mead berger shevtsova garfinkle michta grygiel blankenhorn bayles
coasting toward the cliff
Why Aren’t Greens More Worried About the Budget?
Features Icon
show comments
  • Isaiah6020

    “Their failure to grasp, much less to oppose, the planet-killing consequences of Democratic Party economic policies is one of the many signs that the climate movement is less skilled at reading the future than it would have us believe.”
    I’m confused. No less an intellectual than Pait is convinced that all that is bad is Republicans’ fault. Comrade FriendlyGoat never met an increase in State power than he hasn’t liked. Are they wrong? Say it ain’t so.

  • Unelected Leader

    Did you guys just write Green and budget in the same piece? Hillary-ous. Whether you’re looking at the Green party, peoples independent party, or peoples progressive party, they all want to wipe out $1 trillion in student loan debt overnight, make state tuition free, Medicare for all (without significant tax rate hike on anyone but a mega millionaire). That’s jus for starters.

  • rheddles

    If they were smarter, greens wouldn’t be greens. When conservationists became environmentalists they moved from the rational to the religious.

    • FriendlyGoat

      Not you too. Say it ain’t so. Another guy justifying real religion’s recent and narrow win in American politics by claiming that the opponents of that loss have departed rational for “religious”. Good grief. The evangelicals just went one way—–against environmentalism—–at 81% of their votes. It is not the minority greenies with the religion obsession. But when down has to be up, white has to be black in order to oppose political correctness, here you come. Please know that some of us recognize the “plant” of this “environmentalism is religion” baloney and its demanded repetition as a sound bite, okay?

      • rheddles

        I will never offend Gaia again.

        • FriendlyGoat

          Wow. I wasn’t asking for anything nearly so esoteric. I was just wishin’ conservatism wasn’t so busy inventing new fibs to be spun on the rest of us.

      • Gary Hemminger

        Not everyone makes a decision on one issue only. The voters in Ohio, Wisconsin, Penn, Iowa, and other midwestern states that voted for Obama twice obviously didn’t vote for Trump just because of the environment or global warming or whatever. I know people there who voted for Obama twice and then voted for Trump. Why would someone do that? Did you ask any of those people? I did, and what they said was that they had had enough of Obama’s policies, they gave it a try and it didn’t work, too much political correctness, too much weakness in foreign affairs, and too much environmental regulation and identity politics. And they felt Hillary would simply be a continuation. And what the heck was Hillary doing up on stage with all those left wing entertainers? How do you think that played in the midwest.

        I hate the Republican party but if democrats keep focusing on job killing regulation, climate change policies that destroy blue collar energy intensive jobs, and identity politics that just makes white folks think they are another aggrieved group, we can count on winning very few national elections and having no control over the courts eventually. Joel Kotkin writes about it all the time. He says it is the Corbynization of the Democratic party. Destroy yourself with ideologies that promote job killing policies. This is death to politicians nationally, but is life to our politicians in California. Good luck with this strategy nationally.

        • Tom

          Forget it, Gary. He’s got TDS, and he’s got it bad.

      • Gary Hemminger

        Here is an actual description of democrats in Erie Penn explaining why their voters voted for Trump (the first time a Republican has gotten more votes in Erie since 1984). It isn’t because they are evangelicals, it was because they made a bet Trump might bring back jobs and Hillary was too busy campaigning with hollywood stars.

        • FriendlyGoat

          The church should long ago have been inoculated against the “high-end-tax-cuts-create-jobs” thing. Net, net, they don’t. At least not living wage-jobs.

          I don’t blame people for trying to find some hope to cling to——but GOP economics is not the road to hope for most workers. Everything turns out to be for the boss, for the employer, for other corporations (such as banks) , for their shareholders, for the markets.
          What do workers get? Job cuts. Schedule cuts to part time. Health care cuts. Legislatures writing right-to-work laws. Assaults on pensions. Assaults on public schools.
          “Religious Freedom”, meanwhile, is baited as basically the chance to discriminate against gays, when RELIGIOUS FREEDOM should have been the opportunity to be told the truth about economics by those we’re supposed to be able to trust—–our religious leaders.

      • Gary Hemminger

        How are democrats supposed to generate jobs when the bulk of blue collar jobs are energy intensive (like oil, gas, mfg) and democrats are anti-fossil fuel? Please explain that one too me? they say they will generate green jobs well sorry to tell you this but those green jobs are all in states like CA that are high tech, not in the energy intensive industries in the mid west and south. so keep your ideology of climate change and suggest policies that kill energy intensive blue collar jobs and you will keep losing more and more elections.

      • Gary Hemminger

        Policies that promote the destruction of jobs and are well paying and do not require college degrees are policies that will not get you elected. No one is going to put their jobs on the line for the promotion of a cause they do not believe in. It doesn’t matter whether the cause is true or not.

        • FriendlyGoat

          I would argue that. Policies actually leading to high-paying non-college jobs would be salable anywhere—-to anybody. Problem is there are some great examples (coding, for instance) and not nearly enough possible slots. The high-pay part is always under assault by whomever is doing the paying.

    • CaliforniaStark

      A lot of conservationists would agree with this statement. An example of this is the issue of wind turbines resulting in the death of wildlife; the amount of birds of prey and bats killed concerns many conservationists. By contrast theological greens respond with a “so what” — more birds fly into buildings and are eaten by cats. Likewise, the attempt by greens to cover wide areas of pristine desert in the southwest has conservationist concerned, nut greens responded that it must be done to save the planet.

