Being a Socialist means you never have to explain
How dare you even ask a Socialist to explain?
When pressed by CNBC’s John Harwood on how a Sanders administration would come up with enough revenue for the program, Sanders dismissed the concern.
“You’re asking me to come up with an exact detailed plan of how every American – how much you’re going to pay more in taxes, how much I’m going to pay. I don’t think I have to do that right now,” Sanders asserted.
White House rival Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, who co-sponsored the Sanders “Medicare for All” bill in the Senate and is pushing a nearly identical health plan on the campaign trail, has also dodged questions on how she would fund the program.
Numerous budget experts agree that it would be impossible to fund “Medicare for All” without drastically hiking middle-class taxes…
The approximate price tag for Sanders and Warren’s proposal comes in at an estimated $30 trillion over its first ten years, according to the experts at the Committee for A Responsible Federal Budget. Their study concluded that even introducing the most confiscatory tax rates on high-income families and corporations would only generate $11 trillion, only a third of the required revenue.
What I find especially interesting is that many people are willing to allow the candidates to avoid the question. Perhaps they think it will be done through magic. Or perhaps they merely believe that they themselves will not be the ones paying. Why worry when you’re spending other people’s money and the goal is virtuous?
Aside from the direct costs of Medicare For All, I never hear anyone talking about the massive economic dislocation that would result from destroying the private health insurance industry. How many Americans would suddenly be unemployed, not just in insurance companies but in hospitals, doctors’ offices and private employers? Yes, some of them could probably shift over to government to administer the new program — but what about the rest, and the towns where they live and the states where they used to pay taxes? Maybe they could learn to code.
There are many things I would like you to explain Neo, although only one concerns me personally.
But you do not feel you need to explain as this is your “House”.
This Left hand path of service to self at the expense of others is very compatible with the socialist explanations or lack there of.
Magical thinking is precisely what’s going on, to the extent that any mentation whatsoever is taking place. This is because one wants to remain a child — forever (and thus not grow old and die). Leave it up to one’s absent parents, who become imaginary, mythic figures one can blame everything on, and hate. Hating the father-figure especially.
“Or perhaps they merely believe that they themselves will not be the ones paying.”
Ding, ding, ding, we got a winner.
Just look to what happened with Obamacare. My lefty friends were sincerely convinced that THEY would be getting free health care. Then, almost every one of them found out that they were going to have to spend thousands to get “bronze” coverage with a many-thousand-dollar deductible. Did they learn a lesson?
Nope. They believe eternally that financially raping evil rich people is how all the magic happens.
There is more than money involved here. As with Obama-care, there is the question that if we are improving medical care for millions of Americans, where is the medical care coming from? That is, where are the extra doctors and nurses coming from, and how long will it take to produce them?
It is trivial to provide medical INSURANCE for everyone — just use the Cuban method of asserting it is so. Actually providing decent medical CARE involves lots of money, doctors and nurses.
“We can’t afford not to”
Is there tried and true answer
Their
If my Bernie-fanatic friend is typical, the question doesn’t even arise. The righteousness of the cause blots out all other considerations.
There’s an interesting book, ‘Red Plenty’, about the Soviet Union’s centralized management of the economy, from the viewpoint of those who actually had to try and make it work.. I just put up a review of it, here:
https://chicagoboyz.net/archives/60918.html
The book was published in 2010, but is now quite timely in view of the current vogue for the wonderfulness of socialism.
Neo:
You say, “What I find especially interesting is that many people are willing to allow the candidates to avoid the question. Perhaps they think it will be done through magic. Or perhaps they merely believe that they themselves will not be the ones paying. Why worry when you’re spending other people’s money and the goal is virtuous?”
I don’t think those of us who realize the importance of the question, and/or the improbability that a socialist will have any good/plausible answer, are ever the people who’re in a position to ask the question.
And I’m confident that those of us whose children are most likely to be negatively affected if such policies are imposed (without the benefit of being insulated from the consequences by personal wealth) are never permitted to pose such questions to socialist politicians.
So whether they can avoid the question isn’t up to us.
It’s up to their interviewers. Those interviewers mostly share premises with the interviewees; or else, are schooled in “journalism” but haven’t the faintest grasp of history or economics. Consequently they don’t have any prior worldview against which socialists’ ideas could be compared, and their proposals found ridiculous.
On the question of spending others’ money: I don’t think they really think that clearly. I think most politicians have learned a feedback loop of…
– feeling their way to a policy that sounds good
– announcing the policy to the public in the form of a declaration of intended outcomes, rather than a prediction of actual outcomes
– receiving a wave of adulation in response to said declaration, which reinforces the habit of feeling one’s way to a platform, and disincentivizes any evaluation of that platform for efficacy
– selecting interviewers who won’t harsh their mellow
In short, socialist politicians’ brains don’t function at an adult level (the level which foresees consequences independent of declared intentions) when it comes to voicing support for policies which won’t directly and quickly affect them.
David, thanks for the book review. I hope everybody here reads it, because it’s very good.
