Senate fails to advance debate on Green New Deal

WASHINGTON – The Senate early Tuesday evening failed to advance debate on a recently unveiled proposal to combat the effects of climate change, known as the Green New Deal.

The motion to proceed received zero votes.

All 53 Republicans voted no. They were joined by Democratic Sens. Joe Manchin (W.Va.), Doug Jones (Ala.), Krysten Sinema (Ariz.) and Independent Sen. Angus King of Maine. Forty-three Democrats voted “present.”

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) brought the resolution up for a vote in hopes of forcing Democrats, most notably the six 2020 presidential contenders who serve in the body, to state their position on the record.

The proposal would cost taxpayers about $93 trillion over the next decade, according to a recent study by center-right American Action Forum. The plan would cost about $600,000 per household over that time period, according to the study.

Last month, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) introduced non-binding resolutions that call for the U.S. to abandon fossil fuels and complete the transition to renewable energy within 10 years.

Other tenets of the plan call for universal health care, universal basic income and guaranteed employment.

The plan has failed to gain traction among mainstream Democrats, such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.). Pelosi has said she agrees with the goals of the plan but that the plan is not realistic in its current format.

Vice President Mike Pence blasted the plan in a speech last month.

“The only thing green about the so-called Green New Deal is how much green it is going to cost taxpayers,” Pence told attendees at the annual the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in National Harbor, Md.

This article is republished with permission from Talk Media News 

One thought on “Senate fails to advance debate on Green New Deal

  • April 4, 2019 at 7:01 PM
    Permalink

    When it comes to climate issues, there is so much back and forth with politicians, whose interests are they promoting?

Comments are closed.