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

[kennetha]

Here's my question for Bernie supporters, suppose that these left leaning economists are right, do you still support Bernie or does your support of Bernie depend on your denying that this sort of thing is true?

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.

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

[stonecutter357]

1. K&R!

[Wilms]

2. 170 Economists Endorse Bernie Sanders’ Plan To Reform Wall St. And Rein In Greed

170 Economists Endorse Bernie Sanders’ Plan To Reform Wall St. And Rein In Greed

A letter signed by 170 economists including former Labor Secretary Robert Reich, University of Texas Professor James K. Galbraith, Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, DC., Brad Miller, former U.S. Congressman from North Carolina, and William K. Black, University of Missouri-Kansas City endorsed the Sanders plan to reform Wall Street.

The economists wrote:

In our view, Sanders’ plan for comprehensive financial reform is critical for avoiding another ‘too-big-to-fail’ financial crisis. The Senator is correct that the biggest banks must be broken up and that a new 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act, separating investment from commercial banking, must be enacted.

Wall Street’s largest banks are now far bigger than they were before the crisis, and they still have every incentive to take excessive risks. No major Wall Street executive has been indicted for the fraudulent behavior that led up to the 2008 crash, and fines imposed on the banks have been only a fraction of the banks’ potential gains. In addition, the banks and their lobbyists have succeeded in watering down the Dodd-Frank reform legislation, and the financial institutions that pose the greatest risk to our economy have still not devised sufficient “living wills” for winding down their operations in the event of another crisis.

snip

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/01/14/170-economists-bernie-sanders-plan-reform-wall-st-rein-greed.html

[orpupilofnature57]

4. + 1000000000000 !!!!!!!!!!!

[kennetha]

5. you didn't answer my question

If these left leaning economists are correct, would you still support Bernie? Or does you support of Bernie hinge on your disbelieving their analysis?

[orpupilofnature57]

9. I think 170 was an answer, unless your only interested in Fear & Doubt .

[kennetha]

10. If what they say can be shown to be true

would you stop supporting Bernie?

[orpupilofnature57]

11. No .

[kennetha]

12. So how about trying to figure

out objectively, by relying on the best, most fair-minded and neutral analysis you can, whether Bernie's numbers add up. Try not to be clouded by your antecedent political leanings, try to get yourself into a neutral frame of mind. I know that's hard. But if what these left leaning economist say is true, and can be shown to be true, I believe that most Americans would just reject him out of hand, including most of his current supporters. So before plopping down decisively for him, seems to me one might want to weigh the facts as dispassionately as one can.

[orpupilofnature57]

18. You have characterized Hillary with your attempt at perception management, Now who are these

" Left leaning " ' Liberal Leaning " economists ?

[stopbush]

59. Er, the 170 are supporting his efforts to reform Wall Street, not his plans for healthcare.

Apples and oranges.

[stopbush]

21. Hate to point out the obvious, but reining in WS and paying for healthcare

Last edited Tue Feb 16, 2016, 04:01 PM - Edit history (1)

are two different things.

Yes - 170 economists have signed on to endorsing Sanders' plan to rein in WS. That has nothing to do with whether or not his healthcare overhaul is doable and affordable, or if his numbers are realistic.

The article in the link talks exclusively about his healthcare proposal.

[Wilms]

23. Gee, how does the rest of the free world do it?

Remove the insurance companies. Reign in on hospital and pharm costs. Tax the insanely wealthy.

[stopbush]

25. Gee, the economists in the article are disputing Sanders numbers.

Did you even read the article? No one is saying it can't be done. The question is how much it will cost.

"The rest of the world does it" through much higher taxes on everyone.

And it would help if you'd go to Sanders' website and read his plan which calls for tax increases on the middle class, not just the insanely wealthy.

[Wilms]

31. Let my taxes go up.

When my health care and education costs go down, and when the minimum wage going up improves the volume of business, I walk home with a few extra dollars in my pocket and the satisfaction that I live in a more civilized society.

