build up a massive new clean energy infrastructure by ramping up production of solar panels, wind farms, batteries, new power grids, electric cars, charging stations and more.

Green New Deal activists took issue with the coronavirus stimulus bill being stymied by minor environmental provisions they deem as laughable. Chakrabarti encouraged lawmakers to pass simple legislation immediately  — without environmental mandates — that ensures Americans have money coming in.

“Imagine if Pelosi had passed a simple, 5-page bill that just did the obvious stuff everyone knows [could] hold the economy together,” the AOC ally tweeted. “Payroll covered, debts pause[d], direct cash to people, 0% interest loans for business. Then dare the Senate to oppose it. We’d have a bill last week.”

WHITE HOUSE, SENATE STRIKE DEAL ON HISTORIC $2T CORONAVIRUS RELIEF BILL; PELOSI OFFERS TEPID ENDORSEMENT

During a conference call with House Democrats Tuesday afternoon, at least one Blue Dog Democrat said Pelosi’s House bill “set people off” and angered struggling constituents in moderate districts who think Democrats were trying to seek partisan wins like the “Green New Deal,” according to a person familiar with the call.

Pelosi quashed the claim and said the Green New Deal isn’t part of the House bill, just the airline emissions standards. Her message to the Democrats was: I do not support the Green New Deal. There is no Green New Deal in our bill, the source said.

The airline emission hubbub is likely moot at this point. The Senate reached a bipartisan deal for its $2 trillion stimulus bill that is not expected to have airline emission regulations. If the legislation passes the Senate, it will head to the House and to Trump.

It would be the largest stimulus package passed in U.S. history, yet lawmakers already acknowledged at least one other round of aid is likely needed to help American families reeling from the shutdown of the economy because of the coronavirus.

AOC reads entire Green New Deal on House floor to clear up ‘misinformation’

By

AOC’s competition: Meet the candidates running against Ocasio-Cortez

Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s polarizing persona has quickly made her a household name for many, but it has also earned her a long list of challengers looking to take her Congressional seat in the upcoming November election. Meet the Democratic and Republican candidates that are running against Ocasio-Cortez for her seat that represents New York’s 14th Congressional district.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez read her entire 14-page signature Green New Deal on the House floor because she said Republicans don’t seem to understand it, based on their “wild claims.”

The New York Democrat took to the floor Wednesday afternoon, sounding the alarm on climate change and taking aim at those who seek to demonize her vast government solution.

“I have noticed that there’s been an awful lot of misinformation about what is inside this resolution,” Ocasio-Cortez said from the well of the House chamber. “A tremendous amount of wild claims — everything from saying we’re seeking to ban airplanes to ending ice cream.

“As a consequence, I realized that many of my colleagues have never even read the resolution that they’re speaking on. They haven’t opened a single word of it,” Ocasio-Cortez said.

AOC RILES DEMS BY REFUSING TO PAY PARTY DUES, BANKROLLING COLLEAGUES’ OPPONENTS

The 30-year-old congresswoman said she decided to read the measure into the congressional record as a rebuke to “some of my colleagues across the aisle.”

She gave a dramatic reading of the resolution that calls for a drastic reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, creating millions of jobs and rebuilding U.S. infrastructure by launching a 10-year mobilization phase to spur the transition to clean energy. The ultimate goal is net-zero global emissions by 2050.

While the non-binding resolution doesn’t dive into specifics or outline costs, one study suggested the type of investment needed to achieve the goals — including $36 trillion for universal healthcare — would be pegged at $93 trillion in the first 10 years.

“Why this is so controversial?” Ocasio-Cortez said at the end of her 20-minute speech, urging her colleagues to join the fight.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

“So, please, as a moral, economic and political prerogative, I humbly ask our country to care for our planet,” she said.

AOC reads entire Green New Deal on House floor to clear up ‘misinformation’

By

AOC’s competition: Meet the candidates running against Ocasio-Cortez

Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s polarizing persona has quickly made her a household name for many, but it has also earned her a long list of challengers looking to take her Congressional seat in the upcoming November election. Meet the Democratic and Republican candidates that are running against Ocasio-Cortez for her seat that represents New York’s 14th Congressional district.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez read her entire 14-page signature Green New Deal on the House floor because she said Republicans don’t seem to understand it, based on their “wild claims.”

The New York Democrat took to the floor Wednesday afternoon, sounding the alarm on climate change and taking aim at those who seek to demonize her vast government solution.

“I have noticed that there’s been an awful lot of misinformation about what is inside this resolution,” Ocasio-Cortez said from the well of the House chamber. “A tremendous amount of wild claims — everything from saying we’re seeking to ban airplanes to ending ice cream.

