Opinion: Four reasons why The Wall Street Journal attack on Bernie is bogus
The Wall Street Journal recently ran an article claiming that Bernie Sanders's proposals would cost $18 trillion over a 10-year period. The number is wrong and the information doesn't add up.
U.S. Democratic presidential candidate and U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders pauses while speaking at the New Hampshire Democratic Party State Convention in Manchester, New Hampshire September 19, 2015.
Brian Snyder/Reuters/File
I鈥檝e had so many calls about an聽聽appearing earlier this week in the Wall Street Journal 鈥� charging that Bernie Sanders鈥檚 proposals would carry a 鈥減rice tag鈥� of $18 trillion over a 10-year period 鈥� that it鈥檚 necessary to respond.
The Journal鈥檚 number is entirely bogus, designed to frighten the public. Please spread the truth:
1. Bernie鈥檚 proposals would cost less than what we鈥檇 spend without them. Most of the 鈥渃ost鈥� the Journal comes up with鈥�$15 trillion鈥攚ould pay for opening Medicare to everyone.聽
This would be cheaper than relying on our current system of for-profit private health insurers that charge you and me huge administrative costs, advertising, marketing, bloated executive salaries, and high pharmaceutical prices.聽
(Gerald Friedman, an economist at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, whom the Journal relies on for some of its data, actually聽聽a Medicare-for-all system would actually save all of us $10 trillion over 10 years).
2. The savings from Medicare-for-all would more than cover the costs of the rest of Bernie鈥檚 agenda鈥攖uition-free education at public colleges, expanded Social Security benefits, improved infrastructure, and a fund to help cover paid family leave 鈥� and still leave us $2 trillion to cut federal deficits for the next ten years.
3. Many of these other 鈥渃osts" would also otherwise be paid by individuals and families 鈥� for example, in college tuition and private insurance. So they shouldn鈥檛 be considered added costs for the country as a whole, and may well save us money.
4. Finally, Bernie鈥檚 proposed spending on education and infrastructure aren鈥檛 really 鈥渟pending鈥� at all, but investments in the nation鈥檚 future productivity. If we don鈥檛 make them, we鈥檙e all poorer.
That Rupert Murdoch鈥檚 Wall Street Journal would do this giant dump on Bernie Sanders, based on misinformation and distortion, confirms Bernie鈥檚聽status as the candidate willing to take on the moneyed interests that the Wall Street Journal represents.