[stopbush]

35. In the UK, you pay 20% income tax up to $60,000 (£42,000)

Above that, you pay a 40% income tax. The highest tax rate is 45%.

The tax rate in the USA is 25% up to $89,000.

The UK taxes people to help pay for healthcare and other gov programs. Nothing wrong with that. The question in the USA is whether or not people making $60-89,000 a year would be OK with a 15% tax increase to pay for expanded government. If you're going to point to Europe as your model then you need to examine the tax policies that fund the European model.

[Wilms]

37. Let me do this for you r e a l s l o w.

If my standard of living is increased, the numbers are mere details.

Now, if you are making >$250,000, or if you have interest in Big Pharm or insurance, you may see it differently.

Interestingly, one of the only two demographics voting for Clinton in NH identified as >$250K. Fun fact.

[stopbush]

41. Snarky, condescending and conceited.

No, I don't make $250k a year. I am firmly in the middle class.

Fun fact: apparently, you don't have the ability to consider things outside of the caricature you have set up in your mind for people who question Sanders' numbers. If someone wants more detail they must be a rich elitist shilling for Big Pharma. How convenient for you!

Here's a thought: as soon as you get your Berniecare, schedule an eye exam. You're suffering from myopia.

[stopbush]

42. BTW - some people will have their standard of living lowered under Sanders' plan

I'm guessing you're OK with that as long as you get yours.

[Ed Suspicious]

30. It's unpossible! It can't be tried! Why won't you play along with our do-nothing attitude?!!!

[hedda_foil]

46. Stop! Please! It's to rein in, as with a horse. Reign refers to kings and queens reigning.

[stopbush]

47. Typo. Sorry. Don't have a stroke.

[hedda_foil]

51. Thanks. Blood pressure going down. (:>D)

[orpupilofnature57]

68. Gee, I wonder if companies making 600% on War could help ?

[stopbush]

69. Maybe. Problem is that the entire US defense budget is only $500-billion,

so even if you eliminated the entire defense budget you'd only be 25% of the way to paying for what Sanders' healthcare proposals will cost every year.

[orpupilofnature57]

73. This

http://www.democraticunderground.com/128052084

[orpupilofnature57]

3. " Left leaning " or " Liberal leaning " better than 150 economists say We'll Soar compared to being

victims of the 1% and their custodians . Keep your Fear and by the way there was no " Crash " in 2008, there was a " BAILOUT " brought to us by the same FEAR your trying to peddle .

[stopbush]

22. Can you provide a link to 150 economists who have endorsed

Sanders healthcare proposals? That is what the article linked in the OP is concerned with.

Thank you.

[boston bean]

6. If there is anyone out there who thinks they will pay $500/year for comprehensive single payer

healthcare, I got a bridge to nowhere to sell you.

That is $41 dollars per month.

Come on now!

Then add in that the revenue his plan includes where corporations will pay a higher percentage, but what he doesn't tell you is it will be passed on to the employee.

[one_voice]

62. I just signed up for a half way decent

plan and it's $445 a month. I think that's too high. I'd like to see that number reduced. I think we can do that if we get a hold of the pharm companies.

But I agree, $41 a month is not realistic.

[boston bean]

63. I thought it was 500/month. And thought that

Was realistic.

Considering what I pay. And knowing what my mother pays for her medicare costs.

[one_voice]

64. My husband just started a new job..

yesterday, so that's what we pay.

At one point my mom was paying 0ver $600 for her medicare supplement. She's isn't any longer, but I thought that was crazy.

One of the places my husband worked cost us over $700 for ins. That's ridiculous. People will choose to go without before paying that.

I think we need a 'buy in' system that goes according to your income, but takes ALL your monthly out put inconsideration. Averages your elec bill, water, etc. You can't live without those things.

Looking at couple that makes say $65,000 and thinking they can afford $750 for healthcare is asinine. Especially, those that are also saddled with student loans.

