February 3, 2020--Vetting Bernie
Elizabeth Warren has been put through the ringer ever since she revealed details about how she was proposing to pay for her version of Medicare for All.
As she should have been. As all the leading candidates should have been. We need to know if they are offering pie in the sky or policies that make sense and are affordable.
This sort of scrutiny comes with the territory when running for president. Especially when taxpayers assess the highlights of a candidates' domestic agenda that would cost us tens of trillions in additional taxes or increased debt.
Warren was second or third in the national polls when she showed voters her numbers; but since getting into the budgetary weeds about her plans she has slipped. She's now locked in fourth place as her numbers continue to slide.
The main political beneficiary of her descent is the other most progressive candidate--Bernie Sanders. Depending on the poll, he has moved solidly into second or even first place. Tied with or ahead of Biden.
In spite of his rise Bernie has not been seriously vetted. He got this far on a pass. It might be good to wonder why.
For example, according to Steve Rattner, though Warren disclosed her health plan would cost tens of trillions of dollars more than currently being spent on Medicare, the additional cost to taxpayers for Sanders' Medicare for All proposal over ten years, rarely discussed, could be as much as twice that. ($30-40 trillion versus her $20.5 trillion).
Looking at the cost of some of their other plans Bernie's continue to be much more expensive--
For the Green New Deal, Warren would spend $3.0 trillion more than we currently budget for environmental programs whereas Sanders' additional spending would reach $16.3 trillion. More than five times as much.
For free college tuition, Warren budgets $610 billion while Bernie would spend less--"only" $480 billion.
To eliminate student debt, Warren would allocate $640 billion, while Sanders would increase the budget by $1.6 trillion. Four times as much.
When asked to explain how they would pay for these and other programs they both talk about instituting wealth taxes. When one looks at the numbers, however, Warren's increased taxes on the very rich would yield $3.75 trillion while Bernie's would net just a little more--$4.35 trillion.
In both cases additional trillions would be required to make their proposals revenue neutral. Good luck with that.
We all know that if any of these programs could be approved by Congress their cost would be added to the federal debt. The same place where Trump's trillions in tax cuts for the mega-rich fester.
If we want to defeat Tump at the polls in November we had better do some of own vetting before Trump and his henchmen do it for us.
As she should have been. As all the leading candidates should have been. We need to know if they are offering pie in the sky or policies that make sense and are affordable.
This sort of scrutiny comes with the territory when running for president. Especially when taxpayers assess the highlights of a candidates' domestic agenda that would cost us tens of trillions in additional taxes or increased debt.
Warren was second or third in the national polls when she showed voters her numbers; but since getting into the budgetary weeds about her plans she has slipped. She's now locked in fourth place as her numbers continue to slide.
The main political beneficiary of her descent is the other most progressive candidate--Bernie Sanders. Depending on the poll, he has moved solidly into second or even first place. Tied with or ahead of Biden.
In spite of his rise Bernie has not been seriously vetted. He got this far on a pass. It might be good to wonder why.
For example, according to Steve Rattner, though Warren disclosed her health plan would cost tens of trillions of dollars more than currently being spent on Medicare, the additional cost to taxpayers for Sanders' Medicare for All proposal over ten years, rarely discussed, could be as much as twice that. ($30-40 trillion versus her $20.5 trillion).
Looking at the cost of some of their other plans Bernie's continue to be much more expensive--
For the Green New Deal, Warren would spend $3.0 trillion more than we currently budget for environmental programs whereas Sanders' additional spending would reach $16.3 trillion. More than five times as much.
For free college tuition, Warren budgets $610 billion while Bernie would spend less--"only" $480 billion.
To eliminate student debt, Warren would allocate $640 billion, while Sanders would increase the budget by $1.6 trillion. Four times as much.
When asked to explain how they would pay for these and other programs they both talk about instituting wealth taxes. When one looks at the numbers, however, Warren's increased taxes on the very rich would yield $3.75 trillion while Bernie's would net just a little more--$4.35 trillion.
In both cases additional trillions would be required to make their proposals revenue neutral. Good luck with that.
We all know that if any of these programs could be approved by Congress their cost would be added to the federal debt. The same place where Trump's trillions in tax cuts for the mega-rich fester.
If we want to defeat Tump at the polls in November we had better do some of own vetting before Trump and his henchmen do it for us.
Labels: Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Free College Tuition, Green New Deal, Medicare for All, Steve Rattner, Student Debt, Wealth Tax
posted by Steven Zwerling at
4:38 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home