The especially astute Canadian commentator David Solway’s take on Warren & Sander’s “solution’: <a href="https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/what-we-call-national-health-care-or-single-payer-is-a-crime-against-humanity/“What We Call National Health Care or Single-Payer Is a Crime Against Humanity”
More precisely, being a socialist means you never CAN explain.
“I can think magically better than you!”
(From “Bernie Get Your Communist Manifesto”…)
Scarcity is an artifact of cut-throat, dog-eat-dog capitalism and the rapacity of the expropriating, islamophobic cisheteronormative oppressor class!
Rich old white men are sitting on a big pile of healthcare they stole from single, brown, lesbian, working-class immigrants; meanwhile, you and I economize on expired, generic aspirin and yard sale, knock-off band aids!
Call out the instigators!!
And then, when they enact those policies, and they result in economic decline, rampant inflation, and shoddy services, they explain this by blaming the sabotage of the “Extreme Right” or external interference.
Socialism means never being held accountable. Politicians and unscrupulous elites get wealthier and more powerful than ever. But, it is “for the People”, and that is the only justification needed.
Been there (Venezuela). Saw it…
Mrs Whatsit,
The current bloating of administration for health care is an economic distortion in itself. It has been created by the Federal laws and policies of the FDA and by the monopoly in healthcare of the AMA, combined with protectionist policies for the insurance companies. It is a mess.
The current system IS massively inefficient and bloated. Solving the problems probably will results in millions losing their jobs and needing to retrain and learn new skills. So be it… that is how progress works.
However, the solution is not national healthcare, but massive deregulation and tort reform. This would allow healthcare providers to innovate and provide better solutions in a competitive marketplace. Medical care would be provided by smaller, more agile providers. Much of the current corporate infrastructure would go the way of the dinosaurs.
Mentus,
“…cisheteronormative oppressor class!”
Hysterical…
Mentus: “Call out the instigators!!”
Just want you to know I recognize that line. 🙂
Of course they will use magic. Modern Monetary Theory.
This is why I believe that every vote should be weighted by how much tax is paid by that voter.
No Representation without Taxation.
THAT is what accountability requires.
Then we will have no more calls for this Socialism nonsense because people who believe in magical economics won’t have any political power.
How about concentrating our collective efforts on building a health care system that harnesses market forces to improve service and reduce cost instead of trying to guarantee an outcome like an entitlement?
Mandatory comprehensive “insurance” for all just explodes costs. It’s mostly a dishonest attempt to redistribute resources from hard-working American citizens to the 20+ million illegals currently residing with our borders. Many use the emergency room as primary care. That’s one reason why your insurance gets charged $50/aspirin: you get to pay for those who can’t/won’t.
We need an approach that matches the cost of the service to the users ability to pay. We need a structure that rewards innovation and fosters competition so everyone can afford to pay.
Who needs the kind of comprehensive auto insurance that covers *everything*… from changing oil filters and spark plugs and cleaning the windshield and vacuuming the interior to changing flat tires to putting gas in the tank when it’s empty? Nobody I know. It costs less to just to do some stuff yourself.
Who thinks paying into an “insurance” scheme that covers already-totaled cars is a good idea? Your heart is in the right place but that is not how “insurance” works.
Back in the 60s/70s being a socialist meant something.
Now anyone running for President can call themselves a socialist. Bah.
Sort of like the ‘wall’. Mexico will pay for it, right? Oh wait well it will get paid for. How? Not important.
Then while campaigning Trump said he would eliminate the debt in 8 years. How? Tax cuts! What? Now the debt has increased by 68%.
Let’s be honest; Politicians rarely get into specifics. It’s almost always political rhetoric to get the voters excited so the politician can win. Then they will cross that bridge later. Why get into boring explanations about funding?
Medicare for all is a problem. But if Sanders and Warren were honest they would just say they would increase taxes and make everyone pay for it. But saying that means they would lose votes. Similarly if Trump had said Americans will pay for the wall he would have had a tough time selling it. Obfuscation, lies and exaggerations. That’s politics! Always has been.
There’s an explanation, one offered (more-or-less) by Milton Friedman 20 years ago. Fix the share of discoverable personal income devoted to public financing of medical care by assiduous use of high deductibles which are adjusted annually. Tell people the truth: the premiums will amount to the lesser of two sums: 16% of your discoverable personal income or $33,000 (this last adjusted annually). The annual deductible will be $3,200 for a single person, $6,400 for a married couple or parent-child dyad, $9,600 for a family (and more next year). And if a medical practitioner doesn’t want to accept the plan’s re-imbursement schedule, he’s free to operate cash-only.
“Similarly if Trump had said Americans will pay for the wall he would have had a tough time selling it.”
100% wrong.
There are millions of us deplorable, bitter clingers who would gladly help pay EXTRA for secure borders. Including a wall.
President Trump will win re-election by campaigning against the ‘do-nothing’ – obstructionist- Democrats running the US House of Representatives.
Now the debt has increased by 68%.
The debt has increased by 15% since 20 January 2017. Btw, appropriations bills are written by Congress.
