Widget Image
Follow PPD Social Media
Monday, February 24, 2025
HomeStandard Blog Whole Post (Page 637)

retail-sales-reuters

Shopper at a mall impacting consumer data and retail sales reporting. (Photo: Reuters)

The Commerce Department reported on Friday that U.S. retail sales in January topped expectations, despite earlier reports on the savings rate. American consumers increased spending at retail stores and restaurants by 0.2% amid lower gasoline prices.

Economists surveyed by The Wall Street Journal had expected a 0.1% increase in January, but retail sales rose to an adjusted $449.9 billion compared with a 3.4% gain a year earlier. The latest retail sales report reflects an upward revision from an initially reported 0.1% drop, fueled by broad-based spending.

Excluding motor vehicles, sales were up 0.1% in January, and excluding gasoline, sales were up 0.4% from December. Excluding both, sales were up 0.4% last month.

Consumer spending represents more than two-thirds of economic output, making the retail sales report an optimistic indicator after gross domestic product clocked in at just 0.7% in the fourth quarter.

The Commerce Department reported on Friday that

Socialism, Leftwing Governments Killed 262 Million People in 20th Century

Democratic Presidential Candidates Debate In Milwaukee

MILWAUKEE, WI – FEBRUARY 11: Vermont socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders, left, and Hillary Clinton, right, in the PBS NewsHour Democratic presidential debate at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee on February 11, 2016 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.The debate is the final debate before the Nevada caucuses scheduled for February 20. (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)

On Thursday night, Bernie Sanders trashed Hillary Clinton’s relationship with Henry Kissinger over his involvement in Cambodia,. He called it “one of the worst genocides in the history of the world.”

That is a telling statement and, frankly, one that is absolutely delusional. Yet, not one PBS moderator–nor Hillary herself, for that matter–bothered to push back with the truth. The truth is that Bernie Sanders ignored the real horrifying reality in Cambodia and instead highlighted a bombing campaign against North Vietnamese supply lines.

Folks, this is crazy. There was a real genocide in Cambodia, but Henry Kissinger wasn’t responsible for it–socialism was responsible. In Cambodia, from 1975 to 1979, a genocide that led to the deaths of an estimated 25% of the total population (around 2 million people) was carried out by the Khmer Rouge (KR) regime led by Pol Pot, a radical leftwing nut job who promised “fairness” and “free stuff” at the expense of others.

Sound familiar?

In fact, socialism and other leftwing governments are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of millions of people in the 20th century, alone. It’s called democide, Bernie supporters. Google it. Read a book. They all promised “free” stuff, too.

Democide, as defined by the seminal work of R.J. Rummel, Death by Government, is “the murder of any person or people by a government, including genocide, politicide and mass murder; and although the figures are dynamic, six times as many people died as a result of democide during the 20th century than in all that century’s wars combined.”

While the system of government and policy approach to democide vary, there are two commonalities observed in these societies that were tragically subjected to democide. The ruled–which is an appropriate title as Europeans and other peoples are not privy to citizenship as we understand it–all forfeited the rights and duty of self-defense by popular support, as well as other rights of protection I’ve identified in Our Virtuous Republic (2013).

Leading up to democide, government engages in an assault on civil society with objectives that include the disintegration of the political and social institutions of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups; the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and the lives of of the individuals belonging to such groups.

Again, sound familiar?

During the era of the American Revolution, war was the number one cause of unnatural human death. That all changed during so-called “progressive” cultural and political revolutions in the 20th century. All of the human tragedies studied by Rummel and others who have documented democide have occurred throughout a period the academic establishment, politicians and the media would have us believe was and is an era of “progress.”

“No cause, ever, in the history of all mankind, has produced more cold-blooded tyrants, more slaughtered innocents, and more orphans than socialism with power,” Alan Charles Kors wrote in The Atlas Society in 2003. “It surpassed, exponentially, all other systems of production in turning out the dead. The bodies are all around us. And here is the problem: No one talks about them. No one honors them. No one does penance for them.”

In total, the era of “progress” in political thought, which spawned a dangerous collective trust in government, resulted in 262 million victims of democide; 262 million precious, human lives lost along with all their potential. It is immeasurable and it is impossible to know how each personal journey may have benefited humankind, how many Albert Einsteins (who barely escaped Nazi democide) or Nikola Teslas the world was denied by free stuff-promising leftwing governments.

