BRETT: And how did you like the $2 trillion package that just came out for the bailouts of unions and cities and communities in the wake of the covid-19 pandemic? If you liked the $1.9 trillion package coming out, then you’re going to positively love what’s coming next.
We’ve got a $3 trillion spending bill coming out, and it is the dream of one Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Democrat from New York, “who gave a tacit endorsement Tuesday to President Joe Biden’s $3 trillion infrastructure” (in big quotes, “infrastructure”) “plan because of its adherence to the principles of her proposed Green New Deal.
“‘One of the big goals we had when we introduced the Green New Deal was to show how people thought about climate change from being a billion-dollar problem to a $3 trillion opportunity,’ Representative Ocasio-Cortez said in an interview with the New York Times.” Well, Bloomberg News is reporting, “Biden’s team is planning a $3 trillion infrastructure plan that will include $400 billion in green spending.
“It will also include big shifts in spending on carbon emission reductions, charging stations, electric cars, spending on wind and solar power, ” ask the people Texas about that, “and the development of one million affordable and energy efficient housing units.” Affordable and efficient. Yeah, likely not.
“Republicans routinely mocked AOC’s 2019 Green New Deal proposal after American Action Forum estimated it would actually end up costing probably closer to $93 trillion.” Holy cow. Well, Rush had AOC exactly right. He understood what was being laid out there. He understood the load of nonsense that they’re going to try to sell and get you to cosign off of.
Now, look, this isn’t about saving the climate. This isn’t about protecting the environment. This is about something else, and Rush noted… Remember, once upon a time way, way back in 2019, all those years ago –wait, that was just 2019 — and AOC admitted the Green New Deal isn’t even about climate?
RUSH: From TheDailyCaller.com today: “Democrat New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s ‘Green New Deal’ is more about drastically overhauling the American economy than it is about combatting climate change,” according to her top aide.
“Ocasio-Cortez’s chief of staff, Saikat Chakrabarti, made the revealing admission in a meeting with Democratic Washington Gov. Jay Inslee’s climate director in May.” Inslee is running for president, running for the nomination. He’s a nut. He’s a leftist wacko. He’s the governor of Washington, former governor of Washington, and his whole campaign is climate change.
A Washington Post reporter accompanied Ocasio-Cortez chief of staff, Saikat Chakrabarti, to the meeting for a magazine profile. And this guy, her campaign coordinator, was quoted as saying: “The interesting thing about the Green New Deal, is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all. Do you guys think of it as a climate thing? Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing,”
Bingo! They were overheard by a reporter who has made the mistake of repeating it. They were having a private conversation so that Inslee understood. They didn’t want Inslee incorporating this thing and running off and promoting it, not understanding what their objectives were. It’s nothing more than a way to transform the U.S. economy, which means to transform the country. And they’re using climate change as a phony, seductive technique using everything else they’ve already used about it.
“You can save the planet. You can give your life meaning. You can help ward off the destruction of our climate by signing onto our issue.” And all it is, as they have now admitted, is a plan to transfer the vast majority of control over the U.S. economy to the U.S. government. That’s all it is. Now, I don’t expect anywhere in the mainstream media this to be ballyhooed or reported or even talked about. But I wanted to pass it on to you because it is proof positive these people are just using all these issues for one thing.
BRETT: Economists are pushing for degrowth. That’s an actual term, degrowth. Stabilizing or even shrinking the economy. That’s done to avert environmental catastrophe. It’s a terrible idea. Even Axios, the progressive outlet Axios opposes that. Rush was way ahead of this concept just a couple of years ago.
RUSH: Leftist intellectuals have a new economic model they’re promoting. It’s called the “Degrowth Movement.” The people behind this are on a mission. They want to change the belief that economic growth is a good thing.
That’s right, according to these people, economic growth is bad. It’s bad for the earth, it’s bad for society, it’s bad for you. It will make the world a cleaner, nicer, more-fair place if we degrow the economy. To degrow we have to get rid of capitalism. We have to create a “just, participatory, and ecologically sustainable society.” Rich nations – meaning America – must downsize. Income and wealth must be redistributed.
Now, this new economic model is exactly the same as every other leftist economic model. “Degrowth” is just another name for socialism. And, it’s spreading. The BBC has a big puff piece on degrowth as a solution to global warming. They say we should work less, “thus slowing down the global economy, and curbing our appetite to consume more stuff.” Because that’s the primary source of emissions. A shorter workweek, they say that can save earth. The “Degrowth Movement” is now the “Don’t-Work Movement.”
You can laugh all you want, but these people are serious. And their movement is gaining traction worldwide. If you think the idea of “degrowth” is fringe, pay attention to what the Democrat candidates are saying, it’s exactly what they’re proposing. Ending America’s growth is exactly what they want. We don’t deserve economic growth. We have to pay for our sins, whatever they are.
BRETT: So economic growth gets you prosperity; degrowth gets you poverty. That’s abundantly clear. If you were to take a look at the least developed nations on the planet — the least developed nations, nations that are suffering with poverty, but they don’t have infrastructure; they don’t have polluting coal-fired plants or nuclear plants or any of that sort of stuff — you’d see some incredibly tragic places.
