Unlike the other Democratic presidential candidates, Bernie Sanders describes himself as a Democratic Socialist. True to the word, he is campaigning on a radical, massive expansion of government, which includes, among other proposals, the creation of a single-payer healthcare system, free tuition at public universities, and an expansion of Social Security.
Because he comes off as a political outsider immune to the patently obvious corruption of Hillary Clinton, Sanders has gained significant support among the increasingly far-left element of the Democratic party, particularly among college students. At Cornell and in Ithaca he is likely the most popular candidate, as shown by the many likes on the Big Red for Bernie Facebook page and the fact that he has raised about three times as much money as any other candidate from Ithaca residents.
Although his redistributive and freebie-laden proposals sound appealing to many, the question remains whether they are actually viable, and perhaps most importantly, whether we as a country can afford them.
Last month, the Wall Street Journal published an article that estimates Sanders proposals will cost an additional $18 trillion over the next decade. The bulk of this new spending would come from his proposed single-payer healthcare system, with an estimated cost of $15 trillion based on a study conducted by economist Gerald Friedman of a 2013 congressional bill that would have created a similar single-payer system.
As much as the article was used to criticize Sanders, it was scorned by his ardent supporters. Friedman criticized the article and insisted that Sanders’s healthcare plan would “save nearly $5 trillion over ten years in reduced administrative waste, lower pharmaceutical and device prices, and by lowering the rate of medical inflation.” His argument is vague and misleading. He claims, for example, that the savings would be felt by businesses who would “no longer be paying for health insurance for their employees.” This is false, as businesses would have to pay higher payroll taxes in replacement of covering their employees through insurance companies. As the WSJ points out, Sanders has not proposed nearly sufficient tax increases to pay for his plans. His proposed tax hikes, which are plentiful as they stand now, amount to $6.5 trillion over a decade, which fails to cover even half the cost of his healthcare plan. Just as there is no such thing as free lunch, there is no such thing as free healthcare.
True to his credo of giving everyone what they want without regards for the confines of reality, Sanders has also proposed to make all public colleges and universities free for all. He argues that high tuition is the main obstacle preventing low-income families from sending their kids to college. However, this is not the case. An article in the Daily Beast points out that the cost of public colleges is not what prevents most poor kids from going to college. The most important factor is high school preparation, which is not addressed by this proposal. Most of Sanders’ proposed college subsidies would not benefit low-income families, as about $56 billion out of the proposed $70 billion in college subsidies would benefit families with above-average income. This proposal therefore flies in the face of Sanders’ goal of helping families in need by soaking the rich.
Yet, the Vermont Socialist doesn’t stop there. He insists that he will pay for free college with a financial transactions tax on Wall Street. Taxing Wall Street is clearly a popular way of raising revenue, as the public has largely negative opinions about big banks and other large financial players, but this tax would be largely ineffective. According to a report from The Institute for Economic Affairs, a financial transactions tax would produce no net revenue due to its negative impact on the economy at large. Unfortunately, the prospect of the endless flow of goodies and freebies from Sanders clouds voters’ minds from considering the unintended consequences of proposals such as this one.
It should be no surprise that Bernie Sanders’s popularity is rising. The Democratic frontrunner, Hillary Clinton is seen as a dishonest establishment politician. Sanders has come across to voters as an honest man challenging the political establishment. However, voters should choose a candidate by their actual policy positions, rather than empty rhetoric. Sanders has taken common soak-the-rich rhetoric to a new extreme. He has promised a massive expansion of government benefits paid for only by the richest Americans. In reality, this is impossible. If the top 1% were taxed at 100% (Sanders has suggested 90%) and the military budget was eliminated, Sanders’s proposal still could not be paid for. Even Sanders himself is starting to realize that he cannot only tax the rich to pay for his proposals. He recently admitted that his proposed payroll tax “would hit everyone”. It is not impossible to implement what Sanders has proposed, but it would be paid for primarily by the middle-class which Sanders believes he is representing.
What America needs is less government, not more government. No system has done a better job of increasing the standard of living and lifting people out of poverty than free-market capitalism has. Higher taxes, like Sanders has proposed, have always been correlated with less economic growth.
Sanders has good intentions. However, we must pursue policies based on their results, not their intentions. Policies like a $15 dollar minimum wage and a nationalized single-payer healthcare system may sound like they will help average Americans, but they are doomed to fail.
“One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results.” – Milton Friedman, Nobel Prize-winning economist
A recent Wall Street Journal article estimated the price tag for Senator Sanders policy proposalst to be approximately $18 trillion over a ten year period. While true, the article conveniently neglects to mention that $18 trillions is actually a net savings. Currently, the United States spends approximately $8,500 per capita per year, totaling almost $3 trillion annually. According to economist Gerald Friedman, who was cited in the Wall Street Journal and greatly disagreed with the article’s inadequacies regarding health care costs, single payer can reduce the annual spending by approximately $500 billion, decreasing the per capita cost of health care to about $6,700. If per capita health care spending were deducted out of paychecks as single payer would be, an American who is paid twice a month and earns the median wage can expect to keep an extra $70 each paycheck if the nation transitioned to single payer (and that’s assuming the cost is covered entirely with a Medicare payroll tax, which isn’t likely to be the case). Why? They are no longer contributing to their health insurance plan, meeting deductibles, paying co-pays, and spending money on other health care related expenses.
Senator Sanders has also stated that he intends to spend $1 trillion dollars on infrastructure in an attempt to repair the nation’s crumbling infrastructure, create jobs, and save commuters on maintenance and fuel costs. Economist Lawrence Summers has stated that by the most conservative estimates such an investment in the nation’s infrastructure would at minimum pay for itself.
When the details of Senator Sanders’ policy proposals are put into context, they suddenly seem much less terrifying and much more rational (even desireable to many initial skeptics). Coupled with the fact that Senator Sanders has even suggested bringing in revenues from other sources such as taxing Wall Street speculation, increasing tax rates on the super wealthy, and legalizing marijuana, the claim that a Sanders presidency would bankrupt the nation looks to be intentionally misleading.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/price-tag-of-bernie-sanders-proposals-18-trillion-1442271511
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gerald-friedman/the-wall-street-journal-k_b_8143062.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/10/13/larry-summers-fixing-americas-roads-would-essentially-pay-for-itself/
I have addressed the Wall Street Journal’s article and Friedman’s response in this article. It is true that a single-payer system would reduce private healthcare costs, but it will require a huge tax hike. Friedman fails to factor in the tax burden that will be put on the private sector to pay for it. Sanders has not proposed nearly enough tax increases to cover this. He also does not factor in the likely wealth and productivity losses in the private sector that will be caused by the tax hikes. Do you really think that anyone would be willing to work for 10 cents on the dollar?
The truth is his proposals would either bankrupt America or push a heavy tax burden on the middle-class. There is no way to pay for all over his proposals by just taxing the rich. Middle-class people will not be willing to pay much higher taxes. There is no such thing as free healthcare. Sanders admitted that he will raise taxes on everyone.
It is a common economic fallacy that government creates jobs. At best they are replacing private sector jobs. They can only pay people by taxing, borrowing, or printing money. Regardless, the money is lost from the private sector. Infrastructure spending is not bad, but should be done more modestly.
Like I said in the article, a financial transactions tax has been studied to show it does not raise revenue. I would agree with Sanders that legalizing marijuana is a good idea. We have wasted a great deal of resources on our failed war on drugs.
The tax increase Sanders suggested to cover Single Payer is a 2.2-5.7% increase on payroll taxes, which should either be less or around the same most people pay for private health insurance now. The private sector would not see an increase in taxes from this program. If anything they would no longer need to be responsible for dealing with providing healthcare to their employees.
All other taxes wouldn’t hit until 250k+ a year (the cap on Social Security would be lifted)
or 400k+ a year in the form of an increase on the marginal tax rate, which was around 50% when Reagan was president.
If you actually study Sanders’s plan, you will see there is nowhere near enough taxation proposed to cover what he wants to spend. The private sector would have to see a huge tax hike in order to cover the new programs.
You need to also factor in the reduction in productivity and growth caused by much higher taxes. Higher taxes will reduce the tax base. Sanders is falsely leading people to believe that he can give them a massive increase in benefits with them bearing none or little of the cost. In reality, this plan could only be done if the middle-class paid the bulk of it.
I have studied Sanders plan. The taxes brought in will cover single payer, and will result in a net savings for Americans. Gerald Friedman Agrees, Robert Reich Agrees.
So where does he get the $15 trillion from? He is only proposing $6.5 Trillion in new taxes at best.
What percent of his campaign contributions is Senator Sanders redistributing to Secretary Clinton and Governor O’Mally?
What? Redistribution does not apply to him? What’s up with that?
This editorial is outrageous, Glenn, and it makes me wonder how you ever got into Cornell. You say that just because employers will have to pay a higher payroll tax, that the healthcare-for-all system will end up costing them more money. Have you stopped to think that maybe the cost of health insurance, most of which goes to administration rather than actual care, is much higher than this proposed payroll tax would be?
You also argue that “the cost of public colleges is not what prevents most poor kids from going to college.” Hmmm. Interesting claim. Kind of defies common sense. So, what’s your source? It’s a freaking editorial from the Daily Beast! And said editorial doesn’t even cite a source for this claim! It only says, “There are many reasons poor kids don’t go to college – and cost is one of the reasons least supported by available evidence. Bigger factors include navigating college once enrolled; figuring out how to apply; and, most of all, graduating high school without the necessary academic skills to succeed in college.” This claim, that for some reason poorer students aren’t as able to navigate college once enrolled or figure out how to apply, is classicist and elitist. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that if I can’t afford something, I’m probably not gonna try to buy it. Come on, Glenn. You can do better.
Finally, in your argument again a financial transactions tax, you cite a study from an openly free-market promoting think tank that conducted this study in BRITAIN! Seriously, Glenn? Seriously?!
You say that “no system has done a better job of increasing the standard of living and lifting people out of poverty than free-market capitalism has. Higher taxes, like Sanders has proposed, have always been correlated with less economic growth.” Tell me, Glenn, when has laissez-faire government, allowing corporations to run rampant, actually helped the economy? When has this led to more jobs, higher wages, and lower poverty rates?
You’re spewing hot air, Glenn. It’s time to stop.
What I am saying about his proposed single-payer system is that he has not proposed sufficient taxation to pay for it. If he does, that level of heavy taxation will greatly damage the economy, costing jobs and economic growth. The taxes will have to be raised on the middle-class.
I can easily tell you an example of successful laissez-faire capitalism, it’s called 19th Century America.
Please make constructive arguments rather than complaining about my sources or attacking me personally.
First off, laissez-faire capitalism did not exist in the 19th century. Industry was heavily subsided by the government, most of it was fueled by the railroads.
If you were not aware the same time period you are citing as successful, had terrible boom bust cycles that kept Americans in poverty. It was called the gilded age for a reason. It appeared successful, but under it was common metal, the gears of a system that kept Americans oppressed. Should we get rid of child labor laws, get rid of the min wage, throw more subsides at businesses, while families starve?
It was not perfect laissez-faire capitalism, but it was relatively close. Around the end of the 19th century, the government was spending about 4 percent of GDP. This period of small government made America extremely prosperous. There were economic crises occasionally, but they were nothing like the great depression (caused largely by government intervention).
No, families will not starve. Our capitalism has made food extremely cheap and abundant. However, I do believe we should rethink policies like the minimum wage. It sounds good to guarantee people a certain wage, but in reality it prevents unskilled workers from being employed in many cases. We need to judge policies by their results.
This was not a period of small government. It is a historical misconception. The government propped up businesses, and gave them tools to crush unions.
I disagree with government propping up businesses, but it was absolutely was a period of small government. Government spending now is about 40% of GDP.
Ever hear of a “food desert” Glenn? There are many, many areas of the country where it is virtually impossible to buy fresh, healthy food. It is the same way with “bank deserts” – 38% of America’s Zip Codes have no banks in them. Which is why Bernie’s proposal for Postal Banking is such a great idea.
Your argument against the minimum wage is without merit on its face. Starvation wages serve no one, and I do not like the fact that our tax dollars are subsidizing workers at Wal-Mart and McDonald’s.
I agree that so-called “starvation wages” serve no one, but the minimum wage fails to address this issue. All it does is prevent unskilled workers from getting employed. It is no coincidence that black teenage unemployment is over 50%. How are people going to be lifted out of poverty if they can’t get their first job? We can separately address the lack in necessary income to live. Learn some basic economics, price controls never work.