“As a consequence, I realized that many of my colleagues have never even read the resolution that they’re speaking on. They haven’t opened a single word of it,” Ocasio-Cortez said.

AOC RILES DEMS BY REFUSING TO PAY PARTY DUES, BANKROLLING COLLEAGUES’ OPPONENTS

The 30-year-old congresswoman said she decided to read the measure into the congressional record as a rebuke to “some of my colleagues across the aisle.”

She gave a dramatic reading of the resolution that calls for a drastic reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, creating millions of jobs and rebuilding U.S. infrastructure by launching a 10-year mobilization phase to spur the transition to clean energy. The ultimate goal is net-zero global emissions by 2050.

While the non-binding resolution doesn’t dive into specifics or outline costs, one study suggested the type of investment needed to achieve the goals — including $36 trillion for universal healthcare — would be pegged at $93 trillion in the first 10 years.

“Why this is so controversial?” Ocasio-Cortez said at the end of her 20-minute speech, urging her colleagues to join the fight.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

“So, please, as a moral, economic and political prerogative, I humbly ask our country to care for our planet,” she said.

Heritage Foundation researcher: Green New Deal ‘would devastate the economy,’ hit working families hardest

By

Democrats’ proposed Green New Deal (GND) could end up costing households much more than they bargained for, Heritage Foundation Research Fellow Joel Griffith said Friday.

Appearing on “Fox & Friends First” Friday morning with host Heather Childers, Griffith said that the legislation’s hefty $93 trillion price tag over its first 10 years would devastate working families.

“There’s really nothing audacious about it except for its absolute absurdity and that’s because this constitutes a federal power grab that would devastate the economy and it would hurt those working families the hardest,” he stated.

GREEN NEW DEAL WOULD COST SWING-STATE HOUSEHOLDS AROUND $75G IN FIRST YEAR: STUDY

According to Democratic politicians, the GND would end the use of fossil fuels and nuclear energy in a decade, upgrade all existing buildings to be carbon-neutral, eliminate greenhouse gas pollution from farms, and completely overhaul the U.S. transportation system.

A new report from the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, Power the Future, and the Competitive Enterprise Institute analyzed implementation costs in 11 states and found that the Green New Deal would cost the average household more than $75,000 in the first year and more than $40,000 each year after. In some states, the cost would exceed the median household incomes.

Those figures incorporate the cost of electricity production in the first year of the program, a one-time upgrade to vehicles and housing, as well as shipping and logistics costs incurred from GND mandates.

Griffith noted that, by the third year of the GND, the study shows the typical family would have an annual hit to their income amounting to $11,000.

“This is massive,” he told Childers. “This would erode all of the money some of these families have for retirement savings, for basic entertainment. It would start encroaching on the very things they need to live.”

CLICK HERE FOR THE FOX NEWS APP

Griffith advised examining the net impact of the proposal.

“Our studies show … that throughout the implementation of this plan we would be looking at five million jobs lost. And, that’s a big number,” he remarked. ” … This is impacting almost every sector negatively.”

Fox News’ Sam Dorman contributed to this report.

Green New Deal would cost swing-state households around $75G in first year: study

By

A new study claims that progressives’ Green New Deal (GND) would impose around $75,000 in average annual costs for households in key battleground states — raising questions as to how climate politics will impact voter sentiment going into the 2020 elections.

The report, released by the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) and Power the Future on Wednesday, builds upon a previous study from the organization last summer. Using updated data, the group found that within the first year of implementation, the GND would cost households an average of between $74,287 and $76,683 in 10 states — Colorado ($74,287), Florida ($76,109), Iowa ($76,683), Michigan ($74,470), New Hampshire ($74,723), New Mexico ($74,432), North Carolina ($74,609), Ohio ($75,807), Pennsylvania ($75,307), and Wisconsin ($75,252).

Those figures incorporate the cost of electricity production within the first year of the program, a one-time upgrade to vehicles and housing, as well as shipping and logistics costs incurred from GND mandates.

CEI also examined Alaska, which would purportedly face $84,584 in average annual household costs during the GND’s first year. While the costs for each of the states declined in the following years, they all faced more than $39,000 in average annual household costs in the long term (six years or more).

SWING-STATE HOUSEHOLDS WOULD LOSE AT LEAST $70G WITHIN FIRST YEAR OF GREEN NEW DEAL, STUDY FINDS

The report also identifies collective costs per state based on all of those factors, omitting electricity production.

