Prospective Dem candidate Amy Klobuchar's treatment of staff led to rebuke from Harry Reid: report

Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., is expected to launch her 2020 presidential campaign on Sunday, but is facing an early crisis over a wave of accusations that she has mistreated staff -- with her conduct reportedly getting so bad that then-Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid told her to change her behavior.
Klobuchar is expected to announce her 2020 run in Minneapolis on Sunday. But that announcement was overshadowed this week when HuffPost reported this week that Klobuchar has such a bad reputation over her treatment of staff that a number of potential staffers have withdrawn from consideration to manage her campaign because of it.
AMY KLOBUCHAR ALLEGEDLY MISTREATED STAFFERS, SEES DIFFICULTY GETTING TEAM FOR 2020 RUN: REPORT
The left-wing outlet reported that staffers described Klobuchar as “habitually demeaning and prone to bursts of cruelty,” although others said that while working for Klobuchar was challenging, it was also rewarding. Some pushed back and questioned whether those making the accusations “were falling for sexist stereotypes about female leaders with high standards.”
Klobuchar’s team issued a lengthy statement saying she is “proud” of her staff.
"Senator Klobuchar loves her staff — they are the reason she has gotten to where she is today. She has many staff who have been with her for years — including her Chief of Staff and her State Director, who have worked for her for 5 and 7 years respectively, as well as her political advisor Justin Buoen, who has worked for her for 14 years — and many who have gone on to do amazing things, from working in the Obama Administration (over 20 of them) to running for office to even serving as the Agriculture Commissioner for Minnesota," a campaign spokesperson told HuffPost. "She is proud of them and the work they have done for Minnesota."
But since the outlet published its first story, more stories of alleged mistreatment emerged. Former staffers said that Klobuchar’s wrath left employees in tears, and that one was accidentally hit with a flying binder, according to ​​​​BuzzFeed News.
“I cried. I cried, like, all the time,” said one former staffer.
While BuzzFeed also received some positive stories from former staffers (one said Klobuchar threw her a baby shower and cooked a meal for her friends and family), it noted she has one of the highest turnover rates of staff in the Senate.
Klobuchar would reportedly blow up about anything from minor grammar mistakes, the use of the word “community” in press releases, or failing to charge her iPad.
On Friday evening, HuffPost published a story filled with new allegations, including that she required staff to perform personal duties such as washing dishes. Such a demand would be in violation of the Senate’s rules and federal law against personal use of the office, it said.
The outlet cites a 2012 campaign memo that includes demands such as “only speak when spoken to at events” and telling staffers that while waiting for her in a dressing area or bedroom they should pick up her dirty laundry and place it in a basket. The memo included the following passage:
“Especially while in the car during a busy day: if she is EXTREMELY upset about something, let her rant through it, DON’T interupt [sic] her unless ABSOLUTELY necessary and be careful when trying to calm her down...Often she just needs to talk things out in the open and is not interested in other people’s opinions -- this is something that you will become used to and adjust to -- its just a note for the first time this happens.”
The allegations of mistreatment were reportedly well known to other senators as well. HuffPost reported that Reid spoke to Klobuchar in 2015 about her mistreatment of staff. A Reid spokesman told the outlet that he didn’t remember if he had such a discussion, and instead described her as “one of the most brilliant, hard-working members of the Senate.
According to HuffPost, a former aide to then-Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., said that a terrified Klobuchar staffer came up to them to explain Klobuchar’s lateness to an event: “I’m supposed to tell you...Senator Klobuchar is late today because I am bad at my job.”
If Klobuchar announces a candidacy, she will likely enter a crowded field that already includes Sens. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., Cory Booker, D-N.J. and Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass. On Friday, she teased the announcement again, releasing a video in which she said she would be making it on Boom Island.
"As in boom, drop the mic," she quipped.

