Bernlandia

Bernie Sanders, technologist, recently used The Twitter to make what he considers to be a valid argument in the “Is there anything we can’t make free?” campaign, which is probably a warm-up for yet another nauseating series of lectures while he again runs his mouth for something.  Like a public office.

Bernie extols us to “take a look” at Finland, which I can’t easily do without socialized medicine providing me with telescopic peepers with which I will look across at least one really big ocean to peer, mindfully, at the Land of Fin.

Finland.  Happiest place on earth, according to the UN.  This is the same UN that ignored a really unhappy place called Rwanda a few years ago, and I think some hundreds of thousands of people died, but we’re not here to talk about the utility of the UN, are we?  We’re here to learn what Bernie Sanders thinks we should all do.

Bernie asks, understandably, because he doesn’t really understand math or even actually want to, why can’t the US be more like Finland?

Well, hey, let’s look at the data:

Finland:

Population: 5.50 million (2016)

GDP: $251.48 billion USD (2018)

Area: 130,559 sq miles (338,145 km²)

United States of Finland, er, America:

Population: 323.13 million (2016)

GDP: $20.20 trillion USD (2017)

Area: 3.80 million sq miles (9.83 million km²)

So, in comparison:

Population:  The US has 64.6 times more people than Finland does.  New York City alone has more people than all of Finland, even if you threw in a couple of extra million theoretical Finns.

GDP:  The US economy is 79.5 times larger than Finland’s.   In terms of GDP, the US is 2nd.  Finland is 63rd.  Maybe comparing two incomparable countries isn’t a great idea, as a starting point to ask a question on Twitter.  It’s like comparing, oh, I don’t know, Karl Marx to Alexis de Tocqueville, and wondering why these two would be unlikely to get along.

Area:  From a logistics standpoint, this is relevant – the US is much larger than Finland (sorry, Finland, but size matters), and so trying to draw comparisons to how things work when they’re so different as to be incomparable means you’re Bernie Sanders, the Logical Fallacy Master.

Net migration:  What’s not mentioned by Bernie, in his Ode to Finnish Joy, is that, despite Finland’s happiness meter pinging off the charts,

The finest in Finnish fjords. For free. Theoretically.

about a quadrillion more people emigrate to the United States each year, I guess because it’s awful and they like to be unhappy in the United States.  In fact, from 2007 to 2012, the US had a net migration of just over 5 million people.  Finland’s population is 5.4 million.  In other words, the United States assimilates a Finland, every 5 years.

Except, of course, that we don’t – Finland is almost 100% native Finlanders.  The United States is not.  The United States is a melting pot of different ethnicities, with millions of people from all over the world moving here.  If Finland is so fantastic, why aren’t millions moving to Finland?  Why doesn’t Sanders criticize Finland for its lack of diversity?

Lastly, why is Finland so happy when it’s got an 8.8% unemployment rate?  One that was over 10% just a year ago?  One of the reasons might be that Finland decided to give all its citizens money, in support of the idea of a basic income:

The basic income program in Finland, which was praised as cutting edge when it was announced, pays $690 to 2,000 Finns each month, with no conditions.

Well, that’s toast:

Finland’s social security institution, Kela, selected participants at random from people ages 25 to 58 who were unemployed. Initially, the program was supposed to be expanded this year to include workers as well as non-workers, but instead the monthly payouts to these individuals will end in 2019.

Why would Finland think a basic income would be a great idea?

The basic income experiment was proposed as a solution to the unemployment rate in Finland, which reached a 17-year high of 10% in 2015. The payouts were designed to support citizens while encouraging them to find work, since the country’s other welfare benefits don’t apply to people once they are employed.

But in December, the Finnish parliament passed a bill that requires jobseekers to work 18 hours minimum for three months, making unemployment benefits contingent on finding some work.

“Right now, the government is making changes that are taking the system further away from a basic income,” Kela researcher Miska Simanainen told the Swedish daily Svenska Dagbladet.

While 70% of Finns supported the idea of basic income, surveys show that number drops to 35% when respondents are told that already-

Pull my finger, fellow Socialists!

high income taxes would have to increase in order to cover the cost of the program.