Mortgages/ rent, elec, food, car ins (have to get to work), phone, water, these are necessities of life. You can't give any of these up to pay for health ins, they need to be figured in.

[stopbush]

71. Sanders is proposing paying only $500 A YEAR in tax increases to fund his healthcare program.

“A family right in the middle of the economy would pay $500 more in taxes and get a reduction in their health costs of $5,000.” -B Sanders

Source: NYT http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/16/us/politics/left-leaning-economists-question-cost-of-bernie-sanderss-plans.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0

[virtualobserver]

7. Good old Austan Goolsbee

The Obama adiviser who talked to the Canadian government and told officials that Obama's NAFTA-bashing is merely campaign rhetoric, and shouldn't be taken seriously.

[kennetha]

8. If what they say is true, do you still support Bernie?

Or does your support of Bernie hinge on disbelieving their analysis?

[virtualobserver]

15. I support what Bernie is trying to do.

Austan Goolsbee is suspect because he told the truth to the Canadian government, but not to us.

My support for Bernie is based on knowing that he always tries to do the right thing.

You can find an economist to support ANY view.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

13. As somone who is not a Republican, I don't believe the government should be small enough to

drown in a bathtub. Expanding the size of government by 40% or more does not bother me in the least.

[kennetha]

14. So even if these left leaning economists are right,

you're fine with it.

I doubt very many are, though.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

16. Yes, Grover Norquist had managed to dupe a bunch of people into believing

'Government should be small' rather than 'Government should be whatever size it needs to be to meet the needs of the people.'

But I think we're seeing that people are starting to realize they've been lied to.

Hell, we've got the LEADING candidate for the Republican nominee saying at rallies that George Bush did not 'keep us safe', that he took us to war based on lies, that he made us less safe. And it isn't hurting him. This is a different political world.

I doubt that the way you think is going to prevail this election.

That having been said, will Sanders actually be able to get massive structural change to the system? Very doubtful, even if we regain both House and Senate. There are still plenty of blue dogs who will oppose him. But Sanders in not the be all and end all. He's simply the START of the shift to the left, while Hillary continues to steer us ever rightward, albeit very slowly.

[JackRiddler]

54. Please stop propagating the untruth...

that these establishment intellectuals are "left leaning." They may or may not be right, but they are certainly not remotely "left."

[stopbush]

28. Expanding the government is code for raising taxes.

If you're OK with a 40% increase, that's fine. But Sanders needs to be honest about it. Let people know they are going to face major tax increases to pay for his programs and drop the "free healthcare for all for $500 a year" crap.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

45. The people whose taxes would go up the most already know it, they're rich.

On the rest of us, our taxes would go up less than the things we're paying for now that the gov't would take over, like healthcare. If I'm no longer paying thousands in health insurance, should I really be upset that my taxes go up hundreds to pay for it? The fact that one is a 'tax' and one is not is not important. Overall, I'm paying less, thanks to cutting out a parasitic industry that exists simply to funnel money to shareholders.

[stopbush]

48. In theory, that's what would happen. That's a good thing. That's what Bernie's numbers show.

But the fact is that economists are questioning those numbers. Those questions deserve to be answered and the doubts put to rest.

That won't happen if Sanders or his defenders resort to name calling and invective to defend numbers that could well be off. Hell, Sanders' campaign already rolled back the number they had put out on savings they hoped to realize on what Americans pay for prescription drugs. They made a huge error in their calculations, but rather than dig in their heels and whine that the establishment was persecuting them by pointing out the error, they redid the numbers and issued a correction that made a lot more sense.

My position is that that they would do well to address other concerns voiced by economists who are very open to single payer and who want to see numbers put forward by Sanders that reflect reality and not pipe dreams, like Sanders' very unrealistic numbers on GDP growth under his proposals.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

49. If they're off by 100%

I still end up saving money overall, not just as much.