All in the name of “progress” and “fairness,” right? The “progressive” assault on the characteristics that make us uniquely American–including our traditions and culture, the English language, Christianity, globalist hostility toward American exceptionalism, incessant attacks on the Second Amendment, intolerance of individualism and the promotion of indignity through social welfare dependence–all are policies that meet the aforementioned pre-democide criteria–verbatim.

Do I think the socialist curmudgeon Bernie Sanders intends to inflict such horror on the American public? No. I think he is an ignoramus who chose to honeymoon in the former Soviet Union because he is a product of the leftwing, inner-city Democratic machine. But that’s irrelevant.

For those who mock such a possibility, I’d remind you all that millions of Russians honored Joseph Stalin with titles like “father,” “Father of Nations,” “Brilliant Genius of Humanity,” and “Gardener of Human Happiness”–right before he shipped millions of them off to the gulag to rot in their own despair before dying their miserable deaths.

So, Bernie, let’s talk about genocide. Let’s talk about how you support a system of government that rises to power on popular support driven by hate, envy, weakness and other forms of victimization. Let’s talk about real victimhood felt by millions around the world who fell for the promise of political revolution and social justice.

Political revolution, my @$$. Government does not have the power to raise others up, to expand the boundaries of human potential. It only has the power to tear others down, and the history of it doing so is very long and very bloody.

[mybooktable book=”our-virtuous-republic-forgotten-clause-american-social-contract” display=”summary” buybutton_shadowbox=”true”]

Vermont socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders slammed Henry

[brid video=”27583″ player=”2077″ title=”Sanders This campaign is about ‘ a process for political revolution'”]

Vermont socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders responded to an attack from Hillary Clinton that he has criticized Barack Obama throughout his presidency.

“You ran against Barack Obama, I was not that candidate,” Sanders said in his closing remarks at Thursday’s Democratic debate moderated by PBS.

Vermont socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders responded to

Federal Agencies Control Nearly 9 in 10 Acres in Nevada

Ammon-Bundy-Oregon-Militia

Ammon Bundy, pictured here on January 5, was arrested in Oregon Tuesday. ROB KERR/AFP/Getty

The four remaining armed protestors that have occupied a federal wildlife refuge in Oregon for the past 41 days turned themselves in peacefully Thursday. The development comes after the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) arrested Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, the father of the group’s leader, Ammon Bundy, on charges dating back to the 2014 standoff between federal agents and militia members on his ranch.

But the end of the standoff did not come without drama, which further gave the media ammunition to undermine the group’s central message. After the first three protesters surrendered to authorities at around 9:40 a.m. local time, the last occupier, David Fry, resisted.

Fry had said on a live audio webcast that he was “feeling suicidal” and would “die a free man.” At one point he said he was pointing a gun at his head, began ranting about abortion, UFOs, the government “chemically mutating people” and Syria.

“I’m taking my stand, this isn’t something I’m going to back away from,” Fry said.

Finally, after requesting listeners yell “Hallelujah,” Fry turned himself in to the FBI shortly after 11 a.m. local time.

But did the media ignore the real story?

Nationwide, federal government agencies–including the Forest Service, the National Park Service, Fish & Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Defense Department (DoD)–control roughly 14.3% of all land across U.S. states. However, in certain Western states, the share of federally occupied land is far higher, the worst of which being the one that’s home to Mr. Bundy.

In Nevada, home also to former Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, the federal government owns and occupies 84.9% of all the land within the state’s borders. BLM controls 47,782,464 acres; FS controls 5,759,160 acres; FWS 2,345,956 acres; NPS 774,751 acres; and DoD 3,019,170 acres. While that represents a decline of 0.6% since 1990, it’s still a large representation.

We could also argue whether Cliven Bundy incorrectly argued that it was his land–thus, did no have to pay grazing fees to the federal government–but it is undeniably true that Ranchers like Mr. Bundy wouldn’t have such a problem if the feds didn’t occupy nearly 9 in 10 acres in his state.

Did the media miss the real Oregon

David Brooks

New York Times “conservative” columnist
David Brooks, mocked by ricochet.