Oh.  Well.  Looks like money can’t buy happiness.

Bernie’s idea of a utopian United States, a United States that emulates a country that’s rapidly moving away from the same kinds of ideas Bernie espouses in Congress, seems to be a logical fallacy that even the dimmest bulb on the planet might perceive.

But when you’re living in Socialism Fairyland ™, where each Senator gets what he wants, according to his needs (and Bernie needs 3 houses), then reality doesn’t matter.  All that matters is that he can sell these ideas, for votes, and support from people who really don’t understand how wrong Sanders has been, on everything, his entire life.

Advertisements

Bernie Sanders: Too Big And Failed

A couple of weeks back, Communism’s own Bernie Sanders took time out of his failed presidential bid to sit down with Jake Tapper on CNN,

Watch out! Highly efficient business model coming in hot!

because a lack of more pressing political dumpster fires meant CNN had a slot to fill that day.

As part of that interview, Bernie took the opportunity to note that Amazon is getting “too big”, which means, as usual, that Bernie is still obsessed over size:

Sen. Bernie Sanders thinks Amazon has gotten so large that it requires closer scrutiny of its “power and influence.”

On CNN’s “State of the Union” on Sunday, the anchor Jake Tapper asked Sanders whether Amazon had gotten too big.

“Yeah, I do, I do,” said Sanders, the independent senator from Vermont who ran as a Democratic presidential candidate in 2016.

“This is an issue that has got to be looked at,” he added. “What we are seeing all over this country is the decline in retail. We’re seeing this incredibly large company getting involved in almost every area of commerce. And I think it is important to take a look at the power and influence that Amazon has.”

Funny, Bernie seems to have no problems at all hawking his dog-eared revolutionary garbage on Amazon, so he can make a buck on it.  One can only assume Bernie takes his evil, capitalistic profits from his Amazon sales and spends them at the local retail shops near any one of his three houses.  Or donates his earnings to charity.  “Charity” being the secret code name of the lake house he and his wife bought.

As a rule of thumb, when politicians start talking about things getting “too big”, they are never, ever, talking about government spending.  To that, they are helplessly unaccountable.  Then, it’s only a question of how much more additional spending, and what it’s being spent on, that drives their support.

For example, in 2008, Bernie had harsh words for those who opposed stimulus spending, or as others might call it, vote buying with taxpayer dollars and borrowed money:

It is extremely disappointing that President Bush and most of the Senate Republicans are playing political games with our economy and the needs of the American people. This economic stimulus package provides a tax rebate not only to working families and their kids, but to millions of seniors on Social Security and disabled veterans. It also increases funding for home heating assistance and other important programs.

So, even though Sanders has recently voted against Trump’s budget, historically, Bernie has been quite happy to determine what industries are OK to be too big to fail, and which ones aren’t.  In other words, he believes it’s his job to pick the winners and losers in the economy, as long as it benefits him politically.  Which is why he supported bailing out the auto industry, instead of calling it too big to fail, because there are automobile unions, you see, and where there’s a union, there’s Bernie, hawking his vote so he can stay in office and tell us all what’s too big to fail, or not.  In Bernie’s words:

The problem is if you don’t act in the midst of a growing recession what does it mean to create a situation where millions of more people

An example of the Detroit Renaissance, courtesy of union bailouts.  Changes from 2008-2013.  Photo courtesy: https://ijr.com/2014/06/145906-watch-city-detroit-fall-apart-eyes/

become unemployed and that could spread and I have serious concerns about that I think it would be a terrible idea to add millions more to the unemployment rolls.

By this thinking, we should borrow trillions to pay people to dig holes and fill them back in, so the unemployment rolls would remain low.

But let’s get back to Amazon, and Bernie’s consistent misunderstanding of economics.  In his words:

“When you have companies like Amazon that have extraordinary power, when you have companies like Facebook that to a significant degree control discourse, am I concerned about monopoly power? Absolutely,” he told the news outlet. “We need to have the kind of discussion that Congress has not had yet.”