2020 Democrats jump to endorse Green New Deal despite spending hundreds of thousands on air travel - including private jets

Idiots

Top Democrats running for president in 2020 have jumped on and endorsed Democratic Socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s radical Green New Deal that aims, among other things, to eliminate air travel.
But the elimination of air travel strikes particularly close to the homes of Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand, Cory Booker, Bernie Sanders, and Kamala Harris – all of whom extensively used air travel, including private jets – throughout the years in office.
GREEN NEW DEAL: OCASIO-CORTEZ AIMS TO MAKE AIR TRAVEL OBSOLETE, AID THOSE ‘UNWILLING’ TO WORK
Harris, among the leading Democratic candidates in the 2020 race so far, has been an early backer of Ocasio-Cortez’s resolution to tackle climate change by radically transforming the country by rendering air travel obsolete, moving the U.S. to rely completely on renewable energy with net-zero emissions, and guaranteeing economic security even for people who are “unwilling” to work.
“I’m proud to co-sponsor @AOC and @EdMarkey's Green New Deal. We must aggressively tackle climate change which poses an existential threat to our nation,” she tweeted, adding in that “The Green New Deal is a bold plan to shift our country to 100% clean and renewable energy.”
Yet Harris herself is far from following what she preaches. Since 2015, her campaign has spent around $300,000 on air travel.
Harris’ FEC records also show that she spent less than $7,000 on trains, even though the Green New Deal proposes making trains the main means of transport “at a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary.”
She is, however, an outlier compared to the three other Democrats when it comes to private jets, with no records or media reports indicating that she took a chartered flight.
Still, Harris’ lavish spending on airline tickets – with many of them first-class tickets – even became a campaign issue in 2015 during her Senate run, as the travel also included first-rate hotels around the country all while her staffers had to fly budget and stay in low-end rooms.
Booker is another 2020 candidate who immediately jumped on the Green New Deal without delving too much on the details, even though he also extensively relies on air travel.
His campaign records show that at least $300,000 were spent on air travel since 2013 by his campaign. He spent just about $11,000 on Amtrak – the Green New Deal’s preferred mode of transport.
While public records don’t clearly indicate whether Booker spent money on chartered flights, multiple media reports have indicated Booker occasionally travels using chartered flights.
The New Jersey Democrat defended his support for the proposal on Friday, comparing it to the government-led push to overhaul the nation’s economy and energy sector to landing on the moon and defeating the Nazis in World War II.
“There's a lot of people now going back on the Green New Deal, they're like 'oh it's impractical, oh it's too expensive, oh it's all of this,'” he said at a stop in Mason City, Iowa. “If we used to govern our dreams that way, we would have never gone to the Moon. 'God, that's impractical. See that ball in the sky? That's impractical.'”
Gillibrand, a New York Democrat and a close friend of Booker, is also backing the Green New Deal, despite being one of the worst offenders when it comes to air travel.
“A #GreenNewDeal is ambitious. It's bold. And I’m cosponsoring this resolution with @aoc and @senmarkey because it’s exactly the kind of action it will take to conquer the biggest threat of our lifetime,” she tweeted.
But Gillibrand has long been criticized for her extensive use of private jets. A Fox News review of public records reveal that Gillibrand’s campaign spent at least $439,000 on air charter company Zen Air between 2010 and 2017. In the last decade, her campaign also spent an additional $465,000 on non-charter flights.
The New York senator doesn’t always charge her campaign for the travel. She charged American taxpayers $93,098 in 2013 and $194,797 in 2012 for chartered flights, according to Senate financial documents, the USA Today reported. She ranked just below her fellow Democrat Chuck Schumer, who hasn’t endorsed the Green New Deal.
Lastly, Bernie Sanders, the Vermont senator who long fought for against climate change, is one of the original backers of Ocasio-Cortez’s proposal.
“I am proud to be an original co-sponsor of the Green New Deal proposal. We must address the existential crisis of planetary climate change, while at the same time creating millions of good-paying jobs in our country,” he wrote.
While Sanders hasn’t yet declared his candidacy for president in 2020, he likely to face attacks even from other progressives for his excessive use air travel.
Just last October, Sanders reportedly spent $300,000 on private air travel just so he could speak to people in nine battleground states prior to November's midterm elections.
Sanders’ 2018 campaign committee issued an Oct. 10 payment of $297,685 to New York-based Apollo Jets, a charter jet company used by retired sports stars Derek Jeter and Shaquille O’Neal, according to federal campaign reports obtained by VTDigger.org, a watchdog news site in Vermont.
Since 2015, his Senate campaign also spent an additional $100,000 on air travel. Sanders also ran for Democratic Party’s nomination for president in 2016, meaning some of the travel costs were made on behalf of the presidential campaign.
His presidential campaign spent over $10 million on air travel, compared to just around $75,000 on train travel.

