Progressive lawmakers, led by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.),  rolled out an expanded form of the Green New Deal on Tuesday that includes funding to hire 1.5 million uniformed climate activists to serve in the “Civilian Climate Corps.” The hall monitors of the Green New Deal. 

Ocasio-Cortez’s call for a Civilian Climate Corps is an attempted revival of the Civilian Conservation Corps that existed briefly during the 1930s where members often lived in military barracks and wore military-style uniforms. 

The creation of a Civilian Climate Corps (CCC) was also included in Joe Biden’s proposed $2.25 trillion “infrastructure” spending plan which included $10 billion in taxpayer dollars to create the CCC  with the vague mission of “advancing environmental justice.” Today’s inclusion of the CCC in the rollout of the Green New Deal provides further insight into Democrats’ vision of the program. 

Details of the CCC program are listed below according to an overview document accompanying the plan's rollout.

Spending far exceeds Biden’s $10 billion estimate.

While offering zero details on the cost of the CCC, Ocasio-Cortez claims that the taxpayer-funded program will employ “1.5 million Americans over 5 years.” That’s 1.5 million professional environmental activists in uniform lecturing Americans about their contribution to climate change and how they need to change their lives, all while living on the taxpayer’s dime.

According to generous estimates from environmental economists openly supporting the creation of the CCC, Biden’s $10 billion plan would only be sufficient to hire 200,000 “climate workers” spread over 8 years. Ocasio-Cortez’s claim that her version of the CCC would create 7.5 times this number over a shorter time frame would necessitate far greater spending than Biden’s proposed $10 billion for the CCC. 

Taxpayers pay up to $50,000 to cover tuition and student loans of CCC members. 

Under the Green New Deal, high school graduates working blue-collar jobs could be forced to pay off the student-loan debt of law school dropouts who couldn’t land a real job and instead joined the Climate Corps. 

Here it is straight from the text of the proposal:

“Educational Funding: Enabling educational grants of $25,000 per year of service, up to $50,000, eligible for further education at any level or to pay down student debt.”

Taxpayer-funded housing, childcare, and transportation to “work” for Climate Corps members earning a minimum of $15 per hour. 

“Compensation of at least $15 per hour, full health care coverage, and critical support services such as transportation, housing, and childcare.”

Contains “explicit antiracist language” with hiring quotas for “environmental justice communities.” 

According to the text, “explicit antiracist language” will ensure that “at least 50% of CCC and Partner Corps projects, and 50% of corps members” will be hired  from “environmental justice communities.” 

Handouts to labor unions

The plan provides a special “advisory board” composed of labor union representatives and mandates “required coordination with local labor unions.” The plan would also “prioritize registered pre-apprenticeship curricula and union membership as part of service.”

Joe Biden’s proposed $2.25 trillion wishlist of progressive spending priorities branded as an “infrastructure” package would spend $10 billion in taxpayer dollars on a uniformed “Civilian Climate Corps” tasked with the vague mission of “advancing environmental justice.”

The proposal is an attempted revival of the Civilian Conservation Corps that existed briefly during the 1930s where members often lived in military barracks and wore military-style uniforms. 

Left-wing advocates of the Green New Deal celebrated the announcement of Biden’s “Civilian Climate Corps” for meeting the year one priorities of the Green New Deal and for providing “government jobs” to climate activists. 

The $10 billion will be enough funding to hire upwards of 200,000 "climate workers," according to environmental economists. That’s 200,000 professional environmental activists in uniform lecturing Americans about their contribution to climate change and how they need to change their lives, all while living on the taxpayer’s dime. The hall monitors of the Green New Deal. 

While Biden’s proposal provides few details on the Climate Corps’ actual responsibilities, Biden’s plan is modeled on the 21st Century Civilian Conservation Corps Act introduced by House Democrats last Congress. Additionally, Biden made sure to stress that employees under the Civilian Climate Corps will be unionized workers with “good-paying union jobs.” 