In total, these states would face $2.7 trillion in aggregate costs to households. Households just in the key battleground state of Florida would face $700 billion in collective costs to fulfill the GND’s goal of transitioning towards electric vehicles, retrofit residential buildings, and complying with changes to shipping and logistics. Released on Wednesday, the study found that households in other major states — like Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania — would incur roughly $200-$400 billion in initial costs.

Because the GND is so sweeping in its goals, it was difficult for CEI to fully account for the true costs of implementation. And it’s unclear how Democratic spending would help mitigate the costs incurred by households.

Yet, the free market think tank calculated base estimates showing a hefty price for GND mandates energy-related provisions of the progressive proposal. The other aspects of the proposal, it said, “dwarf the energy-related costs by an order of magnitude.”

As the study’s authors point out, their numbers provide just a basis for the actual cost of the energy-related provisions. For example, their calculations exclude costs for air cargo, as well as for retrofitting commercial and industrial buildings. “Taken together, the estimated costs for retrofitting current residential, commercial, and industrial buildings is astronomical,” wrote authors Daniel Turner and Kent Lassman.

“Right now, our booming national economy and record low unemployment rate is driven by abundant, domestic, reliable, and inexpensive energy produced by millions of men and women across the country,” he said. “Any policy that proposes to reverse this success is a threat to jobs, to rural communities, to national security, and to the very prosperity that Americans are experiencing.”

Both CEI and the Heritage Foundation have found that the Green New Deal’s energy goals alone would cost households hefty and likely impractical sums.

When the American Action Forum (AAF), led by former Congressional Budget Office director Douglas Holtz-Eakin, looked at the GND, it accounted for several other goals with primarily economic aims (“universal health care” and “guaranteed jobs”). It found that the program could cost as much as $94 trillion. By including those provisions, AAF’s calculations estimated that the average cost per household would be $600,000.

CEI has come under fire for taking donations from groups associated with the Charles and the late David Koch, two figures progressives have attacked for opposing climate change efforts. The organization describes itself on its website as a “non-profit public policy organization dedicated to advancing the principles of limited government, free enterprise and individual liberty. CEI’s mission is to promote both freedom and fairness by making good policy good politics.”

Wednesday’s numbers came as the Democratic primary results continued pointing to a strong progressive sentiment among those in the party: Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., who has endorsed the GND and received backing from its primary sponsor, won by substantial margins in both New Hampshire’s and Nevada’s contests this month.

BERNIE SANDERS REVEALS ‘MAJOR PLANS’ TO BE FUNDED BY NEW TAXES, MASSIVE LAWSUITS, MILITARY CUTS

Although voter concern about climate change has reportedly increased, it appears to be driven by Democrats. There’s a wide gap between the percentage of Republicans and Democrats who describe it as a top policy priority, according to Pew Research Center.

Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., the plan’s primary proponent, maintain that the cost of inaction on climate change is unsustainable. According to Sanders, the proposed solutions — infrastructure and investment — would boost the U.S. economy as well.

On Tuesday, Sanders released more details about how he proposed to pay for his version of the GND, which he says would cost $16.3 trillion. That included $3.085 trillion from penalizing the fossil fuel industry “for their pollution” and from eliminating fossil fuel subsidies.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Another $6.4 trillion would purportedly come from “power marketing administrations,” which are energy entities created by government takeovers of the energy sector. It’s unclear how much those would cost and if that would offset the projected revenue increase.

Finally, Sanders warns that without action on climate change, the U.S. will “lose $34.5 trillion by the end of the century.” He also predicts savings as high as $70.4 trillion over 80 years by “averting climate catastrophe.”

Green New Deal would cost swing-state households around $75G in first year: study

By

A new study claims that progressives’ Green New Deal (GND) would impose around $75,000 in average annual costs for households in key battleground states — raising questions as to how climate politics will impact voter sentiment going into the 2020 elections.

The report, released by the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) and Power the Future on Wednesday, builds upon a previous study from the organization last summer. Using updated data, the group found that within the first year of implementation, the GND would cost households an average of between $74,287 and $76,683 in 10 states — Colorado ($74,287), Florida ($76,109), Iowa ($76,683), Michigan ($74,470), New Hampshire ($74,723), New Mexico ($74,432), North Carolina ($74,609), Ohio ($75,807), Pennsylvania ($75,307), and Wisconsin ($75,252).

Those figures incorporate the cost of electricity production within the first year of the program, a one-time upgrade to vehicles and housing, as well as shipping and logistics costs incurred from GND mandates.