Democrat Rep. Al Green Cartoons

Democratic Rep. Al Green calls for impeachment of Trump a 3rd time

Rep. Al Green , D-Texas, issued his third call to impeach President Trump. (Getty/AP, File)

Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, on Thursday issued his third call to impeach President Trump, despite two previous efforts failing to generate enough support in Congress.
“I love my country. However, despite the love I have for my country, I cannot overlook a history spanning some four centuries of racism and oppression based on race, color, gender, as well as socioeconomic status. This year marks 400 years since the first documented African slaves were brought to this land,” he said in a statement. “The remedy must be more than talking points about a much-needed conversation concerning bigotry. Because I believe that 400 years of bigotry culminating in the Trump presidency is worthy of impeachment, I will call for a third vote on impeachment regardless of the findings of the Mueller investigation which is unrelated to bigotry. We cannot allow bigotry to go unchecked.”
The congressman repeatedly has called for the president’s removal from office.
Green previously presented proposals to impeach Trump in January 2018 and December 2017.
Many Trump opponents on the left have pressured the Democrat-controlled House to launch impeachment hearings and to persuade the party’s presidential contenders to support impeachment on their platform.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has insisted that any impeachment effort be put on hold until evidence of an impeachable offense is found.
The White House repeatedly has called Green’s efforts “pathetic.”

WSJ writer slams Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal, says it looks like Dem parody bill

The Wall Street Journal’s Kimberley Strassel issued a blistering critique of the proposed Green New Deal, saying that the proposal reads like a parody of the Democratic Party done by Republicans.
“By the end of the Green New Deal resolution (and accompanying fact sheet) I was laughing so hard I nearly cried,” Strassel wrote on Twitter. “If a bunch of GOPers plotted to forge a fake Democratic bill showing how bonkers the party is, they could not have done a better job. It is beautiful.”
The Green New Deal, pushed by freshman New York Democrat Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, attempts to radically transform the country, including rendering air travel obsolete, move the U.S. to rely completely on renewable energy with net-zero emissions, and guarantee economic security even for people who are “unwilling” to work.
OCASIO-CORTEZ CONTRADICTS HERSELF ON ROLE OF GOVERNMENT IN MASSIVE AND UNPRECEDENTED 'GREEN NEW DEAL'
But the sweeping proposal was hit with mockery once the details were unveiled on Thursday, with many pointing out how unrealistic the suggestions are.
Strassel pointed out that in order to live up to the proposal’s promise of 100 percent of renewable energy, a space as big as the entire state of California would have to be dedicated solely for the facilities, wind turbines, and solar panels.
The proposal’s suggestion of putting charging stations “everywhere,” upgrading or replacing “every building” and developing high-speed railway across every state may also hit a wall due to permitting laws.
FULL TEXT: GREEN NEW DEAL FAQ CALLS FOR ABOLISHING 'FARTING COWS' AND 'AIRPLANES' ASAP
Strassel notes that the Green New Deal is far from just a proposal to curb emissions and create more environmental regulations – it’s also about implementing radical left-wing measures.
“Somehow, government-run healthcare, ‘family sustainable’ wages, paid leave, and ‘affordable’ housing are also ‘required’ for a clean economy,” the writer wrote. “I would love to understand this logic. (And imagine what wages will need to be to pay for billion-dollar-per-kilowatt electricity).”
But even those pushing for the document aren’t sure it can actually be achieved within 10 years. In a now-deleted FAQ page on Ocasio-Cortez’s website, the document explains that it’s calling for an elimination of greenhouse gas emissions rather than an immediate ban on fossil fuels because "we aren't sure that we'll be able to fully get rid of farting cows and airplanes that fast."
“Planes run on fossil fuel. No fossil fuel, no visits to granny. Cows produce methane, why alarmists want to get rid of livestock,” Stressel wrote. “She can't do it ‘fully’ in 10 years, but AOC is coming after your air miles and bacon. This is honesty (sp) about how Democrats would micromanage private life.”
Lastly, the Green New Deal, which doesn’t exactly reveal how it will be funded, except for the suggestion that the Federal Reserve could step in and extend credit.
“And how to pay for mass trillions in cost? Don't worry! Federal Reserve will just ‘extend credit’ and ‘new public banks can be created to extend credit too,’” the writer tweeted. “Because, you know, like, money is just paper, and how hard can it be to make some more of the stuff, right? Right?”

