Why the Washington Post's Attack on Bernie Sanders is Bunk
The Washington Post just ran an attack on Bernie Sanders that distorts not only what he's saying and seeking but also the basic choices that lie before the nation. Sanders, writes the Post's David Fahrenthold, "is not just a big-spending liberal. And his agenda is not just about money. It's also about control."
The Washington Post just ran an attack on Bernie Sanders that distorts not only what he's saying and seeking but also the basic choices that lie before the nation. Sanders, writes the Post's David Fahrenthold, "is not just a big-spending liberal. And his agenda is not just about money. It's also about control."
Fahrenthold claims Sanders's plan for paying for college with a tax on Wall Street trades would mean "colleges would run by government rules."
Apparently Fahrenthold is unaware that three-quarters of college students today attend public universities financed largely by state governments. And even those who attend elite private universities benefit from federal tax subsidies flowing to wealthy donors. (Meg Whitman's recent $30 million donation to Princeton, for example, is really $20 million from her plus an estimated $10 million she deducted from her taxable income.) Notwithstanding all this government largesse, colleges aren't "run by government rules."
The real problem is too many young people still can't afford a college education. The move toward free public higher education that began in the 1950s with the G.I. Bill and was extended in the 1960s by leading public universities was reversed starting in the 1980s because of shrinking state budgets. Tuition has skyrocketed in recent years as states slashed education spending. It's time to resurrect that earlier goal.
Besides, the biggest threats to academic freedom these days aren't coming from government. They're coming as conditions attached to funding from billionaires and big corporations that's increasing as public funding drops.
When the Charles Koch Foundation pledged $1.5 million to Florida State University's economics department, for example, it stipulated that a Koch-appointed advisory committee would select professors and undertake annual evaluations. The Koch brothers now fund 350 programs at over 250 colleges and universities across America. You can bet that funding doesn't underwrite research on inequality and environmental justice.
Fahrenthold similarly claims Sanders's plan for a single-payer system would put healthcare under the "control" of government.
But health care is already largely financed through government subsidies - only they're flowing to private for-profit health insurers that are now busily consolidating into corporate laviathans. Anthem purchase of giant insurer Cigna will make it the largest health insurer in America; Aetna is buying Humana, creating the second-largest, with 33 million members.
Why should anyone suppose these for-profit corporate giants will be less "controlling" than government?
What we do know is they're far more expensive than a single-payer system. Fahrenthold repeats the charge that Sanders's healthcare plan would cost $15 trillion over ten years. But single-payer systems in other rich nations have proven cheaper than private for-profit health insurers because they don't spend huge sums on advertising, marketing, executive pay, and billing.
So even if the Sanders single-payer plan would cost $15 trillion over ten years, Americans as a whole would save more than that.
Fahrenthold trusts the "market" more than he does the government but he overlooks the fact that government sets the rules by which the market runs (such as whether health insurers should be allowed to consolidate even further, or how much of a "charitable" tax deduction wealthy donors to private universities should receive, and whether they should get the deduction if they attach partisan conditions to their donations).
The real choice isn't between government and the "market." It's between a system responsive to the needs of most Americans, or one more responsive to the demands of the super-rich, big business, and Wall Street - whose economic and political power have grown dramatically over the last three decades.
This is why the logic of Sanders's ideas depends on the political changes he seeks. Fahrenthold says a President Sanders couldn't get any of his ideas implemented anyway because Congress would reject them. But if Bernie Sanders is elected president, American politics will have been altered, reducing the moneyed interests' chokehold over the public agenda.
Fahrenthold may not see the populism that's fueling Bernie's campaign, but it is gaining strength and conviction. Other politicians, as well as political reporters, ignore this upsurge at their peril.