CEI also examined Alaska, which would purportedly face $84,584 in average annual household costs during the GND’s first year. While the costs for each of the states declined in the following years, they all faced more than $39,000 in average annual household costs in the long term (six years or more).

SWING-STATE HOUSEHOLDS WOULD LOSE AT LEAST $70G WITHIN FIRST YEAR OF GREEN NEW DEAL, STUDY FINDS

The report also identifies collective costs per state based on all of those factors, omitting electricity production.

In total, these states would face $2.7 trillion in aggregate costs to households. Households just in the key battleground state of Florida would face $700 billion in collective costs to fulfill the GND’s goal of transitioning towards electric vehicles, retrofit residential buildings, and complying with changes to shipping and logistics. Released on Wednesday, the study found that households in other major states — like Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania — would incur roughly $200-$400 billion in initial costs.

Because the GND is so sweeping in its goals, it was difficult for CEI to fully account for the true costs of implementation. And it’s unclear how Democratic spending would help mitigate the costs incurred by households.

Yet, the free market think tank calculated base estimates showing a hefty price for GND mandates energy-related provisions of the progressive proposal. The other aspects of the proposal, it said, “dwarf the energy-related costs by an order of magnitude.”

As the study’s authors point out, their numbers provide just a basis for the actual cost of the energy-related provisions. For example, their calculations exclude costs for air cargo, as well as for retrofitting commercial and industrial buildings. “Taken together, the estimated costs for retrofitting current residential, commercial, and industrial buildings is astronomical,” wrote authors Daniel Turner and Kent Lassman.

“Right now, our booming national economy and record low unemployment rate is driven by abundant, domestic, reliable, and inexpensive energy produced by millions of men and women across the country,” he said. “Any policy that proposes to reverse this success is a threat to jobs, to rural communities, to national security, and to the very prosperity that Americans are experiencing.”

Both CEI and the Heritage Foundation have found that the Green New Deal’s energy goals alone would cost households hefty and likely impractical sums.

When the American Action Forum (AAF), led by former Congressional Budget Office director Douglas Holtz-Eakin, looked at the GND, it accounted for several other goals with primarily economic aims (“universal health care” and “guaranteed jobs”). It found that the program could cost as much as $94 trillion. By including those provisions, AAF’s calculations estimated that the average cost per household would be $600,000.

CEI has come under fire for taking donations from groups associated with the Koch brothers, two figures progressives have attacked for opposing climate change efforts. The organization describes itself on its website as a “non-profit public policy organization dedicated to advancing the principles of limited government, free enterprise and individual liberty. CEI’s mission is to promote both freedom and fairness by making good policy good politics.”

Wednesday’s numbers came as the Democratic primary results continued pointing to a strong progressive sentiment among those in the party: Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., who has endorsed the GND and received backing from its primary sponsor, won by substantial margins in both New Hampshire’s and Nevada’s contests this month.

BERNIE SANDERS REVEALS ‘MAJOR PLANS’ TO BE FUNDED BY NEW TAXES, MASSIVE LAWSUITS, MILITARY CUTS

Although voter concern about climate change has reportedly increased, it appears to be driven by Democrats. There’s a wide gap between the percentage of Republicans and Democrats who describe it as a top policy priority, according to Pew Research Center.

Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., the plan’s primary proponent, maintain that the cost of inaction on climate change is unsustainable. According to Sanders, the proposed solutions — infrastructure and investment — would boost the U.S. economy as well.

On Tuesday, Sanders released more details about how he proposed to pay for his version of the GND, which he says would cost $16.3 trillion. That included $3.085 trillion from penalizing the fossil fuel industry “for their pollution” and from eliminating fossil fuel subsidies.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Another $6.4 trillion would purportedly come from “power marketing administrations,” which are energy entities created by government takeovers of the energy sector. It’s unclear how much those would cost and if that would offset the projected revenue increase.

Finally, Sanders warns that without action on climate change, the U.S. will “lose $34.5 trillion by the end of the century.” He also predicts savings as high as $70.4 trillion over 80 years by “averting climate catastrophe.”

Bernie Sanders reveals ‘major plans’ to be funded in part by new taxes, lawsuits

By

Bernie Sanders unexpectedly released a fact-sheet Monday night explaining that he’d pay for his sweeping new government programs through new taxes and massive lawsuits, as well as by slashing spending on the military, among other methods.

The move sought to head off complaints from Republicans and some rival Democrats that his plans were economically unrealistic, especially after a head-turning CBS News interview in which the frustrated Vermont senator said he couldn’t “rattle off to you every nickle and every dime” about his proposed expenditures.

He released his plan on his website just minutes after abruptly promising to do so during a CNN town hall.

