Tidgren 1

Ben Tidgren
Professor Polking
Composition II
12 April 2016
Fresh Slogans...Old Ideas
A debate over the size and role of government rages stronger than ever in the
American political dialogue. A powerful movement has risen up among Americas left,
calling for a drastic expansion of the federal government. Bernie Sanders, a 2016
Democratic presidential candidate and self-described socialist, is the spearhead of this
movement. Sanders cites the growing wage gap between the rich and poor as his call
to action. He states, The issue of wealth and income inequality is the great moral issue
of our time, it is the great economic issue of our time, and it is the great political issue of
our time (Sanders). While Sanders claim that poverty and income inequality is a
problem in America certainly holds merit, his plan to combat this problem is
questionable.
In order to reduce the gap between rich and poor, Sanders has proposed an
extremely ambitious plan including tuition-free college for all, a single payer Medicaidfor-all plan, and a whole array of expensive government programs. Sanders believes
drastically increasing the size and role of government will solve the problems of poverty
and income inequality. Sanders represents a new breed of Democrat, one far more
extreme than those of recent memory. Though he calls himself a democratic socialist,
his plans indicate he is a social democrat. A social democrat calls for large government
programs and wealth redistribution. Bernie Sanders plans to get the government more

Tidgren 2

heavily involved in the economy by increasing regulations on corporations and Wall

Street and ensuring they are heavily taxed (Tupy). Gerald Friedman, a professor of
economics at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, has come out in support of
Sanders plan, saying it will be beneficial. Friedman makes the claim that in response to
Sanders plan, Median income would soar by more than $22,000. Nearly 26 million jobs
would be created. The unemployment rate would fall to 3.8%(Luhby). This analysis
should have us all Feelin the Bern. Afterall, it sounds too good to be true.
Unfortunately, it more than likely is.
Most economists agree that Friedmans analysis is overly optimistic. Even liberal
economists question his judgement. Former chairman of President Obamas Council of
Economic Advisors, Austan Goolsbee, insists that The numbers dont remotely add up
in regard to how Sanders will finance his plans (Calmes). The basic argument Sanders
presents is that bringing in massive amounts of new revenue from increased taxes
would be used to stimulate growth. All of this government money would be spent on the
people which would enable them to spend more money in the economy. The problem is,
most economists are saying the math is way off and that Sanders overestimates how
much revenue he would bring in. Friedmans analysis makes many other extremely
optimistic assumptions. In fact, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a
bipartisan group of budget experts, carried out its own analysis. It found that Sanders
policy would raise deficits by at least $3 trillion, and that is if he properly assessed the
costs of his programs (Sahadi). What Sanders overlooks is that when taxes are
increased to drastic levels, there are economic repercussions. Still, Sanders insists that
more government will solve Americas economic problems.

Tidgren 3

While I do agree with Senator Sanders assertion that the poor need to be taken
care of, and that wealthy should be taxed at high levels, the sheer magnitude of his
plans alarm me. Experts say Sanders plans would increase the size of the Federal
Government by as much as 50% (Calmes). The problem with this is that history has
shown us the great inefficiencies of government bureaucracy. Contrary to the claims of
Senator Bernie Sanders, a larger government will not only be expensive, inefficient, and
detrimental to growth, but will also fail to rid us of poverty and economic woes.
Sanders is not the first major American politician to prioritize fighting poverty. In
the 1960s, President Lyndon Johnson declared war on poverty. Before introducing his
first piece of anti-poverty legislation, Johnson famously claimed: The days of the dole
are in America are numbered (Gallaway). He introduced dozens of new government
programs all designed to bolster the lives of impoverished Americans. Robert Rector, a
Senior Research Fellow at the Institute for Family, Community, and Opportunity at the
Heritage Foundation along with Rachel Sheffield, a Policy Analyst, explain the extent
and level of success of Johnsons programs in a reflection on Johnsons War on
Poverty. They tell us,
Since that time, U.S. taxpayers have spent over $22 trillion on anti-poverty
programs (in constant 2012 dollars). Adjusted for inflation, this spending
(which does not include Social Security or Medicare) is three times the
cost of all military wars in U.S. history since the American Revolution.
Despite this mountain of spending, progress against poverty, at least as
measured by the government, has been minimal (Rector).

Tidgren 4

Johnsons vision for a Great Society free of poverty never came close to being a
reality. Despite trillions of dollars of spending, poverty appears to be far from eliminated.
In the year 2014, 46.7 million people fell below the poverty line. That is 14.8% of the
population. Back in 1964, the rate was approximately 19% (Desilver). If those are the
results of 50 years and $22 trillion dollars of spending, something is fundamentally
wrong with our policy.
On the surface, this seems to make no sense. Logically, spending more money
on the poor should reduce poverty levels. However, that has not happened, because
when people are classified as below the poverty line, all welfare benefits they receive
are left out. Ignoring welfare benefits in our measurement of poverty shows that welfare
is not intended to be an end result. If people are not intended to become reliant on
government welfare, the system is failing. For whatever welfare was intended to be, it
has become a permanent income source for many Americans. Before we expand these
programs and add new ones to the mix, we need to determine what the ultimate goal of
government aid needs to be. If the goal of government welfare truly is to get people
back into an independent state in which they can support themselves, then there needs
to be a serious fundamental change. Our current welfare state does a terrible job getting
people back to financial independence as demonstrated by the stagnant poverty rate.
Bernie Sanders plan would bring about more of the same.
To make things worse, Bernie Sanders plan would be extremely expensive. The
Wall Street Journal put an 18 trillion dollar price tag on his plans (Meckler). To pay for
this, he plans to make the rich pay their fair share (Sanders). Well, it is quite obvious
that Americas one percent does not have this much money. We dont have trillionaires.