How does raising the minimum wage prevent “unskilled” workers from being employed? Do you really think there are people out there who are too “unskilled” to work at Wal-Mart? McDonalds? Bottom line is there are massive corporations out there who’s CEO’s are making exorbitant salaries who hire many workers born into impoverished means who don’t pay these workers nearly enough to make a comfortable living and/or raise a healthy family.
Going back to health care real quick, you seem to think that our system is better because we’re not taxed to pay for it. I’d imagine you think this because you’re still on your parents plan (Thanks Obama!) and haven’t actually had to spend a dime on health care. In fact, the average household pays $8,000/year, much more than any other developed country on Earth, on healthcare. Do you really think that the taxes on the middle class, which you complain about so much, will amount to that cost? Sanders will pay for this Medicare-for-all system through a 6.7 percent employer payroll tax, a 5.4 percent tax on high-income individuals, a .02 percent tax on securities transactions, and a progressive tax on individuals making between $200,000 to $600,000 a year. Here in America, we take care of our own. It’s the American way.
Also, it’s very interesting that you point to the 19th century as a time of laissez-faire capitalism leading to prosperity. I do hope you realize that the industrialization of that century would not have been possible if it weren’t for government investment in the railroad system, a patent office, and the telegraph. In addition, a national banking system was established in this century. Talk about socialism!
Bottom line, Glenn, is that, just as a game of football doesn’t work without referees, a country can’t operate without a government keeping everything fair. For the past couple decades, we’ve shifted towards laissez-faire governance. Now, we have the highest child poverty rate of any developed country in the world, one family owning more wealth than the poorest 130 million, and only the born-privileged being able to afford a higher education. Clearly, something has to change.
It is not a matter of being too unskilled. It is a matter of cost. Some unskilled workers are not worth the minimum wage and therefore will not be hired. Wouldn’t it be better for these people to have a low-paying job than none at all? If the minimum wage works, then why is black teenage unemployment over 50%? Why does Singapore, a country with no minimum wage, have a 2% unemployment rate? As I have said, we need to judge policies by results.
In regards to healthcare, as I already explained, Sanders has not proposed sufficient taxation to cover the plan and if he does, the taxes will cripple the economy.
We need government to protect life, liberty, and property. What we don’t need is a massive welfare state. We have not “shifted towards laissez-faire governance.” That could not be further from the truth. Government spending is now more than 40% of GDP. That’s big government and it’s only getting bigger. We do not need socialism in order to provide for the less fortunate.
Some unskilled workers are not worth the minimum wage?! Seriously Glenn? Do you even have a heart? If a worker is skilled enough to interview, be given, and hold a full-time job, then he/she is skilled enough to earn a living wage. And, don’t even try to tell me companies won’t be able to afford it. The vast majority of minimum wage earners are service workers. Service workers primarily work for CEO’s whose salaries are in the millions, if not billions, of dollars. The only thing getting in the way of every full-time worker not earning enough to comfortably raise a family is selfishness.
With regards to healthcare, as I’ve already stated, Sanders will pay for his Medicare-for-all system through a 6.7 percent employer payroll tax, a 5.4 percent tax on high-income individuals, a .02 percent tax on securities transactions, and a progressive tax on individuals making between $200,000 to $600,000 a year. Please, Glenn, explain why you don’t think that will be sufficient and why you think it will be worse than the $8,000/year we pay now?
Finally, Glenn, if you earn $50,000/year, then you pay $22.88 for unemployment insurance, $36.82 for food stamps, $6.96 for welfare, $235.81 for Medicare, and, wait for it… $4,000.00 in corporate subsidies. And it’s the “massive welfare state” that has you pissed off? When ONE FAMILY owns more wealth than the bottom 130 MILLION Americans? You sound like a Grinch to me.
I would love for everyone to make way above the minimum wage, but the unfortunate reality is that is not feasible. Yes, big corporations can afford to pay unskilled workers more most likely, but small businesses who employ much more people cannot. Government bureaucrats are incapable of determining what businesses pay their workers. Please tell me why black teenage unemployment is over 50% now, but was less than 10% in the 1940s. You can’t say it’s because there’s more racism now. You are only proving that Sanders’s policies are based only on compassion but not on facts.
Sanders has clearly no way to raise enough revenue with for his proposals. It has been studied by the WSJ and other sources to be infeasible. His proposal would only bring $6.5 Trillion in revenue at best. That is not even half of the cost of the single-payer system.
In reality, the vast majority of the federal budget is entitlements. Regardless of what you want to believe, corporate welfare is not a substantial part of the budget. It does exist, however please provide me with proof of it being a massive part of the budget. Most of the budget is social security, medicare, medicaid, and defense. Sanders’s plan is to massively increase entitlements that already growing out of control. He is far from the mainstream of even the democratic party. Hillary will be the nominee.
Well, first off Glenn, I would suspect teenage employment across the board is below 50%. Child labor laws generally prevent too many teenagers from working. The reason Black unemployment is up, in general, is that with the deregulation of trade (NAFTA, CAFTA, etc.) companies were able to ship Blue-collar jobs overseas, reaping the rewards of cheap labor. Since the Black population made up a large amount of these Blue-collar jobs here in America (seeing as many of their great-great-grandparents were slaves and we’ve neglected to invest in inner-city school systems) it was they who were hit hardest. Once again, laissez-faire governance at it’s best.
Please explain to me, Glenn, why you think we’ll have to spend sooo much more on healthcare when, in fact, the 19 wealthiest countries who have a single-payer system like Bernie is suggesting pay 60% as much on healthcare as we do? I’m sure you’re well read enough to know that the source of the study that the WSJ article you mention used took great issue with the article and criticized how the WSJ twisted his study to fit it’s agenda. Forgot to mention that part, Glenn? Did it just slip your mind?
Finally, you’re, frankly, wrong about entitlements. In 2013, the U.S. government spent $70.2 billion subsidizing the fossil fuel industry, $16.8 billion on corn ethanol, $12.2 billion on renewable energy (albeit a good thing) and $2.3 billion on carbon capture. That’s nowhere close to the amount spent on welfare, which, alternatively, is a good think that helps our fellow man, leading to an overall safer and happier society.
Sanders himself has said that black teenage unemployment rate is 51%. Child labor laws do prevent teenagers from working, just like the minimum wage does. There is no possible way this could be attributed to free trade. NAFTA was estimated to have cost the US 700,000 jobs at worst. How in the world could that cause a 51% unemployment rate for black teenagers?
This explains all you need to know about the minimum wage : http://fee.org/freeman/the-minimum-wage-law/
Yes, it is true we spending a lot more than we should on healthcare. However, that does not mean that socialism is the answer. 3.75% of healthcare spending is private insurance administrative costs, so eliminating private insurers would not save much. The main problem is the shortage of doctors in America. We have among the fewest doctors per capita of any western country. This makes it so that healthcare providers can charge much higher prices.
I addressed Friedman’s response to the article. My problem with it is that it does not factor in the tax burden on the private sector, the productivity losses caused by the tax burden, and fails to explain how this single-payer plan will save us so much. The reality is that it will not.
The federal budget is about $3.5 Trillion. I oppose corporate subsidies, but the numbers you gave me are a very small portion of the budget. The biggest chunk of the budget is social security, medicare, and medicaid. Yes, we should help those less fortunate, but we also need to be fiscally responsible. These programs already are becoming unsustainable, so the last thing we should do is expand them like Sanders wants to do.
Right. Teenage employment is below 50% across the board, meaning unemployment would be above 50%. I don’t get why you’re so focused on teenage unemployment, though. It’s those who are in their 20’s and 30’s that we should be worried about. Teenagers are generally still living under the watch of their parents. Young adults are the ones who are starting families and lives of their own. They’re the ones who need a livable wage. There is absolutely no connection between unemployment and the minimum wage, though. As I said earlier, with CEO’s making millions and billions of dollars, it’s not like they can’t afford to pay out the minimum wage.
The fact is that NAFTA alone has cost the U.S. 1 million jobs as of 2004 (http://www.citizen.org/documents/NAFTA-at-20.pdf). It, along with other free trade agreements, IS a huge factor in the loss of American jobs. Pretty much everyone knows that. And, in addition, the jobs that did stay turned from manufacturing to service jobs, causing generally more than 20% wage reductions. This, alone, disproves your joke of a zombie source, which claims that the smaller the quantity demanded, the higher the price. When 99 percent of all new income is going to the top 1 percent, it shows that there are other factors at play. I’m sorry to break it to you, Glenn, but the world isn’t as black and white, nor easy to predict, as free-market economics makes it out to be. There are many factors that must be considered.