However, the fact-sheet highlighted for the first time that many of Sanders’ expected cost-saving measures relied heavily on conjecture. For example, Sanders’ document asserts matter-of-factly that a “modest tax on Wall Street speculation … will raise an estimated $2.4 trillion over ten years” and, in one fell swoop, make all “public colleges, universities and trade schools tuition-free … and cancel all student debt over the next decade.”

Housing for everyone would cost $2.5 trillion over ten years, and would be paid entirely by a “wealth tax on the top one-tenth of one percent,” raising a total of $4.35 trillion. Similarly, “universal childcare and pre-school to every family in America” would be provided with a wealth tax on the “top 0.1 percent,” again raising more than $4 trillion.

Sanders’ plan did not discuss the possible stock market ramificiations of a major seizure of some of this wealth, much of which is held in markets and other investments. The plan also did not discuss how the government would be able to reliably obtain the money, given that many investments could easily be liquidated or transferred elsewhere.

BLOOMBERG STAGING MASSIVE AD, SURROGATE BLITZ AGAINST SANDERS 

A new “income inequality tax on large corporations that pay CEOs at least 50 times more than average workers” would take care of $81 billion in past-due medical debt, Sanders claimed.

Sanders’ projections also stated without providing details that his Green New Deal plan would create “20 million new jobs,” thus ensuring $2.3 trillion in “new income tax revenue.”

Additionally, Sanders promised that by “averting climate catastrophe we will save: $2.9 trillion over 10 years, $21 trillion over 30 years and $70.4 trillion over 80 years.”

No information was provided to validate that assertion, although the Trump administration’s National Climate Assessment found that it was possible climate change could reduce the size of the U.S. economy by 10 percent by the end of the century, assuming no substantial changes in technology (including carbon-reducing innovations) or policy occur in the meantime.

Sanders claimed to be able to raise “$3.085 trillion by making the fossil fuel industry pay for their pollution, through litigation, fees, and taxes, and eliminating federal fossil fuel subsidies.” He has repeatedly suggested on the campaign trail that he would direct the Justice Department to pursue the fossil fuel industry, although it was unclear how successful that legal strategy would be.

“If we do not act, the U.S. will lose $34.5 trillion by the end of the century in economic productivity,” Sanders allegedly — putting the consequences of climate change in stark economic terms.

On health care, Sanders has previously vowed to provide benefits, including health care, even to illegal immigrants. It’s unclear how many people that unprecedented proposal would cover, especially given that such a plan would likely lead to a rise in immigration to the United States and that the number of illegal immigrants presently in the country is unknown. The issue is not mentioned at all in Sanders’ fact-sheet.

Instead, although some nonpartisan estimates have put the cost of Sanders’ “Medicare-for-all” proposal at over $32 trillion, Sanders’ fact-sheet simply doubled down on a “proposed a menu of financing options that would more than pay” for the program.

FACT CHECK: WERE SANDERS’ REMARKS ON CUBAN LITERACY PROGRAMS OFF-BASE?

Among the available options: “creating a 4 percent income-based premium paid by employees, exempting the first $29,000 in income for a family of four,” as well as imposing a 7.5 percent “income-based premium paid by employers, exempting the first $1 million in payroll to protect small businesses.”

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders I-Vt. speaks at a campaign event in El Paso, Texas, Saturday, Feb. 22, 2020. Sanders urged his supporters to vote in the primary, which is already underway. Democratic primary voting in Texas ends March 3, along with other states who, all together, will decide one third of the delegates in the contest. (AP Photo/Cedar Attanasio)

Other savings would come from eliminating “health tax expenditures, which would no longer be needed under Medicare for All,” and “raising the top marginal income tax rate to 52% on income over $10 million.”

BLOOMBERG OFFICES ALLEGEDLY VANDALIZED WITH ANTI-RICH GRAFFITI; ARE WE SURE WHO IS RESPONSIBLE?

Reducing defense spending by “$1.215 trillion” would be achievable by “scaling back military operations on protecting the global oil supply,” Sanders’ fact-sheet continued. Defense spending is slated to total $934 billion from Oct. 1, 2020 to Sept. 30, 2021.

As the numbers were released, Sanders doubled down on his comments praising Cuban dictator Fidel Castro’s “literacy program,” saying it was a positive outcome from the violent Cuban Revolution that literacy rates quickly rose.

The pro-Castro remarks had drawn scrutiny even from Democratic lawmakers, especially in Florida, which has a large Cuban-American population.

