Why Washington Post's attack on Bernie is bunk

Robert Reich. (photo: Richard Morgenstein)

By Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Blog

02 October 15

readersupportednews.org

 

he 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.

   
Comments

 

+40 # Billsy 2015-10-02 13:18

The once great WaPo is a pathetic shadow of its former self, now like the NYT, a propaganda machine overflowing with failed neo-con policies, weighted by diminishing credibility. The mere fact that it's new owner is the ruthless mercenary Founder/CEO of Amazon.com is sufficient to make its editorial choices highly suspect.

 

+21 # NAVYVET 2015-10-02 13:36

Good article, especially when it emphasized that universities and colleges now dance to the Mephistophelian tune set by the Koch Brothers and other thieves of democratic government. I grew up in Florida, didn't attend FSU but I used to respect their biology department for its ocean studies in the Gulf. Probably wrecked by now, since all rational research contributed to the conclusion of global scorching.

Do you subscribe online to the Wash Post? I don't, but if I did I'd de-subscribe and tell them I don't want to read sludge written by the puppets of traitors. And we do need to send letters to the editors.

 

+10 # Caliban 2015-10-02 14:16

NAVYVET--Comple tely agree that "we do need to send letters to the editors', but to do that effectively, we have to read the Post first. So maybe it is time grit our teeth and do just that--with sharply worded letters critiquing the "sludge" found there.

The days of Woodward and Bernstein and Editor Ben Bradlee are sadly dead and gone and not to be resurrected by Jeff Bezos, it appears.

 

+18 # suzyskier 2015-10-02 13:49

So the Koch brothers pledged 1.5 million as long as they can have control? Why did the University ever agree to this? 1.5 million doesn't seem nearly enough to bend over and take it. What is wrong with that University that they would sell their souls for this? Doesn't sound like a very worthy institution at all. Very hard to respect them after this.

 

 

+16 # tomwalker8 2015-10-02 13:51

I'm feeling the Bern, Robert. The corporate wing of the democratic party may want Hillary to run unopposed, but I (and many others) aren't signing up for her coronation. The "liberal" media ought to stop treating his candidacy as a hopeless and ill advised tilt to the left, and start recognizing that his popularity, which grows every day, is due to his support of "we the people" as opposed to corporate "people" - you know the ones that plead guilty to massive collusion or automotive safety hazards without having a single "person" charged with a crime.