If you read The New York Times “conservative” columnist David Brooks, you might better grasp the chasm between true and phony conservatives, between Reagan conservatives and establishment Republicans.

In his piece “I Miss Barack Obama,” Brooks unwittingly humiliates himself in his latest paean to the president, just as when he revealed his perverse attraction to Obama’s “perfectly creased pant.”

Let me just share Brooks’ words rather than trying to characterize them, for he does much more damage to his own credibility than I could. He writes, “As this primary season has gone along, a strange sensation has come over me: I miss Barack Obama. Now, obviously I disagree with a lot of Obama’s policy decisions. … But over the course of this campaign it feels as if there’s been a decline in behavioral standards across the board. Many of the traits of character and leadership that Obama possesses … have suddenly gone missing or are in short supply. The first and most important of these is basic integrity. The Obama administration has been remarkably scandal-free.”

I could include every single surreal word of this column, but let me just add a few more sentences, because they illustrate what we’re up against with Brooksian pseudo-conservatives.

Brooks swoons over Obama’s “resilient sense of optimism. To hear Sanders or Trump, Cruz and Ben Carson campaign is to wallow in the pornography of pessimism, to conclude that this country is on the verge of complete collapse. That’s simply not true. We have problems, but they are less serious than those faced by just about any other nation on earth.”

I have repeatedly observed that one thing distinguishing Reagan conservatives from establishment Republicans is the latter’s blindness to the reality and gravity of Obama’s destruction to this nation and their lack of any sense of urgency as to the multiple existential threats looming over America.

We face an immigration problem that could wholly destroy the United States, not because people of different ethnicities are entering but because we are losing our national identity, terrorists and terrorist-sympathizers are among those entering, there are disruptions to the economy and harm to American laborers and it causes further strain on our colossally bloated welfare state.

If we don’t begin to control our borders like any self-preserving sovereign nation must, it will eventually be the end of America as we know it. Demagogues and race-baiters despicably twist these arguments as grounded in nativism. But for America to survive as unique among nations, its citizenry must remain committed to the American idea.

The open-borders lobby is devoted instead to flooding the nation with new Democratic voters who will reject our founding ideals. You better believe this is an existential threat and, in turn, our struggle against the open-borders nation-destroyers is an existential struggle. It is precisely because they have no rebuttal to these arguments that they resort to categorical smears of racism. But it says a lot about these slanderers that they portray allegiance to America’s founding principles as bigotry, when everyone acknowledges and celebrates that America is a melting pot of all ethnicities.

We face another existential threat from radical Islam. I would say it’s incredible that anyone could deny this, except we’ve endured similar scoffers before, including liberals who denied Communism constituted such a threat. Maddeningly, they cite the Soviet Union’s collapse as their vindication, though the reason it ultimately collapsed is that conservatives such as Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher treated it as a threat. ISIS is not contained and radical Islam is not limited to ISIS. Legions of people already in America are ripe for joining this cause and our president has tied our hands instead of empowering law enforcement, intelligence and security forces to optimally prepare against it.

Further, our panoply of entitlements objectively constitutes an existential threat, yet Obama and his party both deny it, and they obstruct all reform measures.

But David Brooks isn’t just in denial over these and other perils. He also views the most divisive, polarizing, partisan, condescending and narcissistic president in American history as a model of bipartisan civility. Obama has bullied and lied about his opponents and has grossly exceeded his constitutional authority to impose an agenda that the American people oppose.

Brooks has no stomach for a spirited campaign among GOP rivals who seek to reverse Obama’s transformation, but he is arrogantly indifferent to the devastation it has caused. It is instructive that he is more repulsed by intramural spitballs among political adversaries than by the character and behavior of Obama and his war on the republic.

Brooks closes with a surreal lament. “Obama radiates an ethos of integrity, humanity, good manners and elegance that I’m beginning to miss, and that I suspect we will all miss a bit, regardless of who replaces him.”

Let us just say, politely and elegantly: Mr. Brooks, this depends on how you define “we.” Everyone in your “ethos” bubble perhaps, those who don’t mind wallowing in the pornography of unpatriotic perdition, but very few in my world.

[mybooktable book=”the-emmaus-code-finding-jesus-in-the-old-testament” display=”summary” buybutton_shadowbox=”true”]

If you read The New York Times

“We Humans are Embarking on a Marvelous New Quest”

Albert-Einstein-Gravitiational-Waves

An artist’s impression of gravitational waves generated by binary neutron stars. (Photo Credits: R. Hurt/Caltech-JPL)

Scientists have found evidence of gravitational waves in space, which were predicted by Albert Einstein a century ago in his famous general theory of relativity. The National Science Foundation (NSF) announced on Thursday they’ve detected gravitational waves by the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO), a pair of ground-based observatories in Hanford, Washington, and Livingston, Louisiana.

“Our observation of gravitational waves accomplishes an ambitious goal set out over 5 decades ago to directly detect this elusive phenomenon and better understand the universe, and, fittingly, fulfills Einstein’s legacy on the 100th anniversary of his general theory of relativity,” says Caltech’s David H. Reitze, executive director of the LIGO Laboratory.

Einstein predicted gravitational waves as ripples in the fabric of space-time, which were produced by massive, accelerating bodies, such as black holes orbiting each other. But scientists have been searching for evidence of them for roughly 50 years, and are now more interested than ever in further observing and characterizing them in hopes they were learn more about the sources producing them.

“In 1992, when LIGO’s initial funding was approved, it represented the biggest investment the NSF had ever made,” says France Córdova, NSF director. “It was a big risk. But the National Science Foundation is the agency that takes these kinds of risks. We support fundamental science and engineering at a point in the road to discovery where that path is anything but clear. We fund trailblazers. It’s why the U.S. continues to be a global leader in advancing knowledge.”

Why is this discovery from the LIGO significant? It is viewed as a gateway to understanding more about gravity, itself.

The LIGO detections are a long-anticipated first step toward a whole new field of astrophysics. According to NASA, nearly everything we know about the universe stems from detecting and analyzing light in all its various forms across the electromagnetic spectrum–radio, infrared, visible, ultraviolet, X-rays and gamma rays–and the study of gravitational waves has the potential to open up a new window in the universe for us to look through. Scientists expect this research will provide key the human race with pivotal information by comparing it with knowledge gathered through electromagnetic radiation.

“This detection is the beginning of a new era: The field of gravitational wave astronomy is now a reality,” says Gabriela González, LSC spokesperson and professor of physics and astronomy at Louisiana State University.

NASA missions have been searching and continue to search the sky for fleeting X-ray and gamma-ray signals from LIGO events. Detecting the light emitted by a gravitational wave source would enable a much deeper understanding of the event than through either technique alone.

“With this discovery, we humans are embarking on a marvelous new quest: the quest to explore the warped side of the universe—objects and phenomena that are made from warped spacetime. Colliding black holes and gravitational waves are our first beautiful examples,” said Kip Thorne, Caltech’s Richard P. Feynman Professor of Theoretical Physics.

Scientists have found evidence of gravitational waves

Why Cruz Looked Flustered in New Hampshire Speech. He Should Be.

Ted-Cruz-New-Hampshire-Speech

Ted Cruz gives his post-primary speech in New Hampshire on Tuesday Feb. 9, 2016.

Wednesday, we spelled out the status of the Republican nomination and what the results of the New Hampshire primary meant moving forward. We also told you to ignore pretty much everything you will hear and read about the topic, and here’s a perfect example of why.

Headline at The Fix: “Don’t sleep on Ted Cruz. The next five weeks look very, very good for him.”

Washington-Post-The-Fix-Ted-Cruz-Article

Believe us, the PPD Election Projection Model isn’t sleeping on Sen. Cruz, either. But not for the same reasons as The Fix. He has put together a national campaign that understands this race is a marathon, not a sprint. We give him credit for his fundraising prowess and playing a long-ball game.

Worth noting, The Fix, which is run by Chris Cillizza, who Donald Trump called “one of the dumber and least respected of the political pundits,” doesn’t have a particularly good track record. The Donald is right. With only a few short weeks left to go before the 2014 midterm elections, Cillizza still had his model favoring the Democrats to hold control of the U.S. Senate against what was clearly an “imminent” Republican wave.

With that said and out in the open, Aaron Blake, the author of this particular piece, argues that “moving forward it’s easy to see how the Granite State could one day look like a very minor bump along Cruz’s path to the Republican presidential nomination.”

The argument basically holds that New Hampshire is far more secular and “the next few weeks of the GOP race look a whole lot more like Iowa than New Hampshire. And that is fantastic for Cruz.” He bases this argument on the white evangelical share of the electorate in Iowa and the coming contests in the South.

Except, as we pointed out on Wednesday, that’s not really what the historical and empirical data suggest, nor is the argument supported by the New Hampshire primary exit polls. In fact, to explain our headline, Sen. Cruz looked a little shaken on Tuesday during his post-New Hampshire primary speech because he knows what we know looking at the data and raw vote.

Trump, who has a substantial lead on the PPD aggregate average of Palmetto State polls, dominated among self-described conservatives, very conservatives and white evangelicals, all blocs Cruz was hoping and expecting to consolidate. In addition, Cruz did not pull significant support from libertarians with Sen. Rand Paul out of the race, as was also expected (not by us, however).

Looking at the pre-New Hampshire surveys down South, which are roughly three weeks old, that appears to still be the case. Cruz has a lot of work to do between now and February 20. More importantly, while the evangelical share of Republican primary electorate in South Carolina could be and has been as high as two-thirds, the state has voted for the winner of the New Hampshire primary in every nomination cycle except for one since 1980 (barring 2012).

Let me repeat this again: South Carolina has voted for the New Hampshire primary winner–not the Iowa caucus winner, despite the evangelical vote–in every cycle except for 2012 and 2000. Only in 2000, with George W. Bush against John McCain, did South Carolina reject the New Hampshire winner in favor of the Iowa caucus winner.

In 2012, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich road a post-debate wave to victory after he put on a great performance and Gov. Mitt Romney delivered a disappointing debate performance. However, Gingrich didn’t win the Iowa caucus. Former Sen. Rick Santorum won the 2012 Iowa caucus with overwhelming evangelical support, yet Southern evangelicals didn’t back him. The lesson of 2012 is that debates matter. It’s not that we should throw out overwhelming empirical evidence to the contrary.

In other words, despite the composition, the comparison to Iowa is simply historically inaccurate. What good will it do for Cruz if evangelicals come out if they vote for Trump by similiar and poll-predicted margins. As of now, there is little reason to suspect otherwise, particularly with religion and social issues far below jobs, the economy and national security.

It’s also important to remember that Iowa is a caucus state and South Carolina is a primary, which helps explain the disparity in the evangelical vote each cycle, which other “pundits” never acknowledge. In Iowa, the Texas senator bet the farm, spent millions of dollars and a year of his time building an organization to make his case at the caucus–among other, more regrettable things–yet still only won by a few points.

The fundamental problem with the “millions of courageous conservatives” strategy Ted Cruz has staked it all on–aside from the fact there aren’t enough of them to win a general election–is that they voted for Donald Trump, not him.

Is it possible for Sen. Ted Cruz to consolidate “courageous conservatives” and win South Carolina and, more importantly, the nomination? You bet. We believe Cruz will be extremely competitive in South Carolina and the SEC primary. But a combination of Trump’s strengths among Cruz’s core target voters, momentum and the dynamics of the field, means it’s far more likely that the frontrunner is well-positioned to take the top spot in South Carolina on February 20.

“And if you’re him [Cruz], the above has to make you feel very good about your chances,” Blake wrote for The Fix. That’s a cute way to end an article posing as election analysis. But in reality, at least according to PPD’s Election Projection Model, Cruz’s chances of winning the South Carolina Republican primary stand at only 15%, while Trump’s are much greater (61%).

The fundamental problem with the "millions of

Weekly-Jobless-Claims-Graphic

Weekly Jobless Claims Graphic. Number of Americans applying for first-time jobless benefits.

Weekly jobless claims fell by 16,000 to 269,000 last week. That came in lower than the estimate for 281,000, while the prior week was unchanged at 285,000.

A Labor Department analyst said there were no special factors impacting this week’s initial claims and no state was triggered “on” the Extended Benefits program during the week ending January 23.

The four-week moving average–which is widely considered a better gauge as it irons out the ups and downs–was 281,250, falling 3,500 from the previous week’s unrevised average of 284,750. Though claims have been higher this year than the prior, they remained below the 300,000 threshold, which is historically associated with strong labor market conditions, for 49 straight weeks.