“As the first South American immigrant member of Congress who proudly represents thousands of Cuban Americans, I find Senator Bernie Sanders’ comments on Castro’s Cuba absolutely unacceptable,” wrote Florida Democratic Rep. Debbie Mucarsel-Powell. “The Castro regime murdered and jailed dissidents, and caused unspeakable harm to too many South Florida families. To this day, it remains an authoritarian regime that oppresses its people, subverts the free press, and stifles a free society.”

Other Democrats pointed out that Cuba’s literacy was on the rise pre-Castro, and asserted that the literacy program amounted to an indoctrination effort. Even so, on Monday, Sanders refused to apologize for his remarks at the CNN town hall, when pressed by moderator Chris Cuomo.

CLICK HERE FOR THE FOX NEWS APP

“Truth is truth,” Sanders said to applause. “If you want to disagree with me, if somebody wants to say — and by the way, all of those congresspeople that you mention, just so happen to be supporting other candidates — accidentally no doubt, coincidentally. But, you know, the truth is the truth. And that’s what happened in the first years of the Castro regime.”

Also at the town hall, after arguing that people should not be judged solely by their skin color, Sanders promised that his vice president “definitively” would not be an “old white guy.”

Bernie Sanders reveals ‘major plans’ to be funded by new taxes, massive lawsuits, military cuts

By

Bernie Sanders unexpectedly released a fact-sheet Monday night explaining that he’d pay for his sweeping new government programs through new taxes and massive lawsuits, as well as by slashing spending on the military, among other methods.

The move sought to head off complaints from Republicans and some rival Democrats that his plans were economically unrealistic, especially after a head-turning CBS News interview in which the frustrated Vermont senator said he couldn’t “rattle off to you every nickle and every dime” about his proposed expenditures.

He released his plan on his website just minutes after abruptly promising to do so during a CNN town hall.

However, the fact-sheet highlighted for the first time that many of Sanders’ expected cost-saving measures relied heavily on conjecture. For example, Sanders’ document asserts matter-of-factly that a “modest tax on Wall Street speculation … will raise an estimated $2.4 trillion over ten years” and, in one fell swoop, make all “public colleges, universities and trade schools tuition-free … and cancel all student debt over the next decade.”

The National Review has likened a tax on so-called “Wall Street speculation” to a de facto tax on savings, saying the Sanders plan “would mean paying $25 to the federal government every time you traded $5,000 worth of stock — or five times what you’d pay the typical online brokerage in fees. … Over the long term, that imposes serious costs on actively traded funds such as the ones containing many Americans’ retirement funds.”

Housing for everyone would cost $2.5 trillion over ten years, and would be paid entirely by a “wealth tax on the top one-tenth of one percent,” raising a total of $4.35 trillion, according to Sanders’ fact-sheet. Similarly, “universal childcare and pre-school to every family in America” would be provided with a wealth tax on the “top 0.1 percent,” again raising more than $4 trillion.

Sanders’ plan did not discuss the possible stock market ramificiations of a major seizure of some of this wealth, much of which is held in markets and other investments. The plan also did not discuss how the government would be able to reliably obtain the money, given that many investments could easily be liquidated or transferred elsewhere.

BLOOMBERG STAGING MASSIVE AD, SURROGATE BLITZ AGAINST SANDERS 

A new “income inequality tax on large corporations that pay CEOs at least 50 times more than average workers” would take care of $81 billion in past-due medical debt, Sanders claimed.

Sanders’ projections also stated without providing details that his Green New Deal plan would create “20 million new jobs,” thus ensuring $2.3 trillion in “new income tax revenue.”

Additionally, Sanders promised that by “averting climate catastrophe we will save: $2.9 trillion over 10 years, $21 trillion over 30 years and $70.4 trillion over 80 years.”

No information was provided to validate that assertion, although the Trump administration’s National Climate Assessment found that it was possible climate change could reduce the size of the U.S. economy by 10 percent by the end of the century, assuming no substantial changes in technology (including carbon-reducing innovations) or policy occur in the meantime.

Sanders claimed to be able to raise “$3.085 trillion by making the fossil fuel industry pay for their pollution, through litigation, fees, and taxes, and eliminating federal fossil fuel subsidies.” He has repeatedly suggested on the campaign trail that he would direct the Justice Department to pursue the fossil fuel industry, although it was unclear how successful that legal strategy would be.

“If we do not act, the U.S. will lose $34.5 trillion by the end of the century in economic productivity,” Sanders alleged — putting the consequences of climate change in stark economic terms.

