June 11, 2019

Republicans Who Voted for the Trump Tax Cuts Are Now Very Worried About the Cost of the Green New Deal

A House hearing on climate change’s economic effects became a debate on the Green New Deal.

Rep. Bill Johnson, R-Ohio, in 2018.Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call/AP

When House Democrats convened a hearing Tuesday morning to examine the potential impacts of climate change, they wanted to highlight the potential costs of ignoring the problem. “This is a hearing on the future of our country, covering a topic we cannot afford to ignore,” House Budget Committee Chairman John Yarmuth (D-Ky.) said at the start. But the Republicans on the committee wanted to keep the conversation focused on a narrower topic: the costs associated with the passage of a Green New Deal.

“Instead of talking about a budget…we’re here to discuss a $93 trillion proposal,” Rep. Bill Johnson (R-Ohio) said of the Green New Deal. Yarmuth replied that the hearing was not about the Green New Deal, an aggressive proposal to avert  climate change using government resources, touted by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.). 

“What is their proposal to address climate change? The previously mentioned Green New Deal, which more than half of the Democrats on this committee have sponsored,” Rep. Jason Smith (R-Mo.) said. “The plan would be very effective in destroying American agriculture the way we know it today.”

The Republicans on the budget committee had signaled ahead of time that they were planning to divert the hearing into a reckoning on the Green New Deal. “Billed as a proposal to address climate change,” the Republicans wrote in an announcement ahead of the hearing, “in actuality, the GND focuses primarily on unrelated and prohibitively expensive government-run programs. (The Democrats’ hearing document, meanwhile, doesn’t even mention the Green New Deal.)

Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) said at the hearing that she’s a “proud supporter” of the Green New Deal. Thereafter, Republicans and some Democrats continued to take the bait, adding their own two cents about the Green New Deal. For example, Rep. Kevin Hern (R-Okla.), referring to Jayapal’s statement, said, ”This is a good opportunity for us to explore how these ideas fundamentally and practically won’t work, in addition to their stunning cost.”

The focus on the costs of proposals like the Green New Deal to fight climate change often deflected from the stated purpose of the hearing: to learn about the economic impact of climate change itself. “With all due respect to the people who want to focus on one proposal,” Rep. Steven Horsford (D-Nev.) said, “I want to focus on the people who are actually impacted.”

More Mother Jones reporting on Climate Desk

WE CAME UP SHORT.

We just wrapped up a shorter-than-normal, urgent-as-ever fundraising drive and we came up about $45,000 short of our $300,000 goal.

That means we're going to have upwards of $350,000, maybe more, to raise in online donations between now and June 30, when our fiscal year ends and we have to get to break-even. And even though there's zero cushion to miss the mark, we won't be all that in your face about our fundraising again until June.

So we urgently need this specific ask, what you're reading right now, to start bringing in more donations than it ever has. The reality, for these next few months and next few years, is that we have to start finding ways to grow our online supporter base in a big way—and we're optimistic we can keep making real headway by being real with you about this.

Because the bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we hope you might consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. We really need to see if we'll be able to raise more with this real estate on a daily basis than we have been, so we're hoping to see a promising start.

payment methods

WE CAME UP SHORT.

We just wrapped up a shorter-than-normal, urgent-as-ever fundraising drive and we came up about $45,000 short of our $300,000 goal.

That means we're going to have upwards of $350,000, maybe more, to raise in online donations between now and June 30, when our fiscal year ends and we have to get to break-even. And even though there's zero cushion to miss the mark, we won't be all that in your face about our fundraising again until June.

So we urgently need this specific ask, what you're reading right now, to start bringing in more donations than it ever has. The reality, for these next few months and next few years, is that we have to start finding ways to grow our online supporter base in a big way—and we're optimistic we can keep making real headway by being real with you about this.

Because the bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we hope you might consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. We really need to see if we'll be able to raise more with this real estate on a daily basis than we have been, so we're hoping to see a promising start.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate