Sanders Is Shaping The Primary Platform For The Democrats

Fellow 2020 Contenders Who Have Adopted Sanders’ Platform Are Denying That They Are Democratic Socialists

______________________________________________________________

TOP TAKEAWAYS

• Sanders’ opponents claim to be drawing a “line in the sand” to say that they aren’t “Democratic Socialists,” but they continue to endorse his “fringe,” “radical,” and “extreme” policy proposals.
• Fellow 2020 Democrats have signed on to Sanders’ signature single-payer healthcare proposal, which he admits will cause “pain” to implement and experts say could cost $32 trillion while diminishing quality of care.
• Sanders and other 2020 Democrats have signed onto the Green New Deal, from Democratic Socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), which has been called a “progressive wish list” that could cost trillions. 
• With support from Senators Cory Booker (D-NJ) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Sanders wants to guarantee jobs paid for by the federal government, which would cost the American people $5.43 trillion.
• Senators Harris (D-CA), Warren (D-MA) and Gillibrand (D-NY) have cosponsored Sanders’ College-For-All Act which comes with an estimated nearly trillion-dollar price tag.

__________________________________________________________________

DESPITE ADOPTING MUCH OF SANDERS’ PLATFORM, 2020 DEMOCRAT CONTENDERS ARE TRYING TO DISTANCE THEMSELVES FROM THE “SOCIALIST” LABEL

Since His Loss In 2016, Sanders Has Fought To Promote “Fringe,” “Radical,” And “Extremist” Ideas That He Believes Are Now Part Of The “Mainstream”

Sanders Claims That The Ideas He And Other Extreme Liberals Have Talked About Are No Longer “Fringe,” “Radical,” Or “Extremist” And Have Become “Mainstream American Ideas.” “Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) on Wednesday praised how liberals have made ‘fringe,’ ‘radical,’ and ‘extremist’ ideas ‘mainstream’ in the United States. ‘Many of the ideas that we talked about were thought to be fringe ideas, radical ideas, extremist ideas,’ Sanders told a progressive audience at the We the People Summit in Washington, D.C. ‘Well, you know what? Because of your efforts, those ideas are mainstream American ideas.’” (Andrew Kugle, “Liberals Have Made ‘Radical,’ ‘Extremist’ Ideas ‘Mainstream,’” The Washington Free Beacon, 6/13/18)

Sanders Takes Pride In “How Far Left The Democratic Party Has Shifted Toward His Socialist Policies.” “Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) took pride Tuesday morning in how far left the Democratic Party has shifted toward his socialist policies, remarking how many of his once extreme views are now mainstream.” (Mikhael Smits, “Sanders Brags About Democratic Party’s Leftward Lurch,” The Washington Free Beacon, 2/21/19)

Click To Watch

Sanders Believes That Support For “His Ideas” – Medicare For All, Raising The Minimum Wage, Making Public Colleges And Universities Tuition Free – Shows How Far Democrats Have Moved. “‘In 2016, many of the ideas that I talked about – ‘Medicare for all,' raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour, making public colleges and universities tuition-free – all of those ideas people said [were so radical],’ he said.” (Mikhael Smits, “Sanders Brags About Democratic Party’s Leftward Lurch,” The Washington Free Beacon, 2/21/19)

After The 2016 Democratic Primaries “Studies Found That The Democratic Party Moved Further To The Left,” As Many Voters Adopted Sanders’ Political Positions. “After Clinton's defeat in November 2016, studies found that the Democratic Party moved further to the left, which has led many Democratic voters to adopt the positions of Sanders, an independent. A poll from September found that nearly two in three Democratic voters favor Medicare for all, CNN reported.” (Andrew Kugle, “Liberals Have Made ‘Radical,’ ‘Extremist’ Ideas ‘Mainstream,’” The Washington Free Beacon, 6/13/18)

Sanders Is A Self-Described “Democratic Socialist,” Who Has Refused To Join The Democratic Party. “Sanders describes himself as a Democratic socialist and has refused to join the Democratic Party.” (Andrew Kugle, “Liberals Have Made ‘Radical,’ ‘Extremist’ Ideas ‘Mainstream,’” The Washington Free Beacon, 6/13/18)

Even Though They Are Running On His Socialist Proposals, 2020 Democrats Are Trying To Distance Themselves From Sanders

Democrats Running Against Sanders Claim That He “Would Be A Weaker General Election Candidate Against President Trump Because He Is A Democratic Socialist.” “Democrats running against Sen. Bernie Sanders are already making the argument that he would be a weaker general election candidate against President Trump because he is a democratic socialist — not a Democrat.” (Amie Parnes, “Dems To Use Democratic Socialist Label Against Sanders,” The Hill, 2/22/19)

According To One Senior Adviser, From A Campaign Rival To Sanders, The Word “Socialist Is A Word That Someone Who Wants To Beat Trump Should Consider Carefully Before Embracing.” “‘I think socialist is a word that someone who wants to beat Trump should consider carefully before embracing,’ said one senior adviser to a rival campaign.” (Amie Parnes, “Dems To Use Democratic Socialist Label Against Sanders,” The Hill, 2/22/19)

In An Attempt To Distance Themselves From Sanders, 2020 Candidates Are “Actively Drawing A Distinction With Sanders And His Brand.” “2020 candidates — and those considering entering the race — have been actively drawing a distinction with Sanders and his brand.” (Amie Parnes, “Dems To Use Democratic Socialist Label Against Sanders,” The Hill, 2/22/19)

While Campaigning In New Hampshire Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA) Drew A Line In The Sand And Denied That She’s A “Democratic Socialist.” “At a campaign stop in New Hampshire earlier this week, Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) was the first to draw a line in the sand. ‘The people of New Hampshire will tell me what’s required to compete in New Hampshire, but I will tell you I am not a democratic socialist,’ Harris said after she was asked if she needed to be a democratic socialist to win the Granite State.” (Amie Parnes, “Dems To Use Democratic Socialist Label Against Sanders,” The Hill, 2/22/19)

Former Representative Beto O’Rourke (D-TX), “Who Is Deciding Whether Or Not He’ll Run For President, Also Distanced Himself From The Label By Declaring That He’s A ‘Capitalist.’” “Former Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D-Texas), who is deciding whether or not he’ll run for president, also distanced himself from the label by declaring that he’s a ‘capitalist.’” (Amie Parnes, “Dems To Use Democratic Socialist Label Against Sanders,” The Hill, 2/22/19)

On A CNN Town Hall Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) Claimed That Much Of Sanders’ Message Is “Unrealistic,” But She “Could Get Behind Medicare For All.” “At a CNN town hall on Monday, Sen. Amy Klobuchar (Minn.), a centrist Democrat, made it known that she thinks Sanders's policies are slightly unrealistic. When she was asked if she could get behind Medicare for all, she said, ‘It could be a possibility in the future.’” (Amie Parnes, “Dems To Use Democratic Socialist Label Against Sanders,” The Hill, 2/22/19)

2020 DEMOCRATS HAVE FALLEN IN LINE WITH SANDERS’ SINGLE-PAYER HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, WHICH HAS AN ESTIMATE COST OF $32 TRILLION

Despite Admitting That His Single-Payer Healthcare Bill Will Cause “Pain” To Implement And Result In Job Loses, Sanders Has Pushed Forward With The Policy

In 2017, Sanders Introduced Bill S.1804 – Medicare for All Act of 2017, Which Was Also Co-Sponsored By Senators Booker, Gillibrand, Harris, And Warren. (“S.1804 - Medicare for All Act of 2017,” Congress, 9/13/17)

Sanders Stated That His Bill “Is Where The Country Has Got To Go.” “‘This is where the country has got to go,’ Sanders said in an interview at his Senate office. ‘Right now, if we want to move away from a dysfunctional, wasteful, bureaucratic system into a rational health-care system that guarantees coverage to everyone in a cost-effective way, the only way to do it is Medicare for All.’” (David Weigel, “Sanders Introduces Universal Health Care, Backed By 15 Democrats,” The Washington Post, 9/13/17)

When Asked, “How We’re Going To Raise $3 Trillion A Year” For The Bill, Sanders Claimed That “There Has Not Been The Kind Of Research And Study That We Need.” “‘Rather than give a detailed proposal about how we're going to raise $3 trillion a year, we'd rather give the American people options,’ Sanders said. ‘The truth is, embarrassingly, that on this enormously important issue, there has not been the kind of research and study that we need. You've got think tanks, in many cases funded by the drug companies and the insurance companies, telling us how terribly expensive it's going to be. We have economists looking at it who are coming up with different numbers.’” (David Weigel, “Sanders Introduces Universal Health Care, Backed By 15 Democrats,” The Washington Post, 9/13/17)

Sanders Called Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz’s Stance That Democrats Should Be “More Concerned With National Fiscal Responsibility” And Government Spending On Healthcare “Dead Wrong.” “Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders on Thursday, suggested outgoing Starbucks executive chairman and possible presidential candidate Howard Schultz was ‘dead wrong’ on his stance on health care and government spending. ‘I think his comment is dead wrong,’ said Sanders, responding to remarks the businessman made this week in which he signaled an openness to running for office and argued the Democratic Party ought to be more concerned about national fiscal responsibility.” (Josiah Ryan, “Bernie Sanders Says Starbucks' Howard Schultz 'Dead Wrong' On Health Care,” The Washington Post, 9/13/17)

Click To Watch

During The Interview With CNN’s Chris Cuomo, Sanders Said “‘There Will Be Pain’ And Some People Will Lose Jobs If His Plan For Single-Payer Healthcare Is Implemented.” “In an interview with CNN's Chris Cuomo, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) acknowledged ‘there will be pain’ and some people will lose jobs if his plan for single-payer healthcare is implemented.” (Ian Schwartz, “Bernie Sanders on Cost Of Single Payer Health Care: ‘There Will Be Pain,’” Real Clear Politics, 6/9/18)

Sanders Added That People In The Healthcare Industry Will Just Have To “Deal With That Pain.” “‘There will be a transition just as the same way to transform our energy system away from fossil fuel. We create more jobs but there will be pain and you got to deal with that pain,’ Sanders said about costs and people in the healthcare industry who will lose their jobs.” (Ian Schwartz, “Bernie Sanders on Cost Of Single Payer Health Care: ‘There Will Be Pain,’” Real Clear Politics, 6/9/18)

2020 Democratic Senators Have Co-Sponsored Sanders’ Legislation, Making It A Mainstream Part Of The Democratic Party’s Platform

During The 2016 Presidential Campaign, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) Released His Single-Payer Health Care Plan. “Bernie Sanders released the details of his ‘Medicare for all’ single-payer health care plan just two hours before the Democratic debate here on Sunday night, escalating the bitter wrangling over health care with Hillary Clinton.” (Gabriel Debenedetti, “Sanders, Clinton Clash Over His New 'Medicare For All' Plan,” Politico, 1/17/16)

In September, 2017, With “Record Level” Support From 15 Democratic Senators, Sanders Introduced Legislation That Would Expand Medicare Into Universal Health Insurance. “Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) introduced legislation Wednesday that would expand Medicare into a universal health insurance program with the backing of at least 15 Democratic senators — a record level of support for an idea that had been relegated to the fringes during the last Democratic presidency.” (David Weigel, “Sanders Introduces Universal Health Care, Backed By 15 Democrats,” The Washington Post, 9/13/17)

• Sanders’ Co-Sponsors Were There For The Unveiling Of The Bill In Front Of “Nearly 300 Attendees And Heavy Coverage From Cable News,” A Dramatic Change From When Sanders Introduced The Bill In 2013 With Zero Co-Sponsors. “Sanders released his ‘Medicare for all’ plan in a large Senate hearing room Wednesday, with nearly 300 attendees and heavy coverage from cable news. The bill has 16 co-sponsors, which is a big turnaround when he introduced a similar bill in 2013 without a single co-sponsor.” (Rachel Roubein, “Senator Asks For CBO Score Of Sanders's Single-Payer Bill,” The Hill, 9/14/17)

A Number Of Co-Sponsors Are Now Running For President, Including Senators Kamala Harris (D-CA), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), And Elizabeth Warren (D-MA). “Even more telling is the number of potential 2020 contenders who have decided to get on board with the plan. Sens. Kamala Harris, Kirsten Gillibrand, Cory Booker, and Elizabeth Warren each took turns at the podium Wednesday extolling the virtues of socialized health insurance.” (Jordan Weissmann, “Bernie Sanders’ Big Single-Payer Proposal Skips Over The Hardest Thing About Single-Payer,” Slate, 9/13/17)

At Least Two Separate Cost Estimates Peg The Cost Of Sanders’ Single-Payer Plan To Be At Least $32 Trillion—Financed In Part By A Doubling Of Individual Income Taxes

The Urban Institute’s Health Policy Center Estimated Sanders’ Health Care Plan Would Cost $32 Trillion Over Ten Years. “In total, federal spending would increase by about $2.5 trillion (257.6 percent) in 2017. Federal expenditures would increase by about $32.0 trillion (232.7 percent) between 2017 and 2026..[.]” (John Holahan, et al., “The Sanders Single-Payer HealthCare Plan,” The Urban Institute, Accessed 9/20/17)

Sanders’ Plan Only Raises Less Than Half Of The Cost For His Health Care Plan, Leaving $16.6 Trillion Of The Cost To Be Financed Some Other Way. “Analysis by the Tax Policy Center indicates that Sanders’s revenue proposals, intended to finance all new health and nonhealth spending, would raise $15.3 trillion in revenue over 2017 to 2026. This amount is approximately $16.6 trillion less than the increased federal cost of his health care plan estimated here.” (John Holahan, et al., “The Sanders Single-Payer HealthCare Plan,” The Urban Institute, Accessed 9/20/17)

• Sanders’ Proposed Taxes Are “Too Low To Fully Finance The Plan.” “The total $15.3 trillion that would be raised is approximately $16.6 trillion less than the increased federal cost of his health care plan estimated here, suggesting that fully financing the Sanders approach would require additional sources of revenue be identified, that is, the proposed taxes appear to be too low to fully finance the plan.” (John Holahan, et al., “The Sanders Single-Payer HealthCare Plan,” The Urban Institute, Accessed 9/20/17)

Another Recent Estimate Of Sanders’ Single Payer Plan Estimated The Cost To Be $32.6 Trillion Over The Next 10 Years. “Sen. Bernie Sanders’ ‘Medicare for all’ plan would increase government health care spending by $32.6 trillion over 10 years, according to a study by a university-based libertarian policy center.” (Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, “Study: ‘Medicare For All’ Projected To Cost $32.6 Trillion,” The Associated Press, 7/30/18)

The Mercatus Center Found That Sanders’ Current Single-Payer Plan Would Add Approximately $32.6 Trillion To The Federal Budget During The First Ten Years Of Implementation. “M4A would add approximately $32.6 trillion to federal budget commitments during the first 10 years of its implementation (2022–2031).” (Charles Blahous, “The Costs Of A National Single-Payer Healthcare System,” The Mercatus Center, 7/30/18)

• The Mercatus Study Projected That The Single-Payer Plan Would Equal Nearly 10.7 Percent Of GDP In 2022 And Rise To Nearly 12.7 Percent Of GDP In 2031 With Substantial Increases Thereafter. “This projected increase in federal healthcare commitments would equal approximately 10.7 percent of GDP in 2022. This amount would rise to nearly 12.7 percent of GDP in 2031 and continue to rise thereafter.” (Charles Blahous, “The Costs Of A National Single-Payer Healthcare System,” The Mercatus Center, 7/30/18)

The Mercatus Study Concluded That Doubling The Projected Federal Individual And Corporate Income Taxes Would Be “Insufficient To Finance The Added Federal Costs Of The Plan.” “A doubling of all currently projected federal individual and corporate income tax collections would be insufficient to finance the added federal costs of the plan.” (Charles Blahous, “The Costs Of A National Single-Payer Healthcare System,” The Mercatus Center, 7/30/18)

A Single-Payer System Would Not Only Bankrupt Taxpayers, But Also Negatively Disrupt The Quality Of Care Americans Receive

The Single-Payer Proposal Would “Entail [A] Massive Short-Term Disruption.” “But there’s no getting around the fact that any full single-payer proposal would entail massive short-term disruption — both in the trillions of new taxes (Vox’s Matt Yglesias looked at some potential ways to raise them) and in Americans being thrown off their current health care plans.” (Jeff Stein, “It’s Times To See If Democrats Are Serious About Single-Payer,” Vox, 7/24/17)

The Tax Hikes To Support The Single-Payer System Are “Enormous” And “Can Easily Overwhelm A State’s Budget.” “There’s a reason these states struggle so much to advance single-payer: The tax hikes required are enormous, and can easily overwhelm a state’s budget.” (Jeff Stein, “It’s Times To See If Democrats Are Serious About Single-Payer,” Vox, 7/24/17)

Additionally The Single-Payer System Would Cause All Americans To Switch Their Current Health Insurance Arrangements. “It is generally assumed that the biggest obstacle to a national health plan like Medicare for All will be the large tax increase needed to pay for it. But new polling shows another challenge: Almost half of the American people don't know that they would have to change their current health insurance arrangements if there was a single-payer plan.” (Drew Altman, “One Big Thing People Don’t Know About Single Payer,” Axios, 11/2/17)

As A Result Hospitals Would Face Overcrowding Issues, There Would Be Long Wait Times For Care, Drug Innovation Would Come To A “Standstill” And There Would Be “Endless Fights” Over The Size Of The Federal Government’s Health Budget. “Here's what health care in the U.S. would look like as a result: There would be chronic shortages of doctors nationwide. Hospital overcrowding would be epidemic. Waits for everything from hip replacements to cataract surgery to cancer treatments would be extensive. Drug innovation would come to a virtual standstill. And there would be endless fights over the size of the government's health budget, along with massive amounts of waste, fraud and abuse.” (Editorial, “‘Medicare For All’ Would Cost $32.6 Trillion, And That's Not Even The Worst Of It,” Investors Business Daily, 7/30/18)

Even Democrats That Support Single-Payer And Medicare For All, Admit That It Would Eliminate Private Insurance

Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA), Who Has Advocated For The “Elimination” Of Private Health Insurance, Says That The Solution To Get There Is To “Have Medicare For All.” “Senator Kamala Harris advocated the elimination of the ‘inhumane’ private health insurance industry during a CNN town hall event in Iowa Monday night. ‘I believe the solution -- and I actually feel very strongly about this -- is that we need to have Medicare for all,’ Harris said in response to an audience question about healthcare affordability. ‘That’s just the bottom line.’” (Tim Hains, “Kamala Harris On Private Health Insurance Market: ‘Eliminate All Of That,’ ‘Let's Move On,’” RealClearPolitics, 1/29/19)

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) Has Called Eliminating Private Health Insurance An “Urgent Goal,” And Touts Her Record Of Supporting Medicare For All Since 2006. “Appearing on the podcast ‘Lovett or Leave It,’ Gillibrand was asked if eliminating private insurance should be a goal–even an urgent one–for the Democratic Party. ‘One of the most recent debates we've had recently is what happens to private insurance. Should ending private insurance, as we know it, be a Democratic goal? And do you think it's an urgent goal?’ asked podcast host Jon Lovett, a former speechwriter for President Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. ‘Oh yeah, it is a goal. An urgent goal,’ Gillibrand responded. ‘But let me explain. I ran on ‘Medicare for all' in 2006 in my upstate New York two-to-one Republican district. And the reason I ran on that message was because I listened first. I traveled around the district asked people ‘what's on your mind, what's your worry,' and they overwhelmingly said ‘I'm worried about access to health care.’” (Andrew Kugle, “Gillibrand On Eliminating Private Health Insurance: It’s ‘An Urgent Goal,’” Washington Free Beacon, 2/10/19)

Click To Watch

ALONGSIDE FELLOW 2020 DEMOCRATS, SANDERS HAS PROPOSED AND BACKED MASSSIVE NEW PROGRAMS WHICH WOULD COST TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS

Joining With Self Described Democratic Socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Many 2020 Democrats Including Sanders Have Bought Onto Her Green New Deal, Which Could Cost Trillions To Implement

On February, 7, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), And Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) Introduced A Framework Defining Their Goals For A Green New Deal. “Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., and Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., think they have a start to a solution. Thursday they are introducing a framework defining what they call a ‘Green New Deal’ — what they foresee as a massive policy package that would remake the U.S. economy and, they hope, eliminate all U.S. carbon emissions. That's a really big — potentially impossibly big — undertaking.” (Danielle Kurtzleben, “Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Releases Green New Deal Outline,” NPR, 2/7/19)

“Both Sanders And Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) Have Described Themselves As Democratic Socialists.” “Both Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) have described themselves as democratic socialists.” (Rachel Frazin, “Kamala Harris: 'I Am Not A Democratic Socialist,'” The Hill, 2/19/19)

The Resolution Is A “Progressive Wishlist To Fix What They Perceive As All That Ails Society.” “‘What she asks for in this manifesto goes beyond decarbonization and gets into a progressive wishlist to fix what they perceive as all that ails society,’ Pyle said. The proposal takes its name from the New Deal, the 1930s-era package of policies pushed by former President Franklin D. Roosevelt to bring the United States out of the Depression, mainly through investments in federal jobs programs.” (Timothy Cama, “Five Things To Know About Ocasio-Cortez’s 'Green New Deal,’” The Hill, 11/24/18)

Senators Kamala Harris (D-CA), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), And Bernie Sanders (I-VT) Have Cosponsored The Green New Deal. (S.R. 59, Introduced 2/7/19)

In Response To The Bill’s Announcement, Sanders Tweeted That He Is “Proud To Be An Original Co-Sponsor Of The Green New Deal Proposal.” “I am proud to be an original co-sponsor of the Green New Deal proposal. We must address the existential crisis of planetary climate change, while at the same time creating millions of good-paying jobs in our country.” (Bernie Sanders, Twitter Feed, 2/8/19)