On health care, Sanders has previously vowed to provide benefits, including health care, even to illegal immigrants. It’s unclear how many people that unprecedented proposal would cover, especially given that such a plan would likely lead to a rise in immigration to the United States and that the number of illegal immigrants presently in the country is unknown. The issue is not mentioned at all in Sanders’ fact-sheet.

Instead, although some nonpartisan estimates have put the cost of Sanders’ “Medicare-for-all” proposal at over $32 trillion, Sanders’ fact-sheet simply doubled down on a “proposed a menu of financing options that would more than pay” for the program.

FACT CHECK: WERE SANDERS’ REMARKS ON CUBAN LITERACY PROGRAMS OFF-BASE?

Among the available options: “creating a 4 percent income-based premium paid by employees, exempting the first $29,000 in income for a family of four,” as well as imposing a 7.5 percent “income-based premium paid by employers, exempting the first $1 million in payroll to protect small businesses.”

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders I-Vt. speaks at a campaign event in El Paso, Texas, Saturday, Feb. 22, 2020. Sanders urged his supporters to vote in the primary, which is already underway. Democratic primary voting in Texas ends March 3, along with other states who, all together, will decide one third of the delegates in the contest. (AP Photo/Cedar Attanasio)

Other savings would come from eliminating “health tax expenditures, which would no longer be needed under Medicare for All,” and “raising the top marginal income tax rate to 52% on income over $10 million.”

BLOOMBERG OFFICES ALLEGEDLY VANDALIZED WITH ANTI-RICH GRAFFITI; ARE WE SURE WHO IS RESPONSIBLE?

Reducing defense spending by “$1.215 trillion” would be achievable by “scaling back military operations on protecting the global oil supply,” Sanders’ fact-sheet continued. Defense spending is slated to total $934 billion from Oct. 1, 2020 to Sept. 30, 2021.

As the numbers were released, Sanders doubled down on his comments praising Cuban dictator Fidel Castro’s “literacy program,” saying it was a positive outcome from the violent Cuban Revolution that literacy rates quickly rose.

The pro-Castro remarks had drawn scrutiny even from Democratic lawmakers, especially in Florida, which has a large Cuban-American population.

“As the first South American immigrant member of Congress who proudly represents thousands of Cuban Americans, I find Senator Bernie Sanders’ comments on Castro’s Cuba absolutely unacceptable,” wrote Florida Democratic Rep. Debbie Mucarsel-Powell. “The Castro regime murdered and jailed dissidents, and caused unspeakable harm to too many South Florida families. To this day, it remains an authoritarian regime that oppresses its people, subverts the free press, and stifles a free society.”

Other Democrats pointed out that Cuba’s literacy was on the rise pre-Castro, and asserted that the literacy program amounted to an indoctrination effort. Even so, on Monday, Sanders refused to apologize for his remarks at the CNN town hall, when pressed by moderator Chris Cuomo.

CLICK HERE FOR THE FOX NEWS APP

“Truth is truth,” Sanders said to applause. “If you want to disagree with me, if somebody wants to say — and by the way, all of those congresspeople that you mention, just so happen to be supporting other candidates — accidentally no doubt, coincidentally. But, you know, the truth is the truth. And that’s what happened in the first years of the Castro regime.”

Also at the town hall, after arguing that people should not be judged solely by their skin color, Sanders promised that his vice president “definitively” would not be an “old white guy.”

Justin Haskins: Amy Klobuchar’s support for the socialist Green New Deal proves she’s no moderate

By

Amy Klobuchar: 5 things to know

Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., has a fighting chance for the Democratic 2020 nomination. Here are 5 things to know about Sen. Klobuchar.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., has positioned herself, along with former Vice President Joe Biden, as one of the few “moderates” available for Democratic primary voters.

According to Klobuchar, whose support has been increasing in recent weeks, she’s one of the only candidates who can appeal to both leftists and party moderates. Klobuchar has even said she thinks she can win support from Midwest Republicans.

But here’s the cold, hard truth: Klobuchar has sold her soul to the far left to make it this far in the race, and her support in 2019 for the Green New Deal — a radical proposal backed by self-described socialist Rep Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y. — is proof of it.

KLOBUCHAR CALLS OUT BUTTIGIEG FOR LOSING PAST CAMPAIGNS

Among other things, the Green New Deal (GND) would, in just 10 years, eliminate nearly all fossil fuels and mandate the end of gasoline-powered cars and the rebuilding or retrofitting of every single building in the United States.

The GND would also provide free college, “economic security,” a federal jobs guarantee with a “living wage” and “a commercial environment where every businessperson is free from unfair competition and domination by domestic or international monopolies” — whatever the heck that means.

