2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumAnyone else hear the NPR hatchet-job on Bernie yesterday?
The 4pm hour (CDT)
I was driving a borrowed car when I turned on the radio. It was set on NPR. Two NPR personalities were discussing the upcoming contest between Trump and Clinton (apparently, it's all over but the shouting). No mention of Sanders until the two NPR personalities philosophized about why he was behind (he is? News to me). They mentioned the so-called $18 trillion increase in government spending Bernie has proposed as a possible reason (but what the hey! This is New Plutocrat Radio!). They failed to tell the whole story.
According to the Washington Post--
The big policy headline today comes from the Wall Street Journal, which delivers this alarming message:
Price Tag of Bernie Sanders Proposals: $18 Trillion
Holy cow! He must be advocating for some crazy stuff that will bankrupt America! But is that really an accurate picture of what Sanders is proposing? And is this the kind of number we should be frightened of?
The answer isnt quite so dramatic: while Sanders does want to spend significant amounts of money, almost all of it is on things were already paying for; he just wants to change how we pay for them. In some ways its by spreading out a cost currently borne by a limited number of people to all taxpayers. His plan for free public college would do this: right now, its paid for by students and their families, while under Sanders plan wed all pay for it in the same way we all pay for parks or the military or food safety.
But the bulk of what Sanders wants to do is in the first category: to have us pay through taxes for things were already paying for in other ways. Depending on your perspective on government, you may think thats a bad idea. But we shouldnt treat his proposals as though theyre going to cost us $18 trillion on top of what were already paying.
And theres another problem with that scary $18 trillion figure, which is what the Journal says is the 10-year cost of Sanders ideas: fully $15 trillion of it comes not from an analysis of anything Sanders has proposed, but from the fact that Sanders has said hed like to see a single-payer health insurance system, and theres a single-payer plan in Congress that has been estimated to cost $15 trillion. Sanders hasnt actually released any health care plan, so we have no idea what his might cost.
But health care is nevertheless a good place to examine why these big numbers can be so misleading. At the moment, total health care spending in the United States runs over $3 trillion a year; according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, over the next decade (from 2015-2024), America will spend a total of $42 trillion on health care. This is money that you and I and everyone else spends. We spend it in a variety of ways: through our health-insurance premiums, through the reduced salaries we get if our employers pick up part or all of the cost of those premiums, through our co-pays and deductibles, and through our taxes that fund Medicare, Medicaid, ACA subsidies, and the VA health care system. Were already paying about $10,000 a year per capita for health care.
--more--
Washington Post
Kudos to Paul Waldman for correcting WP. But the simple fact remains: NPR chose to omit this information in an effort to discredit Sanders. But it's what the Oligarchs want, so NPR obliged.
It just reinforced the sad fact that if we don't get Bernie in November, we'll get burned for the next four years.
Tal Vez
(660 posts)than a dispute about how much money would be spent during a Sanders presidency? Why are people kicking him when he is down? He mounted a campaign, put forth some proposals that received widespread discussion and broadened the conversation this year. Now that it's over, he should be permitted to withdraw in peace.
Yurovsky
(2,064 posts)and later convicted and jailed. Maybe if she's nice President Sanders will pardon her.
brush
(53,743 posts)immoderate
(20,885 posts)--imm
brush
(53,743 posts)More berniebation.
DavidDvorkin
(19,469 posts)samsingh
(17,593 posts)there is nothing to be gained by picking apart his ideas that aren't going to work
fun n serious
(4,451 posts)Here is a quote from you..
"No mention of Sanders until the two NPR personalities philosophized about why he was behind (he is? News to me)."
There is no denying the truth. Bernie has ZERO chance of being the nominee. You should know this.
KansDem
(28,498 posts)Sander's plan has been known for over half-a-year, yet NPR chose to omit the details, hoping to scare Americans with the $18 trillion "increase" in government spending!
NPR did a disservice to American voters. But you can bet the Oligarchs are happy!!
samsingh
(17,593 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)the increase in taxes is largely replacing money we are already spending, it will be very difficult to explain to voters. And, I don't care what Sanders' projections show, there is no way we can cut health care spending from $3 Trillion a year to $1.37 as he projects, without ticking off a lot of people, including patients. You want single payer, and I've supported it since the early 1980s, we should start with a Public Option. It is the fastest way to single payer, or something very close. Anything else has no chance in today's Congress and with 40+% of voters opposed to single payer (and likely more when they find out what is necessary to make it affordable).
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)New Sanders Campaign slogan:
"Probably because this whole universe is against me!"
tex-wyo-dem
(3,190 posts)About Bernie and his "$18T spending increase". I damn near wanted to rip the radio out of my dashboard and chuck it out the window when (of course) they failed to mention that the spending increase would be accompanied by massive savings and revenue generation effectively making it a wash.
The cocktail party liberal class is making sure their gal gets the nomination to keep the status quo gravy train a Rollin' along assuring the rest of us will suffer.
Ron Green
(9,822 posts)they still (barely) maintain a veneer of respectability, while delivering as corporate-friendly a message as there is anywhere.
KansDem
(28,498 posts)When Cokie Roberts reported on the Bush Charm Offensive.*
_____
*[font size="1"]For those of us who might not remember, this breaking news reported on how, if elected, Bush would use his "charm" to get things done in DC. Oh, and he liked to give out nicknames, too![font size="2"]