Reading the Green Deal

I sat this morning and read the AOC 'Green Deal'.  You can view it over at the government site.

My observations:

1.  It reads like a first-year college research paper.  There is a question about 20 lines into the paper, which is supposed to lead as a question to a paragraph: "Is getting to a greenhouse gas emissions neutral society in 10 years possible?"  The answer below it.....doesn't explain how to reach the neutral society in ten years....it simply says it's politically possible.

2.  It cites a test poll that says 92-percent of Democrats and 64-percent of GOP voters support the Green Deal.....however, it never says who did the poll, or where it was conducted.

3.  It talks a great deal about expenditures and investments, but doesn't really say where the money slips into actual programs, to what levels, or where success (an end-result) will be.  It does hint that this would all occur in ten years....but why ten?

4.  At some point, it says in very clear and blunt language.....a guarantee will exist (one assumes here a right) to: (1) a job with family-sustaining wages, (2) family and medical leave, (3) vacations, (4) retirement, (5) security, (6)  High-quality education, (7) High-quality health care, (8)  Clean air, (9) Clean water, (10) Healthy food, (11) Safe, affordable, adequate housing, (12) An economic environment free of monopolies, (13) Economic security to all who are unable or unwilling to work.

I sat and that piece several times....you'd have to make this into a Constitutional piece, and right off the bat....you'd start to ask about the economic security angle to those who were unwilling to work.  If fifty-percent of society chose not to work....what would happen? 

The comment to high-quality health care?  Well....this alone would get into the trillions.

Guaranteeing people a vacation?  Where?  Are we talking about a five-day trip to the Ozarks in a camp-ground?  Are we talking about a Hawaii beach front hotel for $250 a night? 

Healthy food?  Don't we offer via Piggly Wiggly food already?  Are we talking about free food?  Are we suggesting that Potato Chips be banned because it's not a healthy food?

I hate to suggest it, but it reads like some three-page research paper, that was due on Monday and you were starting this on Sunday afternoon while sipping Bombay Sapphire Gin.  It's not really clear where the goals lead onto, how the money really fits into this, and whether or not people would agree to the end-product.