The Green New Deal is the most radical, destructive and costly policy proposal in modern U.S. history. The American Action Forum estimates the total cost of the GND could top $94 trillion over 10 years, about four times our current national debt.

And Klobuchar didn’t merely pay lip service to this socialist legislation; she co-sponsored the GND resolution put together by Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., along with other far-left senators like Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., and Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii.

Since co-sponsoring the Green New Deal, which failed spectacularly in both the House and Senate, Klobuchar has continuously bragged about her support for Ocasio-Cortez’s GND resolution.

More from Opinion

Calling it an “urgent priority for our communities, for our economy and for our planet,” Klobuchar still touts on her presidential campaign website that she was a co-sponsor of the Green New Deal.

It’s true that Klobuchar has moderated her position on a number of components of the Green New Deal since co-sponsoring the GND resolution. For example, Klobuchar says she would ensure the United States hits a target of “100% net-zero emissions no later than 2050,” while the Green New Deal itself says its imperative that target be reached in just 10 years.

Similarly, Klobuchar says she supports free college tuition at community colleges, but not at four-year institutions — a position that separates her from fellow Green New Deal backers like Comrade Bernie.

CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR OUR OPINION NEWSLETTER

But Americans shouldn’t trust Klobuchar or her attempts to appear more moderate — which, in today’s Democratic Party, still makes you a far-left zealot. No politician who promoted the Green New Deal should ever be considered anything less than a socialist because that’s precisely what the GND proposed.

Klobuchar’s decision to move back toward the center after supporting the Green New Deal is nothing more than political theater, and not particularly good or persuasive political theater, either.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

In supporting the Green New Deal, Klobuchar allied herself with her party’s most radical figures and their extremist policy proposals.

Now, she should be forced to suffer the political consequences.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE BY JUSTIN HASKINS

Jane Sanders on Bernie’s 2020 bid: ‘I think that he will win’ Dem nomination

By

All 2020 presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., needs to clinch the Democratic nomination is a “fair shot,” his wife Jane said Saturday.

In an interview on “Cavuto LIVE” with host Neil Cavuto, Jane Sanders said there are “powers that be in the status quo” that don’t want her husband to implement policies from his platform, such as providing Medicare-for-all, affordable health care, affordable education and the Green New Deal.

KAYLEIGH MCENANY’S BIG QUESTION AHEAD OF NEVADA CAUCUSES: WILL DEMS ‘RIG’ IT AGAIN?

“They’re using lots of other reasons why they don’t support him,” she said. “But the fact is, it’s the issues and we are talking about transforming this country — not having the powers that be continue to be the powers that be, make it more government of the people and by the people.”

Jane Sanders said that while in the 2016 presidential race, many in their party labeled some of Bernie Sanders’ more left-leaning policies as “ridiculous” — citing Medicare-for-all, tuition-free college, climate change and raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour — many of their ideas have already come to pass.

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., with his wife Jane O’Meara Sanders, arrives to speak to supporters at a primary night election rally in Manchester, N.H., Tuesday, Feb. 11, 2020. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

“Well, seven states and 40 cities have raised the minimum wage to $15 an hour. Places like my University of Tennessee — where I went and it is not a radical institution — now [have] free tuition, as well as many other places. Medicare-for-all is the dominant conversation that we’re having now because people realize it’s not far-fetched,” she told Cavuto.

“I think that everybody is seeming to focus on the label and they’re — they’re not talking about what it is underneath. The fact is that we have socialism right now in the country. Damn it. But, it’s not democratic socialism. It’s corporate socialism,” Jane Sanders said.

The race for the Democratic nomination has now whittled down to eight potential candidates. Bernie Sanders declared victory at the first presidential primary in New Hampshire earlier this month and was just edged out by former Indiana mayor Pete Buttigieg in the Iowa caucuses.

In order to secure the nomination, 1,991 delegates are needed, and there 3,915 delegates left. The next caucus will be held in Nevada on Feb. 22.

“He won Iowa. He won New Hampshire. He’s leading in Nevada. He’s leading in California. All the polls. He’s leading in Texas. I mean, all the polls show he’s electable,” Jane Sanders argued.

CLICK HERE FOR THE FOX NEWS APP

“The problem with having so many people is it makes it hard for anybody to gain the number of delegates they need. But, the field is winnowing. And, I think that he will win,” she said.

Confidence aside, Jane Sanders admitted that not winning on the first ballot and having the party turn to a more establishment candidate was a concern, but said her “hope and expectation is that the [Democratic National Committee] will give the nomination to the right person that has the plurality and be fair.”

“That’s all we want: a fair shot,” she added.