Judge grills Mueller team on claim Manafort lied; prosecutors say issue's 'at heart' of Russia probe

A federal judge grilled Special Counsel Robert Mueller's team earlier this week on its claims that former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort intentionally lied to investigators, according to a newly released, partially redacted court transcript released Thursday.
Manafort, who avoided a second trial in Washington, D.C., last year by agreeing to cooperate with investigators, allegedly lied to prosecutors about five separate topics, including Manafort’s contact with administration officials; information “pertinent to another Department of Justice investigation,” and a $125,000 wire transfer to a firm working for Manafort.
But at the closed-door hearing on Monday, U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson repeatedly and bluntly pressed prosecutors to explain why Manafort's misstatements, including some that he corrected voluntarily, should affect his upcoming sentencing.
The judge, who is also handling the ongoing criminal case against Trump associate Roger Stone, openly wondered whether prosecutors had bombarded Manafort with a series of difficult and irrelevant questions during the roughly 50 hours of interviews that followed his plea deal.
"Putting aside whether it has to be established and whether we have to establish all the elements of [a criminal false statements statute], why is this important?" Jackson asked prosecutors, referring to the their claim that Manafort misled authorities about the nature of the $125,000 wire transfer.

Kevin Downing, attorney for Paul Manafort leaves Federal District Court after a court hearing for Manafort in Washington, Friday, Jan. 25, 2019. Judge Amy Berman Jackson has scheduled a sealed proceeding to determine whether the former Trump campaign chairman intentionally lied to investigators. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana)

Manafort has denied intentionally misleading Mueller's team and said he is under stress and physically ill. The former Trump campaign chairman claimed variously that the money was owed to him as a loan repayment, income and reimbursement.
The funds were sent in 2017 through a political action committee that spent millions to help Trump's candidacy.
"I mean, basically what you're saying is, you were just asking about something and it turned -- it snowballed into a series of false statements," Jackson said. "But was there something about his -- if I agree with you that he was lying about that, that was material to what you were doing? What was the importance of asking him about the payment in the first place?"
Jackson later told Manafort's lawyers she wasn't entirely convinced by their argument that his "succession of inconsistent explanations" could be chalked up to confusion caused by accounting practices, adding that "there's some aspects of the evidence I'm going to need to re-review."
At the hearing, prosecutors maintained that Manafort also lied about his interactions with Russian-Ukrainian political consultant Konstantin Kilimnik, who has ties to Russian intelligence. Prosecutors said Manafort made false statements about sharing polling data during the 2016 presidential election with Kilimnik.
Top Mueller deputy Andrew Weissmann told Jackson that Manafort's connections to Kilimnik "goes, I think, very much to the heart of what the Special Counsel's Office is investigating. ... In [August] 2016 there is an in-person meeting with someone who ... is understood by the FBI, assessed to be -- have a relationship with Russian intelligence."
Jackson acknowledged that Manafort, after pleading guilty to conspiring with Kilimnik, offered an "exculpatory version of Kilimnik's state of mind" that "isn't necessarily consistent with what one would call full and forthright cooperation."
But, she added, Manafort quickly corrected some of his statements on the matter, undercutting prosecutors' claims that Manafort had acted intentionally to mislead them.
FLASHBACK: MANAFORT JUDGE SAYS MUELLER PROSECUTOR NEEDS TO STOP CRYING IN COURT
"Given [Manafort's] correction after consultation with counsel, why would this be something that we would characterize as the crime of making an intentionally false statement to the FBI, or even just a law of significance for acceptance of responsibility in sentencing purposes?" Jackson asked.

FILE - In this May 23, 2018, photo, Paul Manafort, Presiden Trump's former campaign chairman, leaves Federal District Court after a hearing in Washington. ( AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana)

After Weissman underscored the extraordinary nature of Manafort's in-person meeting with Kilimnik, Jackson again said it was unclear why that would be a focus of Mueller's inquiry.
"So, I'm trying to figure out what the importance is of his ongoing work for a potential candidate in the Ukraine at that time is, and the importance of any lies about that, or lies about Kilimnik's knowledge about that," Jackson said.
Although much of Weissman's response is redacted, Jackson said she found his response "helpful" -- but the judge went on to question prosecutors further, after the defense team slammed the government's theories about the relevance of Manafort's shifting statements on Kilimnik as mere "conjecture."
"So, I don't think the Court needs to reach that issue, and I don't know that we've presented evidence on the -- that issue," Weissman says, after a partially redacted question from Jackson.
That reply drew a curt response from the judge.
"You didn't. So you just don't want me to think about it, that's okay," Jackson said, prompting Weissman to quickly embark on a longer explanation.
Again, at the end of his partially redacted reply, Jackson sounded a note of overt doubt as to the relevance of Manafort's alleged misrepresentation.
"So, this is an important falsehood because it was false?" Jackson asked. "Or is there some larger reason why this is important?"
Toward the end of the proceeding, Jackson took particular umbrage at prosecutors' contention that Manafort had lied about his contacts with the Trump administration.
"And of all of them, this is the one where I have the most difficulty figuring out where the real contradiction is of moment to the investigation," Jackson said.
Manafort's "outreach appears to have been two people outside the administration who themselves would have contacts within," Jackson said. "So, again, I want you to point to the specific statement in a 302 [FBI witness report] or a grand jury statement that is the precise question and answer you think I should denote as false. And, you know, it does seem to be that there are indications that he may have bragged that he still had sway or offered to assist people or to lobby. But do we have direct evidence of contacts that contradict a denial of a contact?"

