In the early days of the 2016 presidential cycle, a time that
seems so long ago, I remember when
Bernie Sanders tossed his hat in the ring, the message
put forth by his supporters was that he
only wanted to force Hillary Clinton to
embrace his more left leaning issues. He
proposed some pie in the sky remedies, free state university tuition, Medicare
for All, and no more trade agreements that harm American jobs.
Few knew him then,
but many do now and he had a message that spoke to so many, those who were
burdened by tuition debt and those who felt left out of the recovery from the
trickle down economics of the Bush years and the 2008 crash. He has avoided
with skill appearing to criticize the policies of Pres. Obama while doing it
anyway.
Many of Sanders’ proposals have not gotten much scrutiny.
The cost to the American taxpayer of these proposals is an issue that has
gotten lost in the wishful thinking of his ardent supporters. All would have to see their taxes rise,
though more so on the rich. The tax increases to the middle class would be
offset by the savings of the government supported programs he claims, but that tradeoff’s
economic soundness has never been fully vetted. Putting up trade barriers also
begets retaliation by countries who would raise their tariffs on American
imports. Eleven million US workers have
jobs dependent on exports. Trade wars could hurt workers more than raising
trade barriers would help.
Sanders now sees
himself closer to winning the nomination and he points to polls showing he is
electable. All of the delegate counters on mainstream media say the potential
delegate tally needed to catch up with Hillary only adds up with great
difficulty. Sanders is banking that if
he pulls even with Clinton in earned/pledged delegates, enough of the super delegates who are still free to switch
will automatically come to him. He will have to do better than just even: super
delegates are political pros who are more establishment and are not prone to go
back on promises unless they see Sanders as a clear winner.
Instead of a well-meaning uncle sticking to a
comparison of issue positions, Sanders has switched strategy: to attack Hillary Clinton personally, as a
person who takes money from big oil and fossil fuel interests. That is a direct charge that she is corrupt.
Per a recent Washington Post fact checker, no fossil fuel PACs or corporations
have contributed to her campaign and if the individuals who did were employees
or lobbyists of the industry, those contributions did not exceed 2% of the
total she has raised.
So heated have
Sanders’ personal attacks of Clinton been, some of his supporters are pledging
not to support Clinton if she gets the nomination. If they keep that up, Democrats
are in danger of blowing a good thing.
There is a chance if the Democrats support one another in the general
election regardless of who they supported in the primaries, given the dismal poll
numbers of either Trump or Cruz, Congress could change hands, the Supreme Court
would be more favorable, and chances are
better that some of the agenda outlined by Sanders in some version could actually be implemented.
http://businessroundtable.org/sites/default/files/reports/TradeAndJobs2014Update.PDF
No comments:
Post a Comment