Since The Green New Deal Has Not Been Fleshed Out, No Comprehensive Cost Analysis Exists Christopher Clack, “A Physicist Who Has Studied Rapid Deployments Of Renewables,” Estimates That Parts Of The Bill Could Cost At Least $2 Trillion. “And since the Green New Deal hasn’t been fleshed out, no comprehensive cost analysis exists. A back-of-the-envelope calculation by Christopher Clack, a physicist who has studied rapid deployments of renewables, estimated that building out the generating capacity alone would cost at least $2 trillion. ‘It’s a daunting task, and I’m not sure that the authors of the Green New Deal fully comprehend how much they’ll need,’ he said.” (Timothy Cama, “Five Things To Know About Ocasio-Cortez’s 'Green New Deal,’” The Hill, 11/24/18)

With Support From Senators Gillibrand And Booker, Sanders Announced A Federal “Jobs Guarantee” Program That Would Provide All Americans A Job At A Cost To The Taxpayer

In April 2018, It Was Announced That Sanders Would Introduce Legislation That Would Require The Federal Government To Guarantee A Job Paying $15 An Hour With Healthcare Benefits For American Workers Who “Want[ed] Or Need[ed] One.” “Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) will announce a plan for the federal government to guarantee a job paying $15 an hour and health-care benefits to every American worker ‘who wants or needs one,’ embracing the kind of large-scale government works project that Democrats have shied away from in recent decades.” (Jeff Stein, “Bernie Sanders To Announce Plan To Guarantee Every American A Job,” The Washington Post, 4/23/18)

• Sanders’ Jobs Guarantee Would Provide Americans A Job Through The Various Deficiencies In The Job Sector And Provide Job Training For Those That Need It In Order To Perform The Specific Job. “Sanders's jobs guarantee would fund hundreds of projects throughout the United States aimed at addressing priorities such as infrastructure, care giving, the environment, education and other goals. Under the job guarantee, every American would be entitled to a job under one of these projects or receive job training to be able to do so, according to an early draft of the proposal.” (Jeff Stein, “Bernie Sanders To Announce Plan To Guarantee Every American A Job,” The Washington Post, 4/23/18)

Sanders’ Office Has Yet To Do A Cost Estimate For The Plan Or Decide How The Plan Would Be Funded. “A representative from Sanders's office said they had not yet done a cost estimate for the plan or decided how it would be funded, saying they were still crafting the proposal.” (Jeff Stein, “Bernie Sanders To Announce Plan To Guarantee Every American A Job,” The Washington Post, 4/23/18)

Support Of The Plan Has Gained Momentum From Other Possible “2020 Contenders” Such As Gillibrand And Booker. “The Vermont senator joins two other possible 2020 contenders, Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) and Cory Booker (D-N.J.), who have also expressed support for similar proposals in recent weeks.” (John Bowden, “Sen. Sanders To Announce Proposal Promising Jobs To All Americans,” The Hill, 4/24/18)

Two Estimates Of A Job Guarantee Program Evaluate The Plan To Cost Between $1.58 Trillion And $5.43 Trillion Over The Span Of A Decade

According To An Estimate From The Liberal Center Of American Progress (CAP), An Expanded Public Employment Program With A $15 Per Hour Minimum Wage Could Cost Nearly $158 Billion. “Such an expanded public employment program could, for example, have a target of maintaining the employment rate for prime-age workers without a bachelor’s degree at the 2000 level of 79 percent. Currently, this would require the creation of 4.4 million jobs. At a living wage—which we can approximate as $15 per hour plus the cost of contributions to Social Security and Medicare via payroll taxes—the direct cost of each job would be approximately $36,000 annually. Thus, a rough estimate of the costs of this employment program would be about $158 billion in the current year.” (Brendan Duke, et. all, “Toward A Marshall Plan For America,” Center For American Progress, 5/16/17)

An Estimate From The Center On Budget And Policy Priorities Estimated The Cost Of A Job Guarantee Program To Be $543 Billion Annually. (William Darity Jr, Darrick Hamilton and Mark Paul, “The Federal Job Guarantee - A Policy To Achieve Permanent Full Employment,” Center On Budget And Policy Priorities, 3/9/18)

• The Cost Of The Program Accounted For “Just Under 3 Percent Of GDP.” “Using January 2018 data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, we estimate a total annual program cost of $543 billion, or just under 3 percent of GDP.” (William Darity Jr, Darrick Hamilton and Mark Paul, “The Federal Job Guarantee - A Policy To Achieve Permanent Full Employment,” Center On Budget And Policy Priorities, 3/9/18)

The Program Not Only Balloons The Budget, But Also Fails To Account For The Potential To Displace Workers That Are Already Employed In The Private Sector