Special Counsel Robert Mueller's team has aggressively pursued criminal charges against several former top Trump aides, but none of the charges have involved criminal collusion with Russia. (AP)

At that point, a member of Mueller's team replied that Manafort had lied by denying having any direct or "indirect" contacts with the administration -- and that the "indirect" statement was a lie.
But the prosecutor, Greg Andres, began his response by acknowledging the judge's critical tone.
"Given that you have issues with it, I drew the short straw," Andres said.
The Mueller deputy is no stranger to harsh criticisms from the bench. Last August, during Manafort's first trial in Virginia, Judge T.S. Ellis accused Andres of crying.
“I understand how frustrated you are. In fact, there’s tears in your eyes right now,” Ellis said. (When Andres denied Ellis’ claim, the judge said, “Well, they’re watery.”)
Manafort's sentencing on two felony charges related to his Ukrainian lobbying is set for March, when Jackson will determine whether his punishment should be affected by his alleged false statements. Manafort faces up to ten years in prison in the separate case in Virginia, where he was convicted on tax and fraud charges.
Before adjourning, Jackson said she appreciated Manafort's attendance, having denied his attempt to skip the hearing because of logistical concerns and what he says are health challenges.
"I believe it was very helpful, very useful and very important for you to have been here, Mr. Manafort," Jackson said. "I know that we've had hearings where counsel sought to minimize the burden on you and not have you be here, but this is about you, it's not about them. And I think it's very important that they have you available to ask questions to."
Earlier this month, Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley said he expects the Mueller probe to produce its final report "within a month."

Ocasio-Cortez contradicts herself on role of government in massive and unprecedented 'Green New Deal'

Democratic New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who announced a sweeping "Green New Deal" on Thursday that promises to render air travel obsolete, get rid of flatulent cows and ensure economic security for everyone in less than a decade, seemingly contradicted herself in a span of twelve hours on the nature of the government's role in the massive undertaking.
NPR host Steve Inskeep asked Ocasio-Cortez Thursday morning about concerns from conservatives that the 29-year-old former bartender's proposal involves an unconstitutional government overreach, as well as the unsustainable and dangerous elimination of huge swaths of the American economy.
"One reason that people who are politically conservative are skeptical of efforts to combat climate change is that it sounds to them like it requires massive government intervention, which they just don’t like," Inskeep asked. "Are you prepared to put on that table that, 'Yes actually they’re right, what this requires is massive government intervention?'"
Ocasio-Cortez responded: "It does, it does, yeah, I have no problem saying that. Why? Because we have tried their approach for 40 years. For 40 years we have tried to let the private sector take care of this. They said, 'We got this, we can do this, the forces of the market are going to force us to innovate.' Except for the fact that there’s a little thing in economics called externalities. And what that means is that a corporation can dump pollution in the river and they don’t have to pay, but taxpayers have to pay."
But later in the day, in an interview with MSNBC's Chuck Todd, Ocasio-Cortez blamed conservatives for suggesting that she wanted a massive government program.
"I think one way that the right does try to mischaracterize, uh, what we're doing as though it's, like, some kind of massive government takeover," Ocasio-Cortez told Todd. "Obviously, it's not that, because what we're trying to do is release the investments from the federal government to mobilize those resources across the country."
FULL TEXT: GREEN NEW DEAL FAQ CALLS FOR ABOLISHING 'FARTING COWS' AND 'AIRPLANES' ASAP
Ocasio-Cortez, who has warned that climate change may end the world in 12 years, went on to decline to call herself a capitalist.
"I don't say that," Ocasio-Cortez responded, when asked by Todd if she considers herself a capitalist. "I believe in a democratic economy, but -- but the but is there."
In what may be the most far-reaching proposal to ever be considered in Congress, Ocasio-Cortez unveiled the "Green New Deal" hours earlier -- a government-led overhaul of virtually every aspect of American life that would guarantee a host of taxpayer-covered benefits for all and phase out fossil fuels.
Along the way, her office says the plan would aim to make air travel obsolete, upgrade or replace every building in America to ensure energy efficiency and give economic security even to those "unwilling" to work.
“Today is the day that we truly embark on a comprehensive agenda of economic, social and racial justice in the United States of America,” she said alongside Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., and other lawmakers outside the Capitol. “That’s what this agenda is all about.”
The plan, which calls for a massive package of big-government proposals including health care for all, quickly picked up the backing of major 2020 Democratic presidential hopefuls including Sens. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Cory Booker, D-N.J. -- who all co-sponsored the resolution.
“Our history is a testimony to the achievement of what some think is impossible — we must take bold action now,” Booker tweeted.

