Left-Leaning Economists Question Cost of Bernie Sanders’s Plans

[riversedge]

Left-Leaning Economists Question Cost of Bernie Sanders’s Plans

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/16/us/politics/left-leaning-economists-question-cost-of-bernie-sanderss-plans.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FClinton%2C%20Hillary%20Rodham&action=click&contentCollection=politics&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=2&pgtype=collection

By JACKIE CALMESFEB. 15, 2016


WASHINGTON — With his expansive plans to increase the size and role of government, Senator Bernie Sanders has provoked a debate not only with his Democratic rival for president, Hillary Clinton, but also with liberal-leaning economists who share his goals but question his numbers and political realism.

The reviews of some of these economists, especially on Mr. Sanders’s health care plans, suggest that Mrs. Clinton could have been too conservative in their debate last week when she said his agenda in total would increase the size of the federal government by 40 percent. That level would surpass any government expansion since the buildup in World War II.

The increase could exceed 50 percent, some experts suggest, based on an analysis by a respected health economist that Mr. Sanders’s single-payer health plan could cost twice what the senator, who represents Vermont, asserts, and on critics’ belief that his economic assumptions are overly optimistic.

.........................

By the reckoning of the left-of-center economists, none of whom are working for Mrs. Clinton, the proposals would add $2 trillion to $3 trillion a year on average to federal spending; by comparison, total federal spending is projected to be above $4 trillion in the next president’s first year. “The numbers don’t remotely add up,” said Austan Goolsbee, formerly chairman of President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, now at the University of Chicago.

Alluding to one progressive analyst’s criticism of the Sanders agenda as “puppies and rainbows,” Mr. Goolsbee said that after his and others’ further study, “they’ve evolved into magic flying puppies with winning Lotto tickets tied to their collars.”

Unlike Republican presidential candidates who have proposed trillions of dollars in tax cuts for the wealthy and businesses without offsetting savings — Donald J. Trump’s plans could add $15 trillion to the debt over 10 years, the centrist Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates — Mr. Sanders has proposed higher taxes on the wealthy and businesses to pay for his plans, besides the health care savings he counts on.

Mrs. Clinton has also proposed tax increases on the rich and corporations to pay for her agenda, which she estimates would cost an additional $100 billion a year, or $1.2 trillion over 10 years.................................

[basselope]

1. These numbers are such nonsense

And such a backwards ways of thinking.

The MOMENT you go to a single payer system you have "increased the size of government", but most agree that single payer is the most efficient system. With a single negotiator it is much easier to drive down prices. It is the only area where you NEED a monopoly, in the sense that one entity (the government) represents ALL the patients and thus can negotiate on their behalf.

In order to not "increase the size of government" you have to take single payer off the table, since that is the single biggest expense involved.

Do we want yet ANOTHER candidate who refuses to put single payer on the table?

[AgingAmerican]

5. "Big Gummit"

Nuff said...

[kristopher]

9. Actually it isn't "the only area where you NEED a monopoly".

There are a number of what are termed 'natural monopolies' that are best handled with a single over-arching administrator - electric utilities and early phone services for example. In the 1990s we tried deregulating some of the tasks of the utilities, but the jury is still out on how well that works. Also, renewable energy is changing the picture dramatically, but for about 100 years having tight government control worked extremely well. The monopoly part was due to duplicating infrastructure like power/phone lines.

Just an FYI, not disagreeing at all with the thrust of your post.

ETA: Forgot to mention that the left leaning economist is the same guy that caused Obama so much trouble when it was leaked that on the QT he told Canada not to worry about Obama's NAFTA rhetoric because it was only for the campaign.

[litlbilly]

2. enough with the cut and paste nonsense.

[AgingAmerican]

3. lol@left leaning

[NurseJackie]

4. It looks like people are noticing things that Bernie's hardcore fans ...

... would prefer to not be scrutinized so carefully. The devil is in the details (and in the maths).

[AgingAmerican]

6. "Big Gummit"

Where have I heard that one before?

[riversedge]

10. And the Sanders vetting has finally began.

[AgingAmerican]

11. Actual vetting does not involve smears

[grossproffit]

7. No worries...

we'll just print more money.

[casperthegm]

8. Here's the thing for all the doubters

There have been studies that say his plans could work financially and other studies that dispute that. Some have a bias, some may not. We can all paste our links that support whatever position we back. But here's the thing;

Even if Bernie can't pull off every single goal that he has set, at least he has lofty goals. He has a vision. And it's not for more of the status quo. We're done settling. We aren't satisfied with hearing how it's too difficult to change with the current climate in DC. We're not naive. We get the challenges. And we're willing to take them on, even if it means getting the establishment out of our own party. Look at the thread about the DWS and her primary opponent not taking money from outsiders. That's the revolution we are talking about. Things will change if we demand it and take action. So yeah, you can keep looking for articles that say it can't be done but we're going to keep pushing back. You can watch us or you can join in and help us make it happen. The choice is yours.