Bernie Sanders has a vision to restore our economy to a healthy balance, giving equal financial opportunities to citizens everywhere with a kind of socialist-hybrid model. So far, Sanders’ plans and efforts have seemed noble, planning to increase government spending by 40 percent or more and already making efforts to de-stigmatize the idea of socialism in general. When spoken and discussed, they sound fantastic—but is his economic plan a realistic one?
The Plight of the Middle and Lower Class
It’s no secret that there’s a vast amount of wealth inequality in our country. The top 10 percent of the country owns as much wealth as the other 90 percent combined. The middle class is starting to disappear, and the lower class is starting to be unable to afford the basic resources and services they need to go to work in the first place.
These are the problems Sanders’ plan hopes to address, but can it?
The Plan
Let’s take a look at some of the major tenets of Bernie Sanders’ economic vision:
- Increasing taxes on the wealthiest citizens of the country, including inheritances of more than $3.5 million.
- Increasing minimum wage to $15 per hour by 2020.
- Changing trade policies to encourage more national production and economic growth.
- Enacting pay equality requirements to fight gender inequality.
- Implementing free tuition for public universities.
- A universal, single-payer healthcare program to function as a kind of “Medicare for all.”
- Breaking up major financial institutions.
The Criticisms
There have been a number of criticisms for Sanders’ economic model, many of which have come from left-leaning economists who like the ideological roots of his vision, but question its practicality. For starters, a leading health economist recently calculated that Sanders’s single-payer health plan would actually cost about twice as much as he projects in his current outline documents.
Another criticism came from Sanders’ assertion that the average middle-class family would only have to pay about $500 a year in additional taxes to supplement a national healthcare program, ultimately resulting in $5,000 in savings. However, many economists have estimated that this figure is far too conservative. All in all, Sanders’s plans could result in additional government spending of $3 trillion per year or more, demanding an average of $10,000 per year, per citizen to avoid adding to the national debt.
Sanders’ estimates for economic growth have also come under fire. The candidate has posited an economic growth rate of more than 5 percent, which is both ambitious and unfounded, considering economic growth is dependent on a number of independent factors and is out of the control of any one plan or person. Four former Democratic economic advisors have gone on record, cautioning the public not to take this projection as literal or accurate.
Other criticisms include the fact that Sanders’ plan doesn’t account for health cost inflation, and demands no action from the Federal Reserve to “hit the brakes” and prevent the economy from growing too quickly into an inflationary state.
A Question of Practicality
Let’s set aside all the criticisms of Sanders’ economic model for a moment and instead focus on how practical it would be to implement it. Assuming it would work out the way Sanders projects, how easy would it be to put into place?
If history is any indication, such a massive overhaul would be extremely vulnerable to errors, resistance, and other barriers to full-fledged adoption. Consider Obama’s Affordable Care Act, a much, much smaller initiative that faced rampant opposition, struggled to be developed, launched with tons of flaws, and still draws significant criticism to this day. Multiply the size and intensity of such a program, and you surely multiply its difficulty of execution.
Conclusion
In theory, Sanders’ plan is great. It would be nice to reduce wealth inequality. It would be nice to see economic growth of 5 percent each year. It would be nice to have a universal healthcare program, and free tuition for anyone who wants to go to college. These are all constructs we need if our country wants to continue growing as the most developed nation on the planet. However, the financial basis for the model is flawed in two main, serious ways. First, the numbers are far too optimistic, estimating costs and growth rates without a reliable basis. Second, the plan is too big and comprehensive to be easily implemented over the span of a single presidential term without resulting issues interfering with the potential results.
None of this is to say that the plan is wrong, or that it’s doomed to fail; instead, this is an illustration that even though Sanders’ vision is ideologically appealing, it should also be analyzed with careful analytic scrutiny. Sanders supporters should be aware of these gaps between ideals and reality. If he is to take office, there will undoubtedly be major leaps forward in the current economic and social state of the country—but they won’t happen as completely, as easily, or as effectively as the Senator suggests.