Critics Claim A Federal Job Proposal With Government Intervention To Set A Federal Base Wage Could Lead To “Private Businesses Cutting Costs In Other Areas, Including Hiring Fewer Employees.” “Critics of federal jobs proposals say that government intervention to raise wages could lead to private businesses cutting costs in other areas, including hiring fewer employees.” (John Bowden, “Sen. Sanders To Announce Proposal Promising Jobs To All Americans,” The Hill, 4/24/18)

• The Center On Budget And Policy Priorities Even Claimed That A “Displacement Of Some Workers Currently Employed In The Private Sector” May Occur Due To The Job Guarantee Program. “Although the job guarantee may result in the displacement of some workers currently employed in the private sector, especially at the low end of the labor market, evidence from the minimum wage debates may provide insight into the employment dynamics with a job guarantee.” (William Darity Jr, Darrick Hamilton and Mark Paul, “The Federal Job Guarantee - A Policy To Achieve Permanent Full Employment,” Center On Budget And Policy Priorities, 3/9/18)

Annie Lowrey Of The Atlantic Claimed That The CAP Report Left Many Questions “Unanswered” And Suggested That The Current Pool Of “Unemployed, Displaced, And Discouraged” Workers Would Not Be Fit For The Jobs That Needed To Be Filled Because They Require A “Considerable Amount Of Training And Skill.” “Of course, there might be less salutary effects as well, and the CAP proposal leaves a number of questions unanswered. For example, the report suggests turning the current pool of unemployed, displaced, and discouraged workers into teachers’ aides, EMTs, and elder-care assistants. But those are jobs that require a considerable amount of training and skill, and are generally long-term careers rather than temporary gigs. They might not be the right ones for a public-jobs program aimed at disaffected workers, in other words.” (Annie Lowrey, “Should The Government Guarantee Everyone A Job?,” The Atlantic, 5/18/17)

IN 2017, SANDERS INTRODUCED COLLEGE FOR ALL LEGISLATION, WITH SUPPORT FROM SENATORS HARRIS, WARREN AND GILLIBRAND, WHICH COULD COST OVER $600 BILLION BY HIS OWN ESTIMATES

Senator Sanders Introduced Legislation That Would “Eliminate Tuition” And Provide A Majority Of Students With A Four-Year College Education

In April 2017, Sanders Introduced Legislation That Would Establish Free College Tuition For Students And Families. “Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) introduced legislation Monday to make public colleges and universities tuition-free for working families and to significantly reduce student debt.” (Press Release, “College For All Act Introduced,” Sen. Bernie Sanders, 4/3/17, p. 1)

• The Legislation Would Eliminate Tuition And Fees At Four-Year Public Colleges And Universities For Families Making Up To $125,000 And Make Community College Free For All. “The legislation would eliminate tuition and fees at four-year public colleges and universities for families making up to $125,000 – about 80 percent of the population – and make community college tuition- and fee-free for all.” (Press Release, “College for All Act Introduced,” Sen. Bernie Sanders, 4/3/17)

The College-For-All Act Currently Has Seven Co-Sponsors Including Senators Harris, Warren And Gillibrand. (“S.806 - College For All Act Of 2017,” Congress.gov, Accessed 8/14/17)

Sanders’ Own Cost Estimate Of The College-For-All Plan Shows It Could Cost Up To $600 Billion Over The Next Decade, With $400 Billion Of The Bill Being Footed By Taxpayers

Under The College-For-All Act, The Federal Government Would Cover 67 Percent Of The Costs Of Eliminating Tuition And Fees At Public Colleges And Universities.  “Under the College for All Act, the federal government would cover 67% of the cost of eliminating tuition and fees at public colleges and universities and tribal institutions of higher education. States and tribes would be responsible for eliminating the remaining 33% of the costs.” (“The College For All Act,” Sen. Bernie Sanders, 4/3/17, p.1)

Under Sanders’ Plan, At Least $41 Billion A Year Would Be Allocated To States And Native American Tribes To “Eliminate Undergraduate Tuition And Fees” For A Student From A Family Making $125,000 Or Less A Year. “This legislation would provide at least $41 billion per year to states and tribes to eliminate undergraduate tuition and fees at public colleges and universities and institutions of higher education controlled by tribes. Under this legislation, students from any family making $125,000 or less—about 80% of our population—would be able to attend a public four-year college or university, or four-year tribal college or university, tuition- and fee-free.” (“The College For All Act,” Sen. Bernie Sanders, 4/3/17, p.1)