This is a make-work program for progressive activists complete with free housing.

The legislation introduced by House Democrats provides further insight into Biden’s proposal, the details of which are below:

Taxpayer-funded housing, clothing, and feeding of Climate Corps members. 

According to the legislation, taxpayers would be responsible for paying the cost of Climate Corps members’ housing, clothing, feeding, allowance, and medical expenses. Nothing screams good-paying jobs like an “allowance” from the government. Here it is straight from the bill’s text:

“The President may provide housing for persons employed in the Civilian Conservation Corps and furnish them with such subsistence, clothing, medical attendance and hospitalization, and cash allowance, as may be necessary, during the period they are so employed.”

Taxpayer-funded transportation to “work” for Climate Corps members.

Not only will the government provide food, clothing, housing, and an allowance, it will also pick up members of the Climate Corps and drive them to work for them. 

"The President may provide for the transportation of persons employed in the Civilian Conservation Corps to and from the places of employment."

Allows President Biden to seize private property through land condemnation.

President Biden would be empowered to seize public land deemed necessary to construct projects authorized under the bill.

“The President, or the head of any department or agency authorized by the President to construct any project or to carry on any public works under this Act, may acquire real property for such project or public work by purchase, donation, condemnation, or otherwise.”

Jobs are prioritized for individuals who have already used up unemployment benefits 

According to the text of the legislation, the President shall prioritize “unemployed citizens who have exhausted their entitlement to unemployment compensation,” over other citizens still “eligible for unemployment compensation payable under any State law or Federal unemployment compensation law.”

80 percent of funding used on employment, not conservation. 

While the Biden administration claims the proposal is about conservation and addressing climate change, the legislation mandates that 80 percent of funding is to be used just on the salaries of staff.

“Not less than 80 percent of the funds utilized pursuant to paragraph (1) must be used to provide for the employment of individuals under this Act.”

Based on a failed 1930’s program that housed “employees” in military camps.

The effort is reportedly an attempt by the Biden administration to revive a long-defunct jobs program created in 1933 as part of the New Deal and similarly titled the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC). In 1937, shortly after the CCC’s creation, Congress elected to phase out funding for the program, officially ending the CCC in 1942.

According to a September report from the Congressional Research Service, The CCC was a government employment program for unemployed males aged 18-25 in which “enrollees were recruited, hired, and trained by the federal government, worked under federal supervision, lived in government-run military camps, and received stipends paid for with federal funding.”

CCC was extremely accident-prone.

It turns out taking untrained youths and asking them to perform manual labor in the wilderness is a dangerous idea. “Given the nature of the work (“most of which consisted of manual labor”) and the inexperience of most enrollees, accidents were inevitable,” according to a National Archives report cataloging the accident reports of the CCC program.

According to the report, over 7,600 workplace accidents were filed during the CCC’s short existence and included several workplace deaths and life-threatening injuries. The report details cases of drownings and construction accidents. 

Not a single one of the 15 House Democrats endorsed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce during the 2020 election voted against the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act (H.R. 842), despite the Chamber publicly opposing the legislation. 

The U.S. House of Representatives passed the PRO Act on Tuesday with a 225-206 vote, with only one Democrat joining Republicans in opposition.  Of the 23 House Democrats endorsed by the U.S. Chamber during the 2020 election cycle, 15 won re-election. All 15 of these Democrats voted to pass the PRO Act during yesterday’s vote. 

Prior to yesterday’s vote, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce - the world’s largest pro-business trade association - issued a press release opposing the PRO Act, calling it a “wish list of union-sponsored priorities” that “would threaten worker privacy, force employees to pay union dues or lose their jobs, and trample free speech rights.” 

In the same statement, the Chamber vowed it would fight to ensure the PRO Act “never becomes law.”

However, last Congress the Chamber made clear that support for the PRO Act would not prevent the trade association from endorsing lawmakers for re-election. 

