A study released by the American Action Forum in February estimated Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal to cost around $93 trillion over 10 years or $650,000 per household over a decade — just 10 easy payments of $65,000 on the installment plan.

Now PolitiFact has gotten involved and declared it “false” that the Green New Deal would cost $93 trillion … it could, but that’s just a high-end estimate.

The Green New Deal would be expensive, but $93 trillion is a very rough, high-end estimate. Ernst's numbers don't take into account 230 years of inflation, population growth and economic growth. https://t.co/9uN8QB1yMA — PolitiFact (@PolitiFact) March 14, 2019

Pro tip: When dealing with the government and taxpayer dollars, the “very rough, high-end estimate” is basically a starting point and grows exponentially from there.

When PolitiFact refers to Ernst here, they mean Sen. Joni Ernst, who gave a floor speech against the Green New Deal citing the $93 trillion figure, so PolitiFact decided to fact-check her personally:

Interestingly, the report does not state its bottom-line estimate of what the Green New Deal would cost. But if you add up the various figures, the cost is pegged at somewhere between $51 trillion and $93 trillion. So, Ernst is wrong when she flatly states that the Green New Deal will cost $93 trillion. … Ernst’s statement simply goes way too far. We rate it False.

Yeah, because again, the government always comes in under budget. Heck, that $51 trillion number is probably pretty “flabby” too.

"High-end estimate?" As if a massive government program would come in at the low end??? — Anthony Amore (@anthonymamore) March 14, 2019

Name one government program that hasn’t come in at the high end if not way over cost projections? Our entitlement programs are going bankrupt for a reason. — commonsense (@commonsense258) March 14, 2019

Politifact's numbers don't take into account government overspending, poor planning, and outright waste. Nor do they account for the fact that the #GreenNewDeal is an ill-defined solution to a dubious problem.

We rate their fact-check "dumb." — Ben Crystal (@Bennettruth) March 14, 2019

Who says satire is dead? https://t.co/obUmvuNlve — Sam Valley (@SamValley) March 14, 2019

It's actually probably on the low end of the estimate. I'd be surprised if it isn't 150% higher than that number. — Phil (@earlp1231) March 14, 2019

What percent of government initiatives end up being less expensive than their initial proposal? — MPow (@MPow104) March 14, 2019

Yeah… The price could be higher, actually. https://t.co/05pMJsE1DQ — Pradheep J. Shanker, M.D., M.S. (@Neoavatara) March 14, 2019

High-end? Okay cut it in half then. Oh look, it's still not feasible! Maybe we'll go even further and cut it in half again…Oh look, it still exceeds all of the wealth currently in America. Back to the drawing board for @AOC I guess! — ????? (@STP48315) March 14, 2019

**crunches numbers** Yeah…even the low end of 93 TRILLION aint gonna work, Jack. pic.twitter.com/XIrb7bXQBK — Marty1364 (@nysportsfan1364) March 14, 2019

What low end of $93 trillion would make it not nation-destroying? https://t.co/zhLraP2Z5O — Miguel de la Cruz, Quisqueyano (@xchixm) March 14, 2019

So how about @AOC's claim that it would actually cost less than nothing?https://t.co/WQYM6EHZP8 — Jeryl Bier (@JerylBier) March 14, 2019

Lord have mercy. — Dane (@tdau1997) March 14, 2019

these folks never fail to disappoint https://t.co/Ml7N2h7AWt — Just Karl (@justkarl) March 14, 2019

The "But context!" to end all "But Context!" https://t.co/osA9Xr2iYh — Mark Hemingway (@Heminator) March 14, 2019

Politifact — please go stand in the corner. — Jim Stinson (@jimstinson) March 14, 2019

You guys are such clowns. https://t.co/gNeI6gvgoo — Chris Pack (@ChrisPack716) March 14, 2019

Shouldn’t you have to disprove something to say it’s false? — Steven ???????‍☠️ (@SFlipp) March 14, 2019

Mostly false. They can only deactivate it. — Dave Martinez (@_Dmart_) March 14, 2019

Related: