George Will: Are the Democrats trying to lose? |
George F. Will, Columnist

George Will: Are the Democrats trying to lose?

George Will
From left, Marianne Williamson, Rep. Tim Ryan, Sen. Amy Klobuchar, South Bend, Ind. Mayor Pete Buttigieg, Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, Beto O’Rourke, John Hickenlooper, John Delaney and Montana Gov. Steve Bullock take the stage for the first of two Democratic presidential primary debates July 30 in the Fox Theatre in Detroit.


Watching Democratic presidential aspirants is like watching, a century ago, the 1919 World Series, when discerning spectators thought: Some of the White Sox are trying to lose.

Michael Boskin, chairman of President George H.W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers and currently at Stanford’s Hoover Institution, pays the Democrats the injurious compliment of taking seriously their aspirations, which are characterized by a disqualifying flippancy. For example:

Medicare for all is popular (when depriving 217 million people of their private insurance goes unmentioned) because, Boskin notes, under Medicare today “most of its costs are paid by taxpayers, not the beneficiaries themselves. But if it covers everybody, there will be no one outside the system to subsidize the recipients.” This will mean “much larger, politically determined taxes and cross-subsidies,” and rationing of health care as in Canada and Europe “where long waits are the rule.”

Sen. Bernie Sanders’ plan promises no co-pays, no deductibles and no premiums, so pricing medical care at zero will produce a surge in demand for services from a Medicare system that already “faces unfunded liabilities more than twice the national debt” ($22 trillion). And the Part A Hospital Insurance Fund “won’t be able to pay all its bills in a few years.” And: “Current Medicare, with its low reimbursement rates, would be unsustainable without the large role played by the higher-paying private (primarily employer- based) plans in keeping doctors and hospitals in business.”

Democratic promises include a $1,000 per month universal basic income, free universal preschool and community college (perhaps four-year colleges, too), expanded child-care subsidies, rent subsidies (which will increase demand for, thereby increasing the cost of, rental units), complete forgiveness of $1.6 trillion of student debt, and on and on.

Boskin notes that the Social Security 2100 Act, which has 210 Democratic co-sponsors, would pay for the largest benefits expansion since 1972 by raising the payroll tax almost 20% to 14.8%, and uncapping the maximum earnings subject to the tax. Then add the promised 70% top income tax rate, a 3% wealth tax, a financial transactions tax, a one-third increase in the corporate rate and increased taxation of capital gains. Boskin says the 70% rate, “an average 7% top state personal tax rate,” and the 14.8% payroll tax by themselves would mean “a 91.8% marginal tax rate.” And even this would not come close to paying for the Democrats’ promised spending explosion.

Being scientifically as well as numerically illiterate, some Democratic candidates have embraced the Green New Deal’s promise to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions from American agriculture, which is essential to feeding the world’s 7.5 billion people. Boskin says this:

Fossil fuels are essential to tillage, transportation, grain drying, manufacturing fertilizer, pesticides, farm equipment and farm electricity. Fertilizers increase U.S. wheat and corn yields 70% and more than 100%, respectively. President George W. Bush’s greatly increased ethanol mandates for vehicle fuels caused a decline in food crop acreage, which caused a 20% to 40% increase in corn prices, which increased hunger in corn-importing countries (e.g., Mexico, Egypt and in sub-Saharan Africa).

Perhaps 2019 is 1919 with both parties being the White Sox, some of whom tried to lose that year’s World Series — and did. Unfortunately, in 2020, both parties cannot succeed at failing.

George Will is a columnist for The Washington Post and can be reached via email.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.