We are at a crossroads
This country and this world are at a monumental crossroads. In a few short weeks, US voters will have an opportunity to beat back the forces of fascism and confront the billionaires who are rigging the economy, our media system, and our democracy, making it increasingly impossible for ordinary people to get by. We’re not just talking about the election. We’re talking about what must be done once these fascist elements are vanquished from power. We need a bolder set of solutions than what either major party has so far been willing to offer and a working-class movement ready to fight like hell for it. Trump didn't emerge from nowhere. The conditions that fueled MAGA authoritarianism were created by decades of radical neoliberal economic policies and a corrupt political system dominated by corporate interests. They slashed taxes on the super-rich, promising that the benefits would trickle down. They said giveaways to the corporate titans would make life more affordable for the rest of us. It was all bullshit. And when a bitter, betrayed populace searches for someone to blame, right-wing demagogues have little trouble finding scapegoats. People know when they're being lied to, but you won't hear any of this from the corporate media. Only independent journalism—powered and funded by people who believe in building a better world—can deliver truly trustworthy daily news. Our Fall Campaign is underway, and we need your help. To power our newsroom through the rest of the year, we need to raise $125,000 by midnight on October 31. So if you share our vision, please contribute whatever you can to sustain our work. |
The Washington Post just ran an attack on Bernie Sanders that distorts not only what he's saying and seeking but also the basic choices that lie before the nation. Sanders, writes the Post's David Fahrenthold, "is not just a big-spending liberal. And his agenda is not just about money. It's also about control."
Fahrenthold claims Sanders's plan for paying for college with a tax on Wall Street trades would mean "colleges would run by government rules."
Apparently Fahrenthold is unaware that three-quarters of college students today attend public universities financed largely by state governments. And even those who attend elite private universities benefit from federal tax subsidies flowing to wealthy donors. (Meg Whitman's recent $30 million donation to Princeton, for example, is really $20 million from her plus an estimated $10 million she deducted from her taxable income.) Notwithstanding all this government largesse, colleges aren't "run by government rules."
The real problem is too many young people still can't afford a college education. The move toward free public higher education that began in the 1950s with the G.I. Bill and was extended in the 1960s by leading public universities was reversed starting in the 1980s because of shrinking state budgets. Tuition has skyrocketed in recent years as states slashed education spending. It's time to resurrect that earlier goal.
Besides, the biggest threats to academic freedom these days aren't coming from government. They're coming as conditions attached to funding from billionaires and big corporations that's increasing as public funding drops.
When the Charles Koch Foundation pledged $1.5 million to Florida State University's economics department, for example, it stipulated that a Koch-appointed advisory committee would select professors and undertake annual evaluations. The Koch brothers now fund 350 programs at over 250 colleges and universities across America. You can bet that funding doesn't underwrite research on inequality and environmental justice.
Fahrenthold similarly claims Sanders's plan for a single-payer system would put healthcare under the "control" of government.
But health care is already largely financed through government subsidies - only they're flowing to private for-profit health insurers that are now busily consolidating into corporate laviathans. Anthem purchase of giant insurer Cigna will make it the largest health insurer in America; Aetna is buying Humana, creating the second-largest, with 33 million members.
Why should anyone suppose these for-profit corporate giants will be less "controlling" than government?
What we do know is they're far more expensive than a single-payer system. Fahrenthold repeats the charge that Sanders's healthcare plan would cost $15 trillion over ten years. But single-payer systems in other rich nations have proven cheaper than private for-profit health insurers because they don't spend huge sums on advertising, marketing, executive pay, and billing.
So even if the Sanders single-payer plan would cost $15 trillion over ten years, Americans as a whole would save more than that.
Fahrenthold trusts the "market" more than he does the government but he overlooks the fact that government sets the rules by which the market runs (such as whether health insurers should be allowed to consolidate even further, or how much of a "charitable" tax deduction wealthy donors to private universities should receive, and whether they should get the deduction if they attach partisan conditions to their donations).
The real choice isn't between government and the "market." It's between a system responsive to the needs of most Americans, or one more responsive to the demands of the super-rich, big business, and Wall Street - whose economic and political power have grown dramatically over the last three decades.