Cows may be eliminated by the Green New Deal announced Thursday. (iStock)

While the resolution itself would do very little because it is non-binding, it is the first time the policy proposal has been formally outlined in Congress. The resolution says “a new national social, industrial and economic mobilization on a scale not seen since World War II and the New Deal” is an opportunity to tackle systemic injustices toward minority groups, create millions of high-wage jobs and “provide unprecedented levels of prosperity and economic security for all people of the United States.”
Its proposals include “net-zero greenhouse gas emissions through a fair and just transition for all communities and workers;” job creation; infrastructure investment; guarantees of clean water, healthy food and sustainable environment; and a curiously undefined “access to nature.”

December 10, 2018 - Washington, DC, United States - Protesters seen holding placards during the Sunrise Movement protest inside the office of US Representative Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) to advocate that Democrats support the Green New Deal, at the US Capitol in Washington, DC. (Credit Image: © Michael Brochstein/SOPA Images via ZUMA Wire) (Michael Brochstein/SOPA Images via ZUMA Wire)

Beyond those broad proposals, the plan and accompanying documents from Ocasio-Cortez include a range of far-fetched goals -- and drew swift scorn from Republicans and other critics. The Republican National Committee dubbed it a "socialist wish list" that would kill at least 1 million jobs and disrupt global trade -- while costing trillions.
The resolution, for instance, includes a proposal to “upgrade all existing buildings” in the country in order to achieve energy efficiency, safety, affordability, durability and comfort.
An accompanying FAQ, released by Ocasio-Cortez’s office and first obtained by NPR, goes even further, calling to "upgrade or replace every building in the US for state-of-the-art energy efficiency." A second similar FAQ on her website echoed some of those prescriptions though was later removed.
The resolution also backs the concept of high-speed rail as a proposal to reduce carbon emissions -- but the FAQ goes so far as to urge that development “at a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary.”
It also promises “economic security for all who are unable or unwilling to work.”
What constitutes economic security is not clear, but the plan does call for programs including a federal job guarantee, universal health care and "affordable, safe, and adequate housing."
The FAQ also notes that it has set a goal of net-zero, rather than zero, emissions in 10 years “because we aren’t sure that we’ll be able to get rid of farting cows and airplanes that fast.”
As for how to pay for the Green New Deal?
"The same way we paid for the New Deal, the 2008 bank bailout and extended quantitative easing programs," Ocasio-Cortez's FAQ states. "The same way we paid for World War II and all our current wars. The Federal Reserve can extend credit to power these projects and investments and new public banks can be created to extend credit."
The FAQ continues: "There is also space for the government to take an equity stake in projects to get a return on investment. At the end of the day, this is an investment in our economy that should grow our wealth as a nation, so the question isn’t how will we pay for it, but what will we do with our new shared prosperity."
However, the push is likely to see resistance not only from Republicans but even some Democrats. Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, was asked about the plan to replace planes with high-speed rail and did not seem impressed.
“That would be pretty hard for Hawaii,” she laughed.
On Wednesday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi appeared to dismiss the plan.
“It will be one of several or maybe many suggestions that we receive,” Pelosi told Politico on Wednesday. “The green dream or whatever they call it, nobody knows what it is, but they’re for it right?”
Even aside from the Green New Deal, conservative commentators have argued that most proposed solutions to global warming would do more harm than good, and also have accused climate activists of crying wolf. In 2006, a NASA scientist and leading global warming researcher declared that the world had only 10 years to avert a climate catastrophe -- a deadline that has come and gone.

Weird Democrat Cartoons