Kevin Drum: The Sanders Campaign Has Crossed Into Neverland

[bigtree]

___Here's a summary from Amherst professor Gerald Friedman about the impact on the economy if we adopt all of Bernie Sanders' domestic spending proposals:



WTF? Per-capita GDP will grow 4.5 percent? And not just in a single year: Friedman is projecting that it will grow by an average of 4.5 percent every year for the next decade. Productivity growth will double compared to CBO projections—and in case you're curious, there has never been a 10-year period since World War II in which productivity grew 3.18 percent. Not one. And miraculously, the employment-population ratio, which has been declining since 2000 and has never reached 65 percent ever in history, will rise to 65 percent in a mere ten years.

The Sanders campaign hasn't officially endorsed this analysis, but we do have this:

Warren Gunnels, policy director for the Sanders campaign, hailed the report’s finding that the proposals are feasible and expressed hope that more people will look into them. “It’s gotten a little bit of attention, but not nearly as much as we would like,” Mr. Gunnels said. “Senator Sanders has been fighting establishment politics, the establishment economics and the establishment media. And this is the last thing they want to take a look at.

“It shows that over a 10-year period, we would create 26 million new jobs, the poverty rate would plummet, that incomes would go up dramatically, and we would have strong economic growth. ... It’s a very bold plan, and we want to get this out there.”

I've generally tried to go easy on Bernie Sanders. I like his vision, and I like his general attitude toward Wall Street. But this is insane. If anything, it's worse than the endless magic asterisks that Republicans use to pretend that their tax plans will supercharge the economy and pay for themselves. It's not even remotely in the realm of reality. If it were, France and Germany and Denmark would all be Croesian paradises by now.

A group of stuffy establishment economists says "no credible economic research" supports Friedman's analysis, which "undermines our reputation as the party of responsible arithmetic." Or, in Austan Goolsbee's more colorful language, Sanders' plans have "evolved into magic flying puppies with winning Lotto tickets tied to their collars."

Enough is enough. Everyone needs to get back to reality. This ain't it.


read: http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/02/sanders-campaign-has-crossed-neverland

[Gothmog]

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

The numbers being thrown around by the Sanders supporters look like the same type of math that the GOP uses to support tax cuts 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.

[Human101948]

4. Simple logic and real world examples show that these objectives are very possible...

US Spends More on Health Care Than Other High-Income Nations But Has Lower Life Expectancy, Worse Health

New Report Finds Americans Have Fewer Doctor and Hospital Visits Than People in Other Nations; Outsized Spending Likely a Result of More Technology, Higher Prices For Care and Prescriptions Drugs

New York, N.Y., October 8, 2015— The U.S. spent more per person on health care than 12 other high-income nations in 2013, while seeing the lowest life expectancy and some of the worst health outcomes among this group, according to a Commonwealth Fund report out today. The analysis shows that in the U.S., which spent an average of $9,086 per person annually, life expectancy was 78.8 years. Switzerland, the second-highest-spending country, spent $6,325 per person and had a life expectancy of 82.9 years. Mortality rates for cancer were among the lowest in the U.S., but rates of chronic conditions, obesity, and infant mortality were higher than those abroad.

“Time and again, we see evidence that the amount of money we spend on health care in this country is not gaining us comparable health benefits,” said Commonwealth Fund President David Blumenthal, M.D. “We have to look at the root causes of this disconnect and invest our health care dollars in ways that will allow us to live longer while enjoying better health and greater productivity.”

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/press-releases/2015/oct/us-spends-more-on-health-care-than-other-nations

[Beowulf]

2. I wonder what Mother Jones (the person) would think of Kevin Drum?

Or Hillary Clinton?

[Human101948]

3. On the other hand, if we stick with the status quo things will only get worse...

for Americans who are not in the one percent. If we only get one quarter of this predicted benefit we will all be much, much better off.

[casperthegm]

5. HRC reminds me of the Settlers commercial

"We're Settlers son. We settle for things." Now that's inspiration.

[Human101948]

6. Yes, that's perfect!

Let's settle for as little as possible!