With regards to health care, again, you overlook some important facts. Only looking at insurance administrative costs is a convenient way to ignore the hospital administrative costs that come with dealing with insurance companies. We spend more than double what Canada spends on administration, costing us $158 billion. The issue isn’t that we have too few doctors (In fact we have way too many specialists). It’s that administrative costs are too high, and we’re ignoring primary/preventive care.
I’m not sure if they teach you how to read over there at Cornell, Glenn, but Friedman does address everything you’re concerned with. The tax burden on the private sector (over 10 years, in billions) – $17,568 — from financial transactions tax, the high-income surtax, tax on non-wage income, payroll taxes. How will it save us so much? From administrative savings, lower pharmaceutical prices, lower medical inflation – $9,634. From private health insurance premiums, reduced out-of-pocket spending, and other private health spending – $19,759. And, why in the world do you think there would be productivity losses when workers will no longer have to pay for health insurance, co-pays, and deductibles? Anyone who’s actually had to pay for health insurance knows that, in fact, the opposite is true. Friedman’s study is here. https://www.healthcare-now.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/0312friedman.pdf I suggest you read it before posting such an ignorant article. I only hope it didn’t make the print section.
Thank you Marty for reading my article and expressing your opinion. I do have limited time however, so I have to put an end to this debate. It is unfortunate that you have to resort to personal attacks, rather than a serious debate about real issues. You have accused me of not being able to read, not being qualified for my university, and of not having a heart. This demonstrates your lack of maturity. I welcome you to continue reading the Cornell Review, however, if you choose to express your opinion about our articles, please do so in a mature way. I have not censored any of your comments, even ones containing a personal attack. I am always open to having an intellectual debate with people of other points of view.
Also, Glenn, you want to cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid? So just leave the poor, the elderly, and the sick, at a time when one family is wealthier than the poorest 130 million Americans, at a time when we have the highest child poverty rate of any developed country, out to dry? Nice, Glenn. Real American.
Bernie Sanders, your idol, has not resorted to such immature tactics. Please learn to discuss these issues in a mature way.
@ “the cost of public colleges is not what prevents most poor kids from going to college.” Hmmm. Interesting claim. Kind of defies common sense. So, what’s your source?————
The problem with Bernie & his supports…They’re completely out of touch-The most important factor is high school preparation—Minorities,& the poor are not receiving the same education as the rest….
Lets take a look at our most populated,”progressive” State….
Only 2 percent of Fresno Unified students are considered college ready, according to the latest results from the Early Assessment Program. The program, overseen by the state Department of Education and California State University, tests 11th-graders in English and math to determine if they are ready for college-level courses.
Data from the 2014-15 school year projects about 98 percent of Fresno Unified students will need to take remedial courses once they get to college if they don’t catch up their senior year.
http://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/education/article40365447.html
SAN FRANCISCO – “Fewer than 4 in 10 California high school students are completing the requirements to be eligible for the state’s public universities”
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/school-608516-high-college.html
In addition,Cal’s Black and Latino students attend schools that on average have more than two-thirds poor students, while whites and Asians typically attend schools with a majority of middle-class students. California ranks as the most segregated state in terms of the share of blacks who attend majority white schools. Only one-sixteenth of black students had this experience in 2011.
Then we have Bernie’s State of Vermont- Vermont Legal Aid released a report which found that black public school students were up to three times more likely to be suspended as white students in 2011-12, placing them at greater risk of exposure to the criminal justice system.
Sorry, I guess I missed your articles entitled:
“America Cannot Afford a War in Iraq”,
“America Cannot Afford $153 Billion to Subsidise Low Wages with Medicare and Food Stamps”,
“America Cannot Afford to Coddle Energy Companies with $250+ Billion in Subsidies”
“America Cannot Afford the Bush Tax Cuts for the Wealthy”
Can you point me to those articles please?
Foolish to assume the author supports or supported any of those, and indicative of the intellectual shallowness of the mad-for-Bernie crowd. Or, in the very least, indicative of simply just yours.
90%?? That’s a flat-out lie. Waste of an article. Waste of everyone’s time.