[stopbush]

56. Could be more than 100%. Example: Medicare/Medicaid.

Last edited Tue Feb 16, 2016, 03:00 PM - Edit history (1)

Every working American currently pays into Medicare/Medicaid with every paycheck they draw from the time they start working until they're 65. The employee pays 1.45% of every check, and the employer matches that with another 1.45%. We all pay those taxes for on average 47 years before drawing a benefit from the program.

The taxes currently being collected from 100% of the population up to age 65 to fund Medicare/caid are being used to provide health services to roughly 1/6 of the population. That 1/6 of the population (over 65s) pays on average $1200 a year in Medicare premiums, and there are limits to what services are covered.

Enter Sanders' plan, which raises the payroll tax from the current 2.9% (combined employee/employer contribution) to 6.2%, an increase of 113% for that one tax. He is also proposing an across-the-board 2.2% tax increase on all household incomes to fund his health proposal. That puts the tax increase up to 8.4%, a 189% increase in taxes.

The question is, is that enough? The answer is probably no. Why?

Simple: you are going from collecting taxes from 100% of the people to fund a program currently open to only 16% of the population (over 65s), and a population that will only be on the program for a limited time (from age 65 until they die) to needing to collect taxes to fund a program that will cover 100% of the population over the length of their lives. The increase in people alone that you now need to cover is SIX FOLD, from 16% to 100%. One would think that the basic math of the situation demands that the current 2.9% payroll tax already being collected to cover 16% of the population would need to increase 6-fold just to provide services at the somewhat limited level of current Medicare for 100% of the population. That would mean increasing the payroll tax to 17.4%, just to stay even. That's a 600% increase in the payroll tax. And that is a number cited by economists when they say that Sanders' plan @ 8.4% only gets you halfway there.

In addition, you are talking about the program serving everybody in the country for 60-70 years, not the 5-15 years of the average senior on Medicare. And let's not forget, current Medicare beneficiaries are paying on average $1200 a year in premiums into the system, which is providing revenue to the program on top of the payroll taxes the rest of us are paying. Sanders' program eliminates those premiums and with it a huge source of program revenue. That means that the 17.4% tax on payroll is going to have to go even higher to make up the difference in lost premiums.

There is no way in hell that you can find enough savings and offsets in the system to account for those increases, not in premiums paid to private insurers, not in drug prices, nada, even when you morph the 15% of healthcare premiums currently being paid that the private insurers are allowed to keep as their profits into new savings/revenue found in the system if you eliminate private insurers.

Which is why economists are questioning his numbers. It really has nothing to do with people being anti-Sanders or anti-single payer. It's about the math.

On edit: the above deals only with current payroll taxes being paid to support our existing Medicare/caid system. It says nothing about the other taxes we pay to support the Social Security system. Neither does it take into account what the average person pays in income taxes. Sanders says that his 6.2% tax will be paid by employers, but what that really means is that it will eventually be paid by the workers through loss of paid vacation time, fewer raises and COLAs and other benefits that come with a job. It could also mean less hiring and hiring at lower entry wages as employers look for offsets to counter their having to pay the full ride on Medicare payroll taxes under Sanders' plan.

[iandhr]

32. It bothers most Americans though.

One of the many reasons Bernie is unelectable.

[unc70]

17. No matter how many times you post this, we are good

Deliberately misunderstanding how the healthcare financing works and how we will pay for it -- how many more times must you and others post the same article here?

[orpupilofnature57]

19. + 1000000000000 !!!!!!!!!!!

[SammyWinstonJack]

24. +1000000

[frazzled]

20. Let the "establishment" blasting begin!

"The New York Times"! - typical lamestream media!
"Austan Goolsbee" - what a joke!
"The establishment can't handle the truth"!

I've never seen such collective refusal to listen to anybody but their own dear leader and their own closed-off minds (well, I have--but it's been among the Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman crowd).