Tidgren 5

Undoubtedly, the tax burden would fall on the middle class as well. If the programs
called for by Sanders and the far left became a reality, significantly more taxes and
regulations would be a certainty. These taxes and regulations would slow down
economic growth, and put more people out of work and reliant upon government
assistance. In 2011, a Gallup poll was conducted asking small business owners what
the most important problem facing them was. The top answer was complying with
government regulations, with 22% of those surveyed answering this way (Jacobe). But
not just small businesses hurt with high levels of taxation and regulation. Large scale
economic production suffers as well. William McBride in a publication for the Tax
Foundation on the effects of taxation stated, More and more, the consensus among
experts is that taxes on corporate and personal income are particularly harmful to
economic growth, with consumption and property taxes less so. This is because
economic growth ultimately comes from production, innovation, and risk-taking
(McBride).
As a society, we have for the most part come to the decision that some economic
growth must be sacrificed in order to ensure the poor are taken care of. This is a
necessity. One needs only read The Jungle by Upton Sinclair to realize in full the
dangers of unfettered capitalism. However, simply spending more money and
subsidizing more will not solve the problems. It has not in the past, and it will not today.
The United States currently has a debt of $19 trillion dollars, which hardly puts us a
position to create more programs to pay for. What America needs is moderation. It
needs to spend moderately, tax moderately, and deal with the debt problem.

Tidgren 6

People such as Bernie Sanders no doubt have noble intentions in their cries for
helping the poor. But if you listen to closely to their rhetoric, you might think you live in a
land of capitalism run rampant. This simply is not the case. America has a vast antipoverty system in place. It simply has not worked as well as it needs to. While Sanders
claims his new programs will make a positive change, the evidence does not back him
up. Without some concrete signs of progress in our current system, the federal
government is in no position to continue fruitlessly spending more and more in the
hopeless war on poverty. Rather than spend more, and expect different results, we need
to seek to reform what we are currently doing. The poor need to be cared for. But this
needs to be done efficiently. Somewhere in the middle, between a massive government
that spends trillions on social programs, and an unfettered capitalistic state, we must
walk the line. Politics as John Morley said is a field where action is one long second
best, and where the choice constantly lies between two blunders(qtd in Profiles In
Courage).

Tidgren 7

Works Cited
"Bernie Sanders." Bernie Sanders. Bernie 2016., n.d. Web. 09 Apr. 2016.
Calmes, Jackie. "Left-Leaning Economists Question Cost of Bernie Sanderss
Plans." The New York Times. The New York Times, 15 Feb. 2016. Web. 12 Apr.
2016.
Desilver, Drew. "Whos Poor in America? 50 Years into the War on Poverty, a Data
Portrait." Pew Research Center. Pew Research Center, 13 Jan. 2014. Web. 12 Apr.
2016.
Gallaway, Lowell E., and Daniel G. Garrett. "The unintended consequences of the
war on poverty." The Cato Journal 36.1 (2016): 33+. Academic OneFile. Web. 9 Apr.
2016.
Jacobe, Dennis. "Gov't Regulations at Top of Small-Business Owners' Problem List."
Gallup.com. Gallup Inc., 24 Oct. 2011. Web. 12 Apr. 2016.
Kennedy, John Fitzgerald, and Robert Francis Kennedy. Profiles in Courage
Memorial Edition. London: Harper & Row, 1964. Print.
Luhby, Tammy. "Under Sanders, Income and Jobs Would Soar, Economist Says."
CNNMoney. Cable News Network, 8 Feb. 2016. Web. 11 Apr. 2016.
McBride, William. "What Is the Evidence on Taxes and Growth?" Tax Foundation.
The Tax Foundation, 18 Dec. 2012. Web. 12 Apr. 2016.
Meckler, Laura. "Price Tag of Bernie Sanders's Proposals: $18 Trillion."WSJ. Dow
Jones & Company, Inc, n.d. Web. 09 Apr. 2016.

Tidgren 8

Rector, Robert. "Poverty and the Social Welfare State in the United States and Other
Nations." The Heritage Foundation. 2016 The Heritage Foundation, 16 Sept. 2016.
Web. 09 Apr. 2016.
Sahadi, Jeanne. "Bernie Sanders' Proposals to Pay for His Health Plan May Fall
Short by Trillions." CNNMoney. Cable News Network, 3 Feb. 2016. Web. 12 Apr.
2016.
Tupy, Marian. "Bernie Sanders Is Not a Socialist and America Is Not Capitalist." The
Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, 1 Mar. 2016. Web. 10 Apr. 2016.