That’s the longest period since the early 1970s.

Claims data have sparked an internal debate among economists as to whether the labor market remains strong–despite slowing economic growth and a stock market rout–or if long-term unemployment is behind much of the record-low claims level.

There were 15,233 former Federal civilian employees claiming UI benefits for the week ending January 23, an increase of 1,202 from the previous week. Newly discharged veterans claiming benefits totaled 16,304, an increase of 127 from the prior week.

The highest insured unemployment rates in the week ending January 23 were in Alaska (4.8), West Virginia (3.6), Montana (3.4), New Jersey (3.3), Connecticut (3.1), Pennsylvania (3.1), Puerto Rico (3.0), Illinois (2.9), Massachusetts (2.9), and Wyoming (2.9).

The largest increases in initial claims for the week ending January 30 were in Illinois (+5,092), Tennessee (+4,211), Pennsylvania (+4,055), Maryland (+2,463), and New Jersey (+2,129), while the largest decreases were in California (- 2,873), Wisconsin (-1,246), Minnesota (-978), Michigan (-743), and Missouri (-738).

Weekly jobless claims fell by 16,000 to

True Cost of Bernie Sanders

Bernie-Sanders-NH-Victory-Speech

Vermont socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders gives his victory speech in New Hampshire on Feb. 9, 2016. Photo: AP/J. David Ake)

Remember when I wrote about a week ago that I was somewhat optimistic about entitlement reform?

Well, given what just happened in New Hampshire, I must have been smoking crack. It would now be more accurate to say something will happen with entitlements, but it will be deform rather than reform.

That’s because a Bernie Sanders nomination victory followed by a win in November might pave the way for a massive expansion of government. Much of this would be a result of a single-payer healthcare scheme (oh, and don’t forget that the Republican victor in New Hampshire also has endorsed government-run healthcare).

Now that we have to take Senator Sanders seriously, let’s investigate his agenda.

Holman Jenkins of the Wall Street Journal is not a fan of the Vermont Senator’s statism.

His socialism is farcical in a country that can’t afford the entitlements it already has. …Mr. Sanders, far from being a radical departure, is merely a perfection of what Democrats have offered since the Clinton era, namely denial. Ignore the problem. If forced to acknowledge it, insist there’s no problem because the rich will pay. In the meantime, savage every reform proposal as an attack on “unmet needs.” Collect the political rents from serving as defender of every spending interest in our overcommitted republic. …Bernie…, for all his exotic pretenses, is just another machine Democrat.

I think Holman nails it. Sanders’ socialism is just a gimmick. He just a standard-issue redistributionist, and he doesn’t even have any idea of how to finance those empty promises.

Like many other leftists, Sanders presumably knows that “taxing the rich” doesn’t work because they can alter their behavior.

As Europe demonstrates, the only way to finance large government is to have big tax burdens on ordinary people.

Yes, Sanders endorses a few tax hikes on the middle class, but mostly he relies on unicorns and fairy dust.

Consider, for instance, his very prominent proposal for a single-payer health system. Avik Roy of Forbes digs into the details.

In Sanders’ eight-page campaign white paper, entitled “Medicare for All,” the self-described “democratic socialist” outlines his plan’s core principles. The plan would effectively abolish the private health insurance industry… Berniecare would also abolish cost-sharing by patients; i.e., no co-pays, deductibles, or coinsurance payments, and minimal premiums. …Berniecare would also abolish cost-sharing by patients; i.e., no co-pays, deductibles, or coinsurance payments, and minimal premiums.

And what would all this cost?

Citing estimates prepared by Gerald Friedman, an economist retained by the Sanders campaign, Avik finds the numbers very unconvincing.

…even by Friedman’s own optimistic projections about what single-payer health care could save, Berniecare would increase federal spending by $28.3 trillion over ten years. If Friedman is wrong, and the plan fails to reduce the growth of health care spending, it would result in $32.7 trillion in new federal spending. The Congressional Budget Office projects that total federal spending from 2017 to 2026, under current law, will exceed $51 trillion. So, under Friedman’s rosy scenario, Sanders’ health care plan would increase federal spending by an astounding 55 percent. If the promised savings fail to materialize, it would increase federal spending by 64 percent—or more.