Fortunately, Mr. Goolsbee can give it right back: the "puppies and rainbows" charge that has been leveled at Mr. Sanders's agenda have now "evolved into magic flying puppies with winning Lotto tickets tied to their collars."

It's one thing for a candidate to express the ideals toward which they'd like to see the country move. It's another for them to propose completely out-of-reach agendas, with poorly conceived or unrealistic parameters, and then sell the delusion that they have the messiah-like ability to get "the people" (an imaginary construct which really means "ourselves&quot to force them to materialize in the real world.

I've seen religious zealots with less obdurate faith than this.

[stopbush]

26. Bingo!

[Skwmom]

27. Plans can be tailored. Americans are getting raked over the coals on Health Insurance.

[azurnoir]

29. you post from 3 Hillary boosters including the one from the Brookings Institute

BTW Brookings has been playing quid pro quo with Hillary for some time, especially after she promised them she would keep war on the table when it comes to Iran

[Gothmog]

33. Krugman- Sanders health plan looks a little bit like a standard Republican tax-cut plan

I trust Prof. Krugman on this http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/01/19/weakened-at-bernies/?_r=0

On health care: leave on one side the virtual impossibility of achieving single-payer. Beyond the politics, the Sanders “plan” isn’t just lacking in detail; as Ezra Klein notes, it both promises more comprehensive coverage than Medicare or for that matter single-payer systems in other countries, and assumes huge cost savings that are at best unlikely given that kind of generosity. This lets Sanders claim that he could make it work with much lower middle-class taxes than would probably be needed in practice.

To be harsh but accurate: the Sanders health plan looks a little bit like a standard Republican tax-cut plan, which relies on fantasies about huge supply-side effects to make the numbers supposedly add up. Only a little bit: after all, this is a plan seeking to provide health care, not lavish windfalls on the rich — and single-payer really does save money, whereas there’s no evidence that tax cuts deliver growth. Still, it’s not the kind of brave truth-telling the Sanders campaign pitch might have led you to expect.

Again, as noted by Prof. Krugman this plan does not add up.

[UnBlinkingEye]

38. You forgot to note this

Just after your bold text highlight:

"after all, this is a plan seeking to provide health care, not lavish windfalls on the rich — and single-payer really does save money, whereas there’s no evidence that tax cuts deliver growth."

Health care is a right, not a privilege.

[hwmnbn]

40. " and single-payer really does save money,"

I read that part in your Krugman quote.

[Perogie]

34. The US economy after WWII was pretty awesome

I guess that huge government expansion didn't hurt us much.

[stopbush]

39. Er, the government did not expand after WWII. It contracted.

Taxes stayed high throughout the 50s to pay off the government expansion that was necessary to fund the war machine during WWII. Government spending actually went down after the war ended when all those servicemen came off the government payroll and all of the contracts to private industry to build armaments went bye-bye.

Government spending was 100%+ of GDP during the war. That dropped to 21% immediately after the war ended.

[Wilms]

43. No. It wasn't "100%+".

More like 50%. And it dipped below 20% after the war, but then right up to 20% which was twice the pre-war level.



on edit...

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/past_spending

[stopbush]

44. Let's meet in the middle. Gov spending in 1944 was 72% of GDP

See here: https://eh.net/encyclopedia/the-american-economy-during-world-war-ii/

You are correct that it wasn't as high as 100% of GDP. I was thinking that the top marginal tax rate was above 100% during the war.

In any case, government did not expand after WWII. Your post shows that to be true.

[NurseJackie]

36. People are beginning to pay attention.

[guillaumeb]

53. To the fear spreading?

The US ranks 37th in the world for healthcare systems, Nurse Jackie. Do you consider 37th to be a good outcome? Are you proud of the US ranking of 37?

This post is another example of the false bigotry of low expectations.

[UglyGreed]

50. Third Way all the Way!

https://twitter.com/ThirdWayKessler?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

[guillaumeb]

52. So the 3 cited in the NY Times Article outweigh the 170 who have supported Sanders plans?

Talk about cherry picking!!!

