Power of Story Send a Tweet        
- Advertisement -

Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter Share on Facebook 1 Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon Tell A Friend 3 (4 Shares)  

Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites (# of views)   No comments
OpEdNews Op Eds

4 Reasons Why The Wall Street Journal's Attack on Bernie is Bogus

By       Message Robert B. Reich       (Page 1 of 1 pages)     Permalink

Related Topic(s): ; ; , Add Tags  Add to My Group(s)

Must Read 3   Well Said 3   Valuable 3  
View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com Headlined to H3 9/19/15

Author 47089
Become a Fan
  (120 fans)
- Advertisement -

Reprinted from Robert Reich Blog

From flickr.com/photos/37996583933@N01/20054512410/: Bernie Sanders
Bernie Sanders
(Image by marcn)
  Permission   Details   DMCA

I've had so many calls about an article appearing earlier this week in the Wall Street Journal -- charging that Bernie Sanders's proposals would carry a "price tag" of $18 trillion over a 10-year period -- that it's necessary to respond.

- Advertisement -

The Journal's number is entirely bogus, designed to frighten the public. Please spread the truth:

1. Bernie's proposals would cost less than what we'd spend without them. Most of the "cost" the Journal comes up with -- $15 trillion -- would pay for opening Medicare to everyone.

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.

- Advertisement -

(Gerald Friedman, an economist at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, whom the Journal relies on for some of its data, actually estimates 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's agenda -- tuition-free education at public colleges, expanded Social Security benefits, improved infrastructure, and a fund to help cover paid family leave -- and still leave us $2 trillion to cut federal deficits for the next 10 years.

3. Many of these other "costs" would also otherwise be paid by individuals and families -- for example, in college tuition and private insurance. So they shouldn't be considered added costs for the country as a whole, and may well save us money.

4. Finally, Bernie's proposed spending on education and infrastructure aren't really "spending" at all, but investments in the nation's future productivity. If we don't make them, we're all poorer.

That Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal would do this giant dump on Bernie Sanders, based on misinformation and distortion, confirms Bernie's status as the candidate willing to take on the moneyed interests that the Wall Street Journal represents.

- Advertisement -

 

- Advertisement -

Must Read 3   Well Said 3   Valuable 3  
View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com

Robert Reich, former U.S. Secretary of Labor and Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley, has a new film, "Inequality for All," to be released September 27. He blogs at www.robertreich.org.

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon Share Author on Social Media   Go To Commenting

The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
- Advertisement -

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

The Republican's Big Lies About Jobs (And Why Obama Must Repudiate Them)

Paul Ryan Still Doesn't Get It

What Mitt Romney Really Represents

What to Do About Disloyal Corporations

The Gas Wars

The Minimum Wage, Guns, Healthcare, and the Meaning of a Decent Society