Socialism in America -or- How to Screw Up the Greatest Country in the World Without Even Trying

October 19, 2018

It’s election season again and the socialists are coming out in full bloom. In fact, this year looks to be a bumper crop. Every election cycle the socialists reemerge with new and more devious ideas about how they are better able to spend your money than you are. This year, however, they have a much better marketing plan to sell the same old failed ideology.

The new marketing plan consists of changing the name from the Socialists Party to the Democratic Socialist Party. This is an oxymoron if I ever heard one. The use of the word democratic is supposed to make the idea of socialism more palatable. It doesn’t. This is nothing but a marketing ploy. There is nothing democratic about socialism.

The other part of their new marketing strategy was to take a young attractive Hispanic woman with red lipstick and make her the new face of the Socialist Party. She certainly has a more pleasant appearance than Bernie Sanders.

I do have one positive comment about the so-called Democratic Socialist Party. And that is that they are at least being very upfront about what their plans are for our country. One of the main items of their agenda is Medicare for all or single payer health care. Another part of their grand plan is free tuition at all public colleges and universities. One of the most contentious issues that they want to impose on the citizens of this country is an open border policy and the abolition of the US Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The socialist agenda also includes nominating left-wing activists judges who, instead of interpreting the constitution as written, would instead interpret it through the lens of their political views. Finally, in order to pay for all this generosity, tax rates would have to rise significantly, and possibly double. Do you want to work for nothing?

I’m going to analyze these agenda items one by one. It is estimated that Medicare for all would cost $32T over ten years if implemented. To break this down, let’s just say $3.2T per year. If we were to implement “Medicare for all” we could eliminate the government programs of Medicare and Medicaid.. This would result in a net savings of $1.3T per year. There is also $235B that is collected through the Medicare payroll tax. Added together, the total savings would be $1.535T. This would be an offset against the $3.2T cost of Medicare for all resulting in a net increase in total government spending of $1.665T. This would be a 40% total increase in total government spending.

I also have other problems with “Medicare for all” besides the $1.7T price tag. There is also the issue of the lower quality health care that would be provided. The government reimburses health care providers at a lower rate than private insurance companies. Therefore, if the government were to take over the health care insurance industry then medical facilities (hospitals), specialized medical facilities (radiology and imaging), and doctors in general would generate less revenue. Less revenue means less money to pay staff. It also means less money to maintain the facility and the infrastructure. And it also means less money to invest in new, more technologically advanced equipment. This last item is particularly relevant today with all the new innovations being invented because of computerization and technology. I could probably come up with more specific examples, but I think the point has been made. High quality health care costs money. Less money to health care providers means lower quality health care.

The logic of those who are pushing for government-run healthcare insurance is that the government is more efficient than private sector health insurance companies. The words “government” and “efficient” do not belong in the same sentence. This is the same government that we all know squanders tens of billions of taxpayer dollars every year. It is also the same government in which cost overruns have become a way of life. Do we really want to put government bureaucrats in charge of one sixth of the country’s economy? Given what we know about government spending habits, I would strongly recommend against that.

Another government give-away proposed by Bernie and the gang is free college tuition at all public colleges and universities. Estimates of how much this program would cost range from $50B to $75B per year depending on just how the program is written and just what exactly would be included in the bill. The cost would also depend on who would be eligible for this program. Would it cover just US citizens or everybody else in the world, including illegal aliens?

The other issue that would affect the cost of this program is that some states have already made free tuition available to students of their states who wish to attend a two year community college. If all states were to pass legislation of this nature, it would move a large portion of the cost of this program back to the state level. So there are many variables that would affect the final cost to the federal government.

Here again, as with the “Medicare for all” entitlement, there would be offsets. The government currently spends about $30B per year on college grants and low interest loans. If these programs were eliminated, the savings would be an offset to the cost of the new tuition entitlement. The net cost of the program would still be in the tens of billions, but it would significantly reduce the cost of the program.

The downside of government funded tuition is that the government would become the main source, if not the sole source, of funding for public colleges and universities. The government would be in a position to influence what courses were taught and even have a say in the lesson plans. This is the case in countries where free speech, freedom of the press, and government dissent is not allowed. This is not the direction I want the country to go in. This type of issue is always a problem when government has input into what is, and what is not, taught in our schools.

I have problems with new entitlements in general. The problem I have is that they are subject to change when members of the House, the Senate, and the executive branch change. For example, Bernie Sanders could be in favor of government paid tuition at all public colleges and universities for US citizens. However, as we have heard numerous times, “Elections have consequences.” Congressional and senate personnel could change and new legislation could be passed that would entitle anyone living here, regardless of whether or not they were citizens, to free tuition. So even though a person may have been in favor of the original legislation, changes could be made that would make the legislation unacceptable to those who were originally in favor of it.

I also have another problem which unfortunately is built into the nature of entitlements. It is that once an entitlement is passed, it is virtually impossible to repeal. Politicians don’t have the political will to take a benefit away from their constituents because they’re afraid that they may not get reelected. When people are in the habit of receiving “free stuff” there is a strong resistance to giving it up. In their minds the “free stuff” is theirs and the government has no right to take it away.

The final problem I have with new entitlements is that, as a country, we are $22T in debt. By the way, that number does not include unfunded liabilities such as social security and Medicare which total about $100T. Additionally, entitlements now consume two thirds of our annual federal budget. Adding “Medicare for all” and free tuition will make the already burdensome problem of the national debt almost impossible to handle.