There is nothing in the Constitution of these United States that authorizes the federal government to spend even one thin dime on matters of climate or the environment in general. The Tenth Amendment, in very plain language, prohibits the federal government from taking any action not specifically described as an enumerated power given to one or another branch of the federal government by the Constitution. The language is there, it's very plain, and it's been roundly ignored since at least 1860.
So when the Biden administration, in its latest (and dead on arrival) budget proposal, included $8 billion for a nebulously defined "Climate Corps" consisting of 50,000 federal employees, we should be disgusted - but not surprised. On Saturday, Daniel Turner, the Executive Director of Power the Future, a "national nonprofit organization that advocates for American energy jobs," laid it all out for us. And what a horrific waste of money it is!
Enthusiastically supported by Green New Deal architects New York Democrat Representative Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez and Massachusetts Democrat Senator Ed Markey, Biden’s Climate Corps would hire 50,000 government workers annually by 2031 with the explicit yet vague mission of "tackling climate change." Any guesses which political party these workers will be supporting?
The budget proposal made good on Biden’s pledge during the State of the Union to triple the number of workers from the original 20,000 he proposed last fall.
AOC, Markey, and their associates were not able to squeeze the horrifically expensive and economy-destroying Green New Deal through Congress, so the Biden administration has imposed as much of it as they can get away with by executive fiat, and this looks like more of the same. But there's a big difference; this proposal would amount to 50,000 federal employees, about one-fourth the size of the United States Marine Corps (roughly 180,000 active-duty members as of 2020). Their mission is not clear; who they report to is, presumably, the Executive Branch, with no Congressional oversight. It is unclear, precisely, what these people would be doing.
This proposed program is not like, say, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) which, while not authorized by the Constitution, at least is accountable to Congress and operates under a Congressional appropriation. As Mr. Turner points out:
For context, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has a workforce of less than 20,000, as does the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Both of those agencies have a clear mission and are funded through and accountable to Congress.
The current administration, it's important to note, has a track record of ignoring the Constitution when it proves inconvenient for their "climate change" agenda.
See Related: 'EV Euphoria Is Dead': CNBC Declares Transition to Electric Vehicles Has Failed
John Kerry Suggests America's Real Beef With Russia Is Its High Carbon Emissions
Fortunately, the chances of this being approved as part of any federal appropriations package are essentially zero. While this is a rather blatant attempted power grab by the Biden administration, it is at least a power grab that can be forestalled by Congress.
But why should it be necessary for Congress to have to argue this, especially when there are those (AOC, Markey) who will argue for this blatantly unconstitutional, horrifically expensive idea? There are too many who are unconcerned with this $8 billion price tag, which would be an outrage even in normal times, much less when the nation is approaching $35 trillion in debt.
Daniel Turner concludes:
We should not spend tax dollars so Gen Zers can knock on the doors of those deemed in need of climate change education, nor should it be gathering signatures of those who support their agenda.
A program the size of the Climate Corps, without congressional approval, must be stopped as blatantly unconstitutional. Failure to do so undermines the rule of law and threatens an industry so vital to our economy and national security.
And that's what is truly alarming about this proposal. Forget the "climate change" aspect of this bizarre idea. Forget even the likelihood that this would result in an army of federal employees going door-to-door, business-to-business, grilling people about their carbon footprints, and making "suggestions" as to how to live a "greener" lifestyle. What's alarming is that this is another example of that old saying, "Scratch a liberal and you'll find a totalitarian."
Worse still: It's becoming increasingly apparent that most of our elected representatives in Washington are not only ignoring the Constitution but that most of them haven't even read it.