That’s a huge expansion in the burden of government, even by Washington standards.

But Avik may be an optimist.

Also writing for Forbes, Professor Chris Conover of Duke thinks the spending increase would be even larger.

the actual cost of the Sanders health plan will be at least 40% more than he claims. In the worst case, it will be 49% higher….In short, the Sanders health plan would require a 71% increase in federal spending over the next decade. …everyone with even a passing knowledge of economics knows that if you lower the cost of something, demand for it will increase.

Based on a RAND Corporation study, he looks at behavioral responses.

So the empirical question is how much of an increase in demand to expect from this expansion in coverage. …The HIE demonstrated convincingly that among those with “free” health of the sort being proposed by Senator Sanders–i.e., zero copays or deductibles–health spending was 32% higher compared to those who had been randomly assigned to a cost-sharing plan having no deductible but required patients to pay 25% of every bill up to a maximum out-of-pocket limit of $1,000 (about $1,972 in 2016 dollars. …the RAND study showed the actual figure will be more than 10 times that amount. Correcting this error adds $12 trillion to the cost of the Sanders plan (whoops!).

In effect, Conover is generating more accurate numbers based on dynamic analysis (in the same way advocates of dynamic scoring try to fix mistakes in revenue estimates that assume no behavioral responses).

He includes a pie chart is his column so readers can get a sense of proportion.

cost of Bernie Sanders

By the way, guess what? All the new spending will mean lots of new taxes.

…the actual increase in federal taxes required by the Sanders plan is $28 trillion over 10 years, not the $13.8 trillion originally estimated by Prof. Friedman. When we further adjust this figure to more realistically account for higher demand due to moral hazard, the figure comes to $36.3 trillion

Yet if you look at all the new taxes proposed by Senator Sanders (including those designed to finance other expansions of government), the total is nowhere near $28 trillion or $36 trillion.

So when you look at this horrifying list, which the Washington Examiner estimatesis a 47 percent increase in the tax burden, keep in mind that the actual increase would be larger and more pervasive.

And we shouldn’t forget that Senator Sanders wants lots of spending in other areas, not just government-run healthcare.

So everything you’ve already read is actually the best-case scenario.

P.S. These images (here, here, and here) tell you everything you need to know about socialism/statism vs markets/liberty.

The true cost of the health care

Nevada Rancher And Federal Gov't Face Off Over Land Use Battle

MESQUITE, NV – APRIL 11: Rancher Cliven Bundy poses for a photo outside his ranch house on April 11, 2014 west of Mesquite, Nevada. Bureau of Land Management officials are rounding up Cliven Bundy’s cattle, he has been locked in a dispute with the BLM for a couple of decades over grazing rights. (Photo: George Frey/Getty Images

Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy was arrested by FBI agents in Portland, Oregon late Wednesday, as he stepped off a flight from Las Vegas. Bundy, the father of the jailed militia leader whose followers have occupied a federal wildlife refuge in eastern Oregon for the past 40 days, was booked in to the Multnomah County Detention Center shortly before 11 p.m. local time, the sheriff’s office confirmed.

The FBI declined to provide a reason or other details, only offering that more information would be released by the U.S. Attorney’s office in Las Vegas Thursday. However, a source told PPD that he was being held on charges dating back to the 2014 standoff between federal agents and militia members on his Nevada ranch.  yet only being arrested now.

The charges will include conspiracy to interfere with a federal officer, the same charge lodged against two of Bundy’s sons, Ammon and Ryan, for their role in the ongoing standoff at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.

The four protesters who remain at the refuge reportedly said they would surrender Thursday morning, but tapes leaked to the media revealed them telling the FBI they are trying to “murder innocent” people and that the only way they were leaving was “without charges” or dead.

Mike Arnold, Ammon Bundy’s lawyer told The Oregonian that Cliven Bundy was considering joining a news conference held by Nevada Assemblywoman Michele Fiore to discuss the ongoing occupation.

Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy was arrested by

People's Pundit Daily
You have %%pigeonMeterAvailable%% free %%pigeonCopyPage%% remaining this month. Get unlimited access and support reader-funded, independent data journalism.

Start a 14-day free trial now. Pay later!

Start Trial