Waldman writes:



The answer isn’t quite so dramatic: while Sanders does want to spend significant amounts of money, almost all of it is on things we’re already paying for; he just wants to change how we pay for them. In some ways it’s by spreading out a cost currently borne by a limited number of people to all taxpayers. His plan for free public college would do this: right now, it’s paid for by students and their families, while under Sanders’ plan we’d all pay for it in the same way we all pay for parks or the military or food safety. But the bulk of what Sanders wants to do is in the first category: to have us pay through taxes for things we’re already paying for in other ways. Depending on your perspective on government, you may think that’s a bad idea. But we shouldn’t treat his proposals as though they’re going to cost us $18 trillion on top of what we’re already paying.

That wasn't so hard, was it?

Waldman futher explains that according to the Journal's analysis, $15 trillion of the supposed $18 trillion over ten years comes from Sanders's proposal for a single-payer health care plan. Except that the Journal isn't actually pricing Sanders's plan, because Sanders hasn't yet detailed it. Now, it would be fair to ask Sanders for such details, but the Journal instead prices in the estimated cost of another single-payer plan already placed before Congress. But even if Sanders's proposal is identical to the plan already before Congress, crunching the numbers reveals something curious: The current amount spent on health care in the U.S. is over $3 trillion a year, and rising. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services estimates that the cost over the next decade will be $42 trillion. Which even the Post's editorial board ought to be able to figure out is more than $18 trillion. But here's the real fun part:



So let’s say that Bernie Sanders became president and passed a single-payer health care system of some sort. And let’s say that it did indeed cost $15 trillion over 10 years. Would that be $15 trillion in new money we’d be spending? No, it would be money that we’re already spending on health care, but now it would go through government. If I told you I could cut your health insurance premiums by $1,000 and increase your taxes by $1,000, you wouldn’t have lost $1,000. You’d be in the same place you are now.

This isn't new spending, as if the U.S. wasn't currently spending a cent on health care. It's simply a different way of paying for it. Waldman also points out that of all the many single-payer health care systems in the world, not one is more expensive than the health care system in the United States. Which makes sense. The cost of the U.S. system includes the enormous profits taken by the enormously wealthy corporations that control the U.S. system. Profits that have nothing at all to do with serving the needs of those needing medical care. Eliminate that extraneous financial burden on the health care system and money is saved. Lots of money.

Waldman expands by pointing to the social and financial benefits of other aspects of Sanders's proposal, such as infrastructure spending, which also would create a lot of jobs. And anyone who understands basic Keynesian economics knows that creating jobs stimulates the economy, because employed people no longer need government assistance and instead become taxpayers, putting money back into the system. And people with new jobs also tend to buy things from local businesses, putting money back into their local economies. The cost of economic stimulus spending ultimately mitigates itself, as it puts the overall national economy back on firm footing.

Waldman concludes by pointing out that the conservatives who are decrying the supposed cost of the Sanders proposal have never met a tax cut they didn't like. For example, Jeb! Bush has proposed tax cuts that could cost the economy over $3 trillion dollars, with most of the benefits going to wealthier people such as Jeb! Bush. No word on how such tax cuts are supposed to benefit the rest of the population, much less the overall state of the economy.

The Post's editorial board takes a lousy and easily debunked analysis of the Sanders spending plan at face value, bases an entire editorial upon it, then tops it with an inflammatory headline. That would be embarrassing to credible journalists or pundits. If Fred Hiatt and his editorial board want at least to attempt to stop embarrassing themselves, perhaps they should start by reading their own newspaper.