Tuvea
Sure and I have no problem with. There are plenty of ‘crazy socialists’ too who would be willing to pay more in taxes to help those with healthcare needs. But the point is no politician would be willing to come out and ask for us to pay more in taxes. It has only tended to be a winning argument when fear gets tossed into the mix. Notably if we have a war. But even that has changed. Bush had much of the country behind him after 9/11 but rather than ask for Americans to lend a hand – like we did in WW2 – he promoted two wars and then gave tax cuts.
All these government programs are a zero sum game. They just rob Peter to pay Paul. The government takes a dollar from Peter, keeps 30 cents to pay themselves, then gives 70 cents to Paul and brags about how they are helping Paul. They ignore how they are harming Peter.
But the point is no politician would be willing to come out and ask for us to pay more in taxes.
Constructing the wall would be a modest share of federal expenditures. A revenue deficit is not an impediment.
All these government programs are a zero sum game. They just rob Peter to pay Paul. The government takes a dollar from Peter, keeps 30 cents to pay themselves, then gives 70 cents to Paul and brags about how they are helping Paul. They ignore how they are harming Peter.
The administrative costs of Social Security are a low-single digit share of total expenditures. Not much different in re SNAP.
but rather than ask for Americans to lend a hand – like we did in WW2 – he promoted two wars and then gave tax cuts.
Because the scale was quite different. World War II was fought globally, required putting about 30% of the male population born between 1894 and 1928 in uniform, and consumed an average of 33% of gross national product over a six year period. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were fought by activating reserves and guardsman to increase manpower and required an annual expenditure of just shy of 1% of domestic product.
Art Deco
Sorry, I meant the deficit [not the debt]. According to a recent WSJ article the deficit is 68 percent higher than when Trump took office. I’m willing to blame Congress but Trump claimed he would bring it down. And everyone knows a president gets blame or credit for what happens with the deficits and debts.
Re The Wall: The Cato Institute says new estimates by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) are $59.8 billion to construct. That’s fairly high. It’s also higher than estimated.
The new OMB estimate comes to about $24.4 million per mile. [Which] is 41 percent more costly than the approximately $17.3 million per mile construction costs that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) estimated just a few years ago, 2.7 times as expensive as Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan estimated, and 5 times as expensive as Trump’s lowest estimate.
Trump proposed between $8 and $21 billion cost. If $59 billion was modest I don’t think Trump would have proposed lower cost.
Right about the difference between WW2 and the Iraq / Afghan wars. I don’t mean a draft I meant taxation. Those wars cost money. Why not increase taxes? Let’s just have some honest politicians unafraid of telling Americans that security and healthcare cost money.
Re The Wall: The Cato Institute says new estimates by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) are $59.8 billion to construct. That’s fairly high. It’s also higher than estimated.
About CATO, cue Mandy Rice-Davies.
And so what? A one off surtax of 0.4% of personal income would pay for that.
Then while campaigning Trump said he would eliminate the debt in 8 years.
Montage: I guess I’ve succumbed to Trump apologetics, but I take it for granted that everyone knows Trump has a P.T. Barnum persona and he’ll say silly exaggerated things for effect. “It’s strictly [show] business, Sonny.” Trump embraces that persona with “vigah.”
Warren, however, says she’s “got a plan for [everything]” and, as a Harvard professor must be, she is dead nerd serious about it. No foolin’ around. Or maybe a bit of corner-cutting to get it past the deplorables.
Of course, Warren is just the other brand of huckster — the one with a steely glare, and not a smile and a wink.
Socialism also means never having to say you’re sorry.
Mary Poppins is the one who never explains anything.
Government expenditures will never be reduced, so you could raise taxes every year and expenditures would exceed them. “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury.” Trump has actually proposed budgets that reduce expenditures, but the Dems just vote no and shut down the government, so what can he do?
“Trump has actually proposed budgets that reduce expenditures, but the Dems just vote no and shut down the government, so what can he do?”
Troll them unmercifully until they reveal their true vampirical nature to the marks?
“…but I take it for granted that everyone knows Trump has a P.T. Barnum persona and he’ll say silly exaggerated things for effect. ‘It’s strictly [show] business, Sonny.’”
Nailed it, huxley. We take him seriously but not literally. His detractors do the reverse.
Government expenditures will never be reduced, so you could raise taxes every year and expenditures would exceed them.
After the 2d World War, the President and Congress cut the share of domestic product allocated to the military by 80% and balanced the budget. This was accomplished in two years. (The New Deal alphabet soup agencies were all dismantled by the end of 1943). During the Eisenhower Administration, the President and Congress managed to wind-down military expenditures in Korea and ride out three recessions. They balanced the budget 3x in 8 years and the deficits were quite modest by subsequent standards. During the Kennedy-Johnson years, they did run deficits every years, but they were modest deficits and the budget for FY 1968-69 was balanced.
There is no iron law of political life that says it has to be the way it has been the last 60 years, whatever the public choice economists have been pushing notwithstanding.
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury.”
I have news for you Mr. Saunders: property qualifications for suffrage were dismantled 180 years ago. There was a residue in Southern states for another 80 years to maintain the racial caste system, something we are well free of.