In fact, 14 of the 23 Democrats endorsed by the Chamber during the 2020 election cycle co-sponsored the PRO Act last Congress. The Chamber endorsed these Democrats despite sending a letter to Congress in 2019 opposing the PRO-Act, noting that co-sponsoring the legislation would impact the Chamber's "How They Voted" rating for lawmakers. The PRO Act was one of only nine pieces of legislation the Chamber encouraged House lawmakers to refrain from co-sponsoring during the 116th Congress.

The U.S. Chamber’s endorsement of 23 House Democrats was a notable increase compared to prior years. During the 2018 cycle, the Chamber reportedly endorsed only 7 House Democrats. According to the U.S. Chamber’s own assessment of its impact on the 2020 House elections, the “U.S. Chamber endorsements are known to have a big impact and that rang true in 2020.”

Below are the House Democrats endorsed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce who voted in favor of the PRO Act and the percentage of the vote they received as candidates during the 2020 election.

1. Rep. Colin Allred (TX-32), won re-election with 51.9% of the vote.

2. Rep. Lizzie Fletcher (TX-7), won re-election with 50.8% of the vote.

3. Rep. Haley Stevens (MI-11), won re-election with 50.2% of the vote.

4. Rep. Josh Harder (CA-10), won re-election with 55.2% of the vote.

5. Rep. Cindy Axne (IA-3), won re-election with 49.7% of the vote.

6. Rep. Susie Lee (NV-3), won re-election with 48.8% of the vote.

7. Rep. Angie Craig (MN-2), won re-election with 48.2% of the vote.

8. Rep. Andy Kim (NJ-03), won re-election with 53.2% of the vote.

9. Rep. Abigail Spanberger (VA-7), won re-election with 50.9% of the vote.

10. Rep. Sharice David (KS-03), won re-election with 53.6% of the vote.

11. Rep. Antonio Delgado (NY-19), won re-election with 54.2% of the vote.

12. Rep. Elaine Luria (VA-2), won re-election with 51.5% of the vote.

13. Rep. Dean Phillips (MN-3), won re-election with 55.6% of the vote.

14. Rep. Greg Stanton (AZ-9), won re-election with 61.6% of the vote.

15. Rep. David Trone (MD-6), won re-election with 58.9% of the vote.

Only two days in office and the Biden administration is already considering breaking President Biden’s campaign promise that “anyone making less than $400,000 a year won’t pay a penny more” in taxes.

During his Senate confirmation hearing for Transportation Secretary, Former Mayor Pete Buttigieg told members of the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee that a gas tax increase is “on the table” as a means to pay for infrastructure spending.

When asked directly by Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) if he supported increasing the gas tax and by what amount, Buttigieg replied, "I think all options need to be on the table, as you know, the gas tax hasn't been increased since 1993 and it's never been pegged to inflation."

“There are several different models, in the short to medium term that could include revisiting the gas tax, adjusting it, and or connecting it to inflation," Buttigieg continued when pressed by Sen. Scott to provide more detail.

WATCH:

Support for a federal gas tax increase would be a clear violation of President Biden’s pledge to not raise any taxes on any American making less than $400,000 per year. According to the Congressional Budget Office, raising the tax rate on gasoline would “impose a proportionally larger burden, as a share of income, on middle- and lower-income households,” while also imposing “a disproportionate burden on rural households.” Biden must immediately disavow a gas tax hike if he wants to stay in compliance with his pledge to the American people. 

Buttigieg’s consideration of a gas tax increase also directly contradicts other statements issued by President Biden on the campaign trail. 

“I’ve tried this before, we’re not going to be able to raise the gas tax,” President Biden said at an infrastructure forum in Las Vegas in February. “I don’t think we’re going to be able to raise the gas tax from what it is now to what it would be had it been raised for inflation,” Biden continued.

During today’s hearing, Buttigieg also raised the possibility of creating a new “vehicle miles traveled” (VMT) tax that would charge drivers based on a per-mile tax but cautioned that the technology might not be ready to support implementing this policy while also raising privacy concerns.