      • rheddles

        Birds of prey, i.e. the Bald Eagle.

  • QET

    One of the many interesting paradoxes here is the silence of the environmental activists in the face of a massive threat to their agenda

    Perhaps there isn’t really a paradox. Perhaps the writer mistakes what is their true “agenda.”

    • Beauceron

      That’s an interesting point, I think.

      The Left, for decades, embraced the mantra “Break the system, break the system.” It’s sort of the “Cloward-Piven Strategy” writ large.

      Bankrupting the country is a feature, not a bug.

      • Gary Hemminger

        It is virtue signalling taken to the extreme. Yet the masses love it. I live here in CA and plan to eventually retire, sell my house for a rediculously high price and move to a state that is more rational.

    • f1b0nacc1

      that is precisely the point…this isn’t about the environment, it is about power.

  • FriendlyGoat

    Social Security and Medicare are predominantly issues of whether the children and grandchildren of most elders receive any inheritance at all—–and whether, at the extreme, they might even suffer negative inheritance by shift of the burden of elder care back onto their shoulders. They are not a proper subject for ginning up an inter-generational war or blame game. They can properly be seen as forms of collective risk mitigation for those residing in the younger ends of families. Meanwhile, the federal budget will prioritize tax relief for the wealthiest people in America or prioritize other things such as environmentalism. You can guess which.

    At the high end of philanthropy, we could complain that Estate Tax prevents legacy money from being assigned to environmental and humanitarian concerns, except that we have to notice that the reverse of that statement is reality.

    • Gary Hemminger

      The government is very good at diverting money to itself. the cause is always a noble one, but the recipient is always the same….those that voted for them. If massive taxation could help create nirvana, then New York and CA would be nirvana’s. they are not. If massive taxes and wealth transfers were going to create utopia’s then Venezuela and Cuba would be utopia’s. they are not. why does anyone think that taxation above today’s amounts would lead us to utopia? Where in history has this ever been the case? I am not arguing for less taxation. I am arguing that your argument is without merit. And that there is no historical record showing its logic.

      • FriendlyGoat

        I’m glad you are “not arguing for less taxation”. I hear that a lot of conservatives believe we need the biggest tax cut in history—-this year. Why? Dire emergency in the economy? Nope. Because the political “window is open”—–a once-in a generation “opportunity” per Paul Ryan for Republicans to get something they always and forever pine for. Budget, shmudget. Deficit, schmeficit.

        One of the reasons I’m “left-side” is that I’m 65 and have watched this game played for 40 years. It never changes. The GOP seeks absolutely nothing but the upward shift of wealth and power and it does absolutely nothing but the upward shift of wealth and power.

        • Tom

          Which, even if true, would differentiate the GOP from the Democrats…how?

  • Meade makes a very good point. But then many if not most radical environmentalist deep down would welcome a bankrupt world with zero emissions.

  • Andrew Allison

    Scandalous as the irresponsibility of the green movement is, it pales into insignificance when compared to the behavior of the MSM which, rather than raise public awareness of the unsustainability of the entitlement culture is inventing scandals and vilifying the President. The public needs to be made aware of the inescapable implications of lower birth rates and increased longevity.
    Incidentally, Social Security will NOT run out of money in 2034: if nothing is done, benefits will simply be reduced by 23%. As a practical matter, given the number of beneficiaries and their votes, Congress will find a way to maintain the benefits.

  • Gary Hemminger

    this article is all fine and well, if you truly believe that the green climate movement is about anything but virtue signalling. But it is only about virtue signalling, and virtue signalling starts with making no changes to entitlements (in fact providing more entitlements), it starts with complete focus on identity politics, allowing anyone to pick whatever gender they want, backing public unions to the hilt and making irrational and unsustainable pension promises, being anti GMO at every level, opening borders and supporting sanctuary cities, making sure that black lives matter, getting those corrupt, racist, xenophobic Trump haters and police to admit as much and abstain from stating their opinion (especially on college campuses), and finally to deny western civilization even exists.

    That is what is important to them. A little thing like budgets can’t stand in the way of the good and the right. How any idiot Republican could lose an election outside California, NY, Mass, Connecticut, or Illinois is beyond me. Just focus their entire campaign on the above ideology and no self-respecting Democrat will deny any of the above.

  • Kevin

    They’re on a team (or in a tribe). They support the priorities of other members of the team or tribe and expect reciprocity from the others to support their priorities.

  • Gary Hemminger

    Must read for anyone wanting to know where going green leads you. The guy who wrote this was a consultant for Bill Clinton and has been a Democrat his whole life. This is where progressive policies like climate control lead…

    • M Snow

      Thanks for the link. Especially liked the last sentence. I always enjoy Kotkin’s work though I’m not sure he’s still a Democrat. I wrote to him once and he replied that he didn’t have much good to say about either party.

  • PCB

    Why is the author so surprised that the Greens would think that money grows on trees?

  • Pait

    I think it’s because the US government is able to borrow at historically negligible interest rates. The power of compound interest makes deficits less of a threat.

    On the other hand, the uncertainty regarding future levels of climate change makes it a more dangerous issue.

  • Jacksonian_Libertarian

    Leftists are pigs at the trough, they don’t care about other pigs until they see an end to the slop.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2017 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service