This is why the logic of Sanders's ideas depends on the political changes he seeks. Fahrenthold says a President Sanders couldn't get any of his ideas implemented anyway because Congress would reject them. But if Bernie Sanders is elected president, American politics will have been altered, reducing the moneyed interests' chokehold over the public agenda.
Fahrenthold may not see the populism that's fueling Bernie's campaign, but it is gaining strength and conviction. Other politicians, as well as political reporters, ignore this upsurge at their peril.
The Washington Post just ran an attack on Bernie Sanders that distorts not only what he's saying and seeking but also the basic choices that lie before the nation. Sanders, writes the Post's David Fahrenthold, "is not just a big-spending liberal. And his agenda is not just about money. It's also about control."
Fahrenthold claims Sanders's plan for paying for college with a tax on Wall Street trades would mean "colleges would run by government rules."
Apparently Fahrenthold is unaware that three-quarters of college students today attend public universities financed largely by state governments. And even those who attend elite private universities benefit from federal tax subsidies flowing to wealthy donors. (Meg Whitman's recent $30 million donation to Princeton, for example, is really $20 million from her plus an estimated $10 million she deducted from her taxable income.) Notwithstanding all this government largesse, colleges aren't "run by government rules."
The real problem is too many young people still can't afford a college education. The move toward free public higher education that began in the 1950s with the G.I. Bill and was extended in the 1960s by leading public universities was reversed starting in the 1980s because of shrinking state budgets. Tuition has skyrocketed in recent years as states slashed education spending. It's time to resurrect that earlier goal.
Besides, the biggest threats to academic freedom these days aren't coming from government. They're coming as conditions attached to funding from billionaires and big corporations that's increasing as public funding drops.
When the Charles Koch Foundation pledged $1.5 million to Florida State University's economics department, for example, it stipulated that a Koch-appointed advisory committee would select professors and undertake annual evaluations. The Koch brothers now fund 350 programs at over 250 colleges and universities across America. You can bet that funding doesn't underwrite research on inequality and environmental justice.
Fahrenthold similarly claims Sanders's plan for a single-payer system would put healthcare under the "control" of government.
But health care is already largely financed through government subsidies - only they're flowing to private for-profit health insurers that are now busily consolidating into corporate laviathans. Anthem purchase of giant insurer Cigna will make it the largest health insurer in America; Aetna is buying Humana, creating the second-largest, with 33 million members.
Why should anyone suppose these for-profit corporate giants will be less "controlling" than government?
What we do know is they're far more expensive than a single-payer system. Fahrenthold repeats the charge that Sanders's healthcare plan would cost $15 trillion over ten years. But single-payer systems in other rich nations have proven cheaper than private for-profit health insurers because they don't spend huge sums on advertising, marketing, executive pay, and billing.
So even if the Sanders single-payer plan would cost $15 trillion over ten years, Americans as a whole would save more than that.
Fahrenthold trusts the "market" more than he does the government but he overlooks the fact that government sets the rules by which the market runs (such as whether health insurers should be allowed to consolidate even further, or how much of a "charitable" tax deduction wealthy donors to private universities should receive, and whether they should get the deduction if they attach partisan conditions to their donations).
The real choice isn't between government and the "market." It's between a system responsive to the needs of most Americans, or one more responsive to the demands of the super-rich, big business, and Wall Street - whose economic and political power have grown dramatically over the last three decades.
This is why the logic of Sanders's ideas depends on the political changes he seeks. Fahrenthold says a President Sanders couldn't get any of his ideas implemented anyway because Congress would reject them. But if Bernie Sanders is elected president, American politics will have been altered, reducing the moneyed interests' chokehold over the public agenda.
Fahrenthold may not see the populism that's fueling Bernie's campaign, but it is gaining strength and conviction. Other politicians, as well as political reporters, ignore this upsurge at their peril.