According To Sanders, Higher Taxes Would Be Imposed To Raise The $600 Billion Needed To Fund The Program Over The Next Decade. “The estimated $600 billion cost of the legislation would be paid for by a separate bill to tax Wall Street speculation. By imposing a small Wall Street speculation tax of just 0.5 percent on stock trades, a 0.1 percent fee on bonds and a 0.005 percent fee on derivatives, the tax would raise at least $600 billion over the next decade.” (Press Release, “College For All Act Introduced,” Sen. Bernie Sanders, 4/3/17, p. 1)

Another Estimate Of The Sanders Bill From The Tax Policy Center Puts The Cost Of A “College For All” Program To Be At Least $807 Billion Over The Next Decade

According To An Estimate By The Tax Policy Center, Sanders’ Bill Could Cost The Federal Government $807 Billion Over The Next 10 Years. “We estimate that federal spending under the program, net of reductions in education tax credits, would increase by $807 billion over 10 years.” (Len Burman, Gordon Mermin and Frank Sammartino, “An Analysis Of Senator Bernie Sanders’s Tax And Transfer Proposals,” Tax Policy Center, 5/9/16, p.2)

The Estimate Relied On The Assumption That College Attendance Would Not Increase, Students Would Not Switch From Private To Public Colleges And That Public College And Universities Would Not Increase Tuition. “This estimate relies on three important assumptions: (1) college attendance would not increase, (2) students would not switch from private to public colleges, and (3) public colleges and universities would not increase tuition.” (Len Burman, Gordon Mermin and Frank Sammartino, “An Analysis Of Senator Bernie Sanders’s Tax And Transfer Proposals,” Tax Policy Center, 5/9/16, p2.)

• However, If Those Conditions Did Not Hold “Federal Costs Could Be Significantly Higher.” “Federal costs could be significantly higher if those assumptions do not hold.” (Len Burman, Gordon Mermin and Frank Sammartino, “An Analysis Of Senator Bernie Sanders’s Tax And Transfer Proposals,” Tax Policy Center, 5/9/16, p2.)

Paying The Enormous Cost Of Education Would Potentially Be Unsustainable, With Public Colleges Unable To Handle Enrollment And Students Experiencing A Lower Quality Of Education

Some Public Colleges Worry About A Tuition-Free Program Because They Could Be “Overburdened By A Hike In Enrollment” And May Not Receive Any Additional Funding For Support Services. “Free-tuition proposals have a variety of critics. Some public colleges worry they'll be overburdened by a hike in enrollment and won't get any additional funding for support services.” (Katie Lobosco, “Bernie Sanders Still Wants Tuition-Free College,” CNN, 4/4/17)

Critics Of The Tuition-Free College Program Claim The Plans Do Not “Do Enough To Help The Poorest Students.” “Others say that the plans don't do enough to help the poorest students, who already don't pay for tuition because of federal Pell Grants and state aid.” (Katie Lobosco, “Bernie Sanders Still Wants Tuition-Free College,” CNN, 4/4/17)

Additionally, Some Critics Claim A Tuition-Free College Program Could Be A “Waste Of Money” For Students Who Do Not Want To Get A College Degree. “And some say making tuition free could be a waste of money on students who don't really want to get a college degree and enroll for a year or so before dropping out.” (Katie Lobosco, “Bernie Sanders Still Wants Tuition-Free College,” CNN, 4/4/17)

According To The American Institute For Economic Research, “Mandating That Something Be Free Does Not Guarantee That The Service Will Be Of High Quality” Because When Profit Is Removed As A Motivating Factor To Improve The Quality, “The Incentive To Innovate And Improve Is Stifled.” “Mandating that something be free does not guarantee that the service will be of high quality. When legislative fiat completely removes the profit motive from the equation, the incentive to innovate and improve said service is stifled.” (José Niño, “Sorry, Bernie Bros, ‘Free’ College Will Cost You,” American Institute For Economic Research, 10/19/17)

Furthermore, Higher Education Institutions Could Potentially Use The Promise Of Federal Aid As A “Discretionary Expense.” “A big part of the reason public colleges are so expensive now is because states slashed higher education budgets during recessions and never fully made up for the loss and schools raised tuition to compensate. While some states might be enticed by the promise of federal aid, others may continue to treat higher education as a discretionary expense.” (Danielle Douglas-Gabriel, “Sen. Bernie Sanders Wants Free Tuition At Four-Year Public Colleges. Here’s Why It Won’t Work,” The Washington Post, 5/19/15)

---

Elections Election 2020 Read more research