Letter to the editor: Ranking the contents of 'Build Back Better'

Regarding Jonah Goldberg’s column “The trouble with ‘Build Back Better’ is no one really wants to pay for it” (Oct. 19, TribLIVE): First, the headline is disingenuous. Of course no one wants to pay for “Build Back Better.” The rich want no part of legislation that will raise taxes, and the poor haven’t got the money.

There is no question we would all like a new Mercedes, though I prefer American-made vehicles — is such a proposal on the table? Or is this simply a straw-man argument aimed solely to distract?

The actual contents of the bill include four weeks of paid parental leave, a cap on child care costs, lower prescription prices, new hearing benefit for people on Medicare, and a $500 billion attempt to save the planet with clean energy tax credits, like a Green New Deal. Which of these is less important than the equivalently priced but unpaid for Bush and Trump tax cuts? All are popular with the electorate even if the details are as yet unknown. We elect officeholders to fulfill their promises, upon which we based our voting decisions.

By the way, while it might be true that progressives are unwilling to pay more for single-payer health care, according to a study conducted by researchers at Yale, Florida and Maryland universities, the Sanders/Warren plan would save $450 billion a year, or $2,400 per family. When do we get a poll question like, “What is the minimum savings to you and your family that you would accept in exchange for 100% medical coverage for everyone?” Please tell us the results.

Dennis Gallagher

Bellevue