Very weak. Perhaps you should do more research into how nearly every European country already provides what Sanders call for in this country.

[stopbush]

58. Non-sequitor. The 170 economists are NOT supporting Sanders' healthcare proposals.

They are supporting his proposals to reform Wall Street. Did you not know that distinction or are you being purposefully obtuse?

Two entirely separate issues and proposals.

[oasis]

55. The GOP congress will never pass Bernie's plan anyway. nt

[Jarqui]

57. If you're a so-called economist

and you can't improve on that for the US, then you're not much of an economist.

The US spends more than anyone else on healthcare now. The US can "afford" to do whatever because it's spending like drunks now.

Single payer lowers the cost - taking out insurance company profit and a significant amount of administration (brokers, sales people, adjusters, lawsuits over coverage, property costs for offices, administration personnel at the doctors offices, collections & collection agencies, etc)

Some say admin & profit are as high as 31%. Let's say profit is 3% and admin savings are only 10%. So everything else the same, you reduce the cost healthcare by 13% by making it single payer. Now 10% of Americans are uninsured so spend 10% more to cover them and you're left with roughly about a 3% savings.

No matter what, the US can afford to do whatever with what they're presently paying in healthcare costs and not increase payments.

Did these economists that were having trouble understanding the proposal contact the Sanders people to get an understanding of the numbers? Not that I've seen. So it smells like a hit piece.

I've checked it and my numbers were close enough.

Presently in Sanders plan, a family of 4 earning $50,000 a year is paying about $6,300/yr including deductible. Sanders is looking to replace that for ~$500/yr premium for a savings of roughly $5,800/yr. Let's say his accountant messed up and that family had to pay a $3,000 premium instead of $500. That family would still be ahead $3,300/yr as most under Sanders plan would. So there's plenty of margin for error and folks are still ahead. That was got me to stop worrying about the precise numbers.

His policy director, Warren Gunnels, dismissed the critics in an interview, saying, “They’ve picked sides with Hillary Clinton.” The campaign has a list of 130 endorsees, including some economists.

“If, at the end of the day, people don’t believe that we can achieve the same savings as Canada, Britain, France, Japan, South Korea, Australia are achieving on health care, then we have a fundamental disagreement,” Mr. Gunnels said, naming countries with single-payer systems.

[stopbush]

60. Buried in the small print:

"The campaign has a list of 130 endorsees, including some economists."

So, there aren't 170 economists endorsing Sanders' healthcare plan as people seem to be implying above.

I wonder how many of those 130 endorsees are economists. Could be only 2.

[Jarqui]

61. Unburied for you, it is 170 economists but

https://berniesanders.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Wall-St-Letter-1.pdf

they're not endorsing his healthcare plan, they're endorsing his Wall Street reform plan

[stopbush]

66. Yes. I know that. I've pointed that out in numerous posts above.

It's the BSers who are implying that the 170 economists have endorsed Sanders' healthcare plan.

But thanks for your response.

[monicaangela]

65. This is an article by Jackie Calmes

Jackie Calmes works for the New York Times. The New York Times has endorsed Hillary Clinton on the democratic side and John Kasich on the republican side for president. I don't expect to read any articles in the NYT that will be favorable where Bernie Sanders is concerned.

[stopbush]

67. Wow! The Hillary conspiracy runs even deeper than the conspiracy to kill JFK.

Wouldn't be surprised if the CIA, the Mob and the Russians were involved in the Stop Bernie conspiracy, maybe even Poppy Bush!!

[Armstead]

70. The Usual Suspects -- Clinton Style Centrists not "left"

Jared Bernstein

Austan Goolsbee, formerly chairman of President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, now at the University of Chicago.

[Matariki]

72. Why post this twice? The title is bullshit - the article quotes ONE economist

One probably biased economist. Yet you ignore the article that quotes 170 economists supporting Sanders economic plans.