Green New Deal would cost up to $ 93 trillion, or $ 600 billion per household, according to a study

The "New Green Deal" proposed by Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, DN.Y., could cost up to $ 93 trillion, or about $ 600,000 per household, according to a new study co-authored by the Former non-party party director Congressional Budget Office.

The disproportionate and stunning cost estimate came as presidential hopeful Democrat Kamala Harris categorically declined in an interview broadcast on Sunday the price of the Green New Deal and "Medicare-for-all," claiming that " it's not a cost ", but rather return on investment. The failed launch of the Green New Deal included the publication of an official document by the Ocasio-Cortez office that promised economic security even to those who "refused to work" and called for the elimination of "cows to fart" and air travel.

The unprecedented plan is not cheap, said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, president of the American Action Forum, and his co-authors.

"The Green New Deal is clearly very expensive," concluded the study. "However, its expansion of the federal government's role in some of the most basic decisions of everyday life would likely have a longer-lasting and more damaging impact than its huge price."

At the same time, "the breadth of its proposals makes it difficult to assess the GND (Green New Deal) using standard policy analysis tools," says the study, noting that "many proposed policies in the GND are redundant with other aspects, which also complicates an accurate analysis, because interactions are difficult to predict. "

Nevertheless, Holtz-Eakin, who previously served as economic advisor in John McCain's 2008 presidential campaign, estimated that the guarantee of the jobs resolution would likely be between 6,800 and 44, $ 6 billion, or between $ 49,000 and $ 322,000 per household.

Universal health care would total about $ 36 trillion, according to the study. This is in line with other figures: according to the non-partisan Mercatus Center of George Washington University, for example, the Ocasio-Cortez plan for universal health insurance would cost more than $ 30 trillion, even after taking there are major tax increases that would offset expenditures only about $ 2 trillion.

THE COUNCILOR OF THE AOC AGREES THAT IT WAS NOT WELL, RECOGNIZES A NEW GREEN OFFER, INCLUDING A MONEY GUARANTEE TO THOSE WHO WOULD NOT WISH TO WORK

Charles Blahous, chief strategist of the Mercatus Center and author of his study, subsequently accused Ocasio-Cortez of misinterpreting his findings in an attempt to argue that "Medicare for all" would allow Save money.

Holtz-Eakin has determined that launching Green New Deal initiatives that are more environment-friendly and environmentally-focused will result in even higher costs.

Cost of a 10-year transition to an exclusively low-carbon electricity grid: $ 5.4 trillion. No net emissions from the transportation system, to the point that air travel is no longer a necessity: $ 1.3 to $ 2.7 trillion. Guaranteed green housing, including possible renovations: $ 1.6 to $ 4.2 trillion. Food security for all inhabitants of the United States: $ 1.5 billion.

The study acknowledged that there could have been double counting, due to apparent shortcomings in the Green New Deal resolution introduced by Ocasio-Cortez in Congress earlier this month.

"An expensive modernization of all structures in the United States seems considerably less beneficial to the environment once the power grid is completely transformed to use 100% clean energy than it would be. it was undertaken with the current energy mix, "says the study. "Such a modernization would have no impact on emissions." Similarly, the GND promises to guarantee each person a guaranteed job, a family wage rate, and benefits such as paid holidays and paid holidays. If everyone has a good salary with good benefits, why is it necessary at the same time to set up targeted programs for food, housing and health care? "

"The Green New Deal is clearly very expensive."

– American Action Forum study

UNION OFFICERS ANNOUNCE NEW GREEN GREEN CASE WHICH CAN LEAD TO TOTAL POVERTY

For the high-speed train, the study relies mainly on California figures, where the state's democrats have recently abandoned a rail project in difficulty after many delays and cost overruns. The Trump administration has suggested pursuing California to recover the billions of dollars spent on the botched project.

In his remarks Sunday, Harris said that the return on investment of the Green New Deal would make the project profitable, despite a high initial cost.

"One of the things I admire and respect, is the measure that is captured in three letters: the return on investment," Harris told CNN's John King. "What is the return on investment?" People in the private sector understand this very well, it's not a cost, it's an investment, and then the question should be: is it worth it in terms of investment potential "to return more than we put?"

However, the study found that total savings would be minimal relative to the prohibitive price of the overall proposal.

"GND is considering having enough high-speed trains to make air travel useless, and we conclude that the train would cost between $ 1.1 trillion and $ 2.5 trillion," the study said. "In terms of perspective, the total revenue of the airline industry rose to $ 175.3 billion in 2017, with expenditures of $ 153.9 billion. Amounted to $ 26.3 billion, and it would take decades to repay the capital investment needed to [high-speed rail]and the fuel savings that would likely be the largest cost difference would only represent a fraction of the total investment needed. "

Moreover, the study showed that, optimistically, electricity costs could increase by 22% and that "with an average monthly electricity bill of $ 111 in 2017, the average household could expect an increase in annual electricity costs of approximately $ 295. "

"The total business figure of the electric power sector was $ 390 billion in 2017," the study found. "The cost of production accounted for 59% of this figure, rising from $ 230 billion to $ 387 billion a year in the above scenario, a difference of $ 157 billion. $ 70.5 billion in annual fuel costs by 2029, the annual net difference will rise to $ 86.5 billion, and this increase (taking into account fuel costs avoided) would increase the total costs of fuel. 22% electricity. "

On Friday, a group of children visiting Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein's California The bureau suggested that cuts in "the army" could pay for the Green New Deal, after Feinstein declared that it was impossible to afford the planned legislation as it stood. The 2019 budget for the military includes credits of less than $ 700 billion, far less than the $ 93 trillion estimate from the American Action Forum.

On Monday, protesters from the same group that had organized the trip for the children – the Sunrise movement – had flooded the office of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., And many of them would have been arrested. Democrats recently complained that McConnell was "rushing" into a vote on the Green New Deal resolution.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

At the same time, the White House has shown signs that socialism would become the defining issue of the 2020 debate, amid the Democratic's changing vows for a higher minimum wage and a new range of costly and universal benefits. . Even some union leaders – who usually represent voters from the Democratic base – have pushed back the Green New Deal in recent weeks, saying its call for total economic transformation could lead to widespread poverty.

In addition to the Green New Deal, conservative commentators have argued that most climate change solutions would do more harm than good, and have also accused climate activists of crying wolf. In 2006, a NASA scientist said that the world only had 10 years to avoid a climate catastrophe – a deadline that has passed.