Afghanistan’s one of the least developed countries in the world. Once upon a time, it was a sustainable society that had a vibrant middle class. When you go to degrowth, you go to erode, you go to knock down the middle class — and as we’ve heard from Joe Biden on the campaign trail, progressives, conservatives alike, the middle class is vital.
If you want to see countries that don’t have a middle class, you’ll see something akin to a ruling elite — you know, Kim Jong-un or the Castro brothers in Cuba — and then you’ve got a bunch of people who are poor at the bottom. The middle class doesn’t exist. It does not exist. We’ve already seen what degrowth could look like on a local scale.
When you had the pandemic shutdowns, what did you see? You saw people not going in to work or people working remotely from home. You saw restaurants and businesses going under ’cause there weren’t customers going out there. You saw all that impact. But if you want to see one that runs in real time, take a look at the state of California.
I don’t mean just the state of California, but look at the state of California and what you had take place over the last 25 years where you have championed increasingly radical climate solutions that didn’t pay off except for the waste of $100 billion on a high-speed rail that wasn’t gonna go anywhere.
You see the deactivation of nuclear plants so that energy’s not available. You see rolling blackouts, horrible wildfires taking place. And the reality is, that’s degrowth. If you want to know what degrowth it looks like, take a look at California and take a look at those nations around the world that have not been dropped. It is a sad, sad state of affairs.
BRETT: We were talking about Rush’s take on degrowth in that last segment, and there’s a hand-in-glove sort of story that applies to this as well. What if I told you Louisiana and Governor Edwards is looking to move away from oil and gas and shifting to renewable energy? This pretty wild.
Abruptly shutting down oil and gas production in the Gulf would leave over a hundred thousand residents without a job to destroy an industry that drives Louisiana’s economy. Well, Governor Edwards says that can’t happen. That can’t happen. So what are we going to do?
We’re gonna create renewable energy, do all that sort of magical stuff. It will just happen. It will just emerge. It will just appear. How many times has Rush called out these hypocrites when it comes to the left and green energy? This is from 2008.
RUSH: This hypocrisy business. They’re always saying that we Republicans, we conservatives are hypocrites; you know, when some highfalutin famous, well-known conservative has an affair or whatever it is. I look around and I see all of the hypocrisy on the left, the two sets of rules they devise: one for all of their leaders to live by, the others for the rest of us to live by — and it’s striking.
But I have a larger question, because it stems from the premise that these people advance as to why we need to totally redo this magical alternative energy when there isn’t any. There really isn’t. Solar isn’t enough. Wind isn’t enough. It doesn’t exist. The truly alternative energy is nuclear, and they won’t go there.
The thing that gets me is that they present to us a premise of utter destruction and almost apocalyptic circumstances. “If we don’t change what we’re doing — if we don’t change the way we eat, if we don’t change the way we drive, if we don’t change the way we use energy — the country is going to go to hell!
“The world is going to be destroyed! Global warming is going to change the climate to the point that we’re all going to die. The polar bears are already leading the way,” and all of this. So they present this as something that is drastic. It is a crisis, a super crisis — and yet, all of them are going to be driving around in their Suburbans and their SUVs and flying around in their big airplanes.
So the question has to be asked, “How serious is this really?” See, I think what this does is destroy their premise of how drastic an emergency we face in all this. And you know damn well that the people in power are not going to be subjecting themselves (except for show purposes) to the same lifestyle restrictions they hope to impose on everybody else.
So my reaction is: They’re making it all up! They’re exaggerating how bad things are. They want you thinking this way so that you’ll go out and willingly give up some of your freedom and buy things and do things that you really don’t want to do because it’s the new patriotism, or it’s the new way to measure responsible global citizenship or some such thing. But there’s plenty of hypocrisy in all of this that I think just destroys their whole premise.
BRETT: The thing that’s interesting is to kind of go back across this hour and think about what it is we’ve talked about, especially with the border condition and especially with the surge of migrants coming to the United States. People don’t tend to make a run for countries that are poor. They flee countries that are poor.
They want to get out of countries that are poor and that don’t provide an opportunity — and that’s human nature. So what would be the allure of the United States going totally green, totally high-tech? Everything is just magical, right? We’ve got charging stations as far as the eye can see, but where do we get the electricity for it?
Well, it’ll just happen!
We’ll just cover everything in solar panels. We’ll cover everything in windmills. We’ll cover everything in whatever the latest deal is gonna be. We could do that. We could build nuclear plants around the country, tons of them, and have all the energy you want for cars and trucks that could charge and get their electricity. We could do that.
But at every turn the progressives will turn around and say, “No, we can’t do that. We can’t do that.” The reality is California has got those rolling blackouts. Yet Speaker Pelosi — somebody who is very proud of her environmental ethos, very proud of her virtue signaling on the climate. She’s got two, what is it, $15,000, $16,000, $17,000 Sub-Zero freezers and refrigerators in her big mansion where she keeps all that ice cream nice and cold on those hot days?
How much you want to bet she’s got backup power when the rolling bailouts come through? It’s an incredible, an incredible bit of hypocrisy. No, no, they’ll leave you sitting in a tent, in a facility. They’ll leave you sweltering in the heat, leave you not allowed to do your laundry or any of that sort of stuff. The elites always have a Plan B, C, and D, and it always leaves you O-U-T. OUT.