Yet Bernie is quite fine with socialized medicine, which does, in fact, monopolize power over one of the most important services people consume in their lifetimes.  Bernie’s quite happy with a monopoly in that situation. Why does he have a problem with a company that sells everything from toothbrushes to tacos, but not one that will decide whether or not you get a heart bypass?

Because Bernie is fine with the aggregation of power, as long as it’s in a centralized government, that he himself is a participant in.  That kind of size, Bernie is in love with.  It means more houses for him, more control over Americans’ lives, and more self-justification for what Bernie indulges himself in, daily, in terms of aggrandizing power – his innate selfishness, and desire to control what he himself never could have earned out in the real world.

 

…And Medicare For All

Bernie Sanders, “independent” Senator who’s not from Vermont but owns two houses there, has recently found the time in

What a Senator looks like when you explain the phrase “unfunded liabilities” to him.

his busy schedule to suggest yet another unworkable, ill-conceived, and destructive way to increase federal power and reduce the choices people can make.  Whoops.  I meant “Give everyone something for free, again, without figuring out how in the hell to pay for it”.

Bernie even conveniently slaps a group of meaningless statements on the splash page of his shiny, new, taxpayer-funded website, where such complex ideas as payer mix and 4,000 pages of the tax code are easily, casually batted aside in favor of putting words up on the internet and hoping they mean something when he tries to run for President again in 2020.

Which really means he hopes they’ll buy him some votes.  But I repeat myself.

Bernie’s solution to a multi-trillion dollar health care problem is…more cowbell!  In the form of more (not less) Medicare!

But wait.  I thought Medicare had unfunded liabilities in the trillions of dollars ($28-35 trillion, but what’s ten or twenty trillion amongst friends?).  Why would a sitting (mostly sitting, but frequently kvetching) US Senator want to run up the credit card on US taxpayers, and worse, run it up on taxpayers who aren’t even born yet?

Let’s let some of Bernie’s ideas speak for themselves – these ideas should guide our thinking, and convince us that he’s got the best idea ever, right?  Here’s one:

You mean Obamacare didn’t do this already? Fail.

We must ensure all Americans can access the health care they need regardless of their income.

It’s great to have someone who can afford 3 houses keep the little people of America in mind while he’s posting insipid graphics on a taxpayer-funded website.  But, to address his statement:  Everyone already has access to health care.

I’ll repeat it:  Everyone already has access to health care.

What they don’t have is a government-issued insurance card, which does not guarantee access to health care, or hire or train one more doctor, nurse, or anesthesiologist.

So the issuance of a new “Medicare For Everyone!” insurance card won’t increase access for anyone.  Anywhere.  In fact, given the reality that many providers won’t take Medicare patients, because this version of single-payer does not reimburse providers at cost, it will likely mean even fewer people will have access to health care, which really means access to a provider.

By “our”, does Bernie mean he’s going to be treating patients? One assumes he won’t be checking party affiliations when choosing which patients to see.

We must get our runaway health care spending under control by eliminating waste and focusing on our patients.

Health care spending is “running away” for a host of reasons, very, very little of which has to do with waste.  The rate of private insurance price increases has everything to do with the cost-shift from Medicare (and Medicaid) to private insurers, which results in even less access to care.  From the link:

Once again, each round of Medicare cost shifting to non-Medicare patients routinely shows up in higher insurance premium costs for younger workers and their families, who are already paying the bulk of Medicare bills through their taxes. The level of Medicare cost shifting and the impact on private health insurance will vary from year to year, but these additional costs are in the tens of billions of dollars annually.

In sum, today Medicare imposes financial obligations on most taxpayers in three ways: (1) through their payroll taxes, (2) through their general revenue subsidies of Part B and Part D, and (3) through higher premium costs in their own private coverage to offset Medicare payment policies. For upper-income Americans, the new Medicare tax of 3.8 percent on their “unearned” income, such as stocks and bonds, is earmarked for funding the provisions of the PPACA, not Medicare.

Oh, and that Mayo Clinic picture, above, that Bernie uses on his website?  Here’s some revealing Medicare text directly from the Mayo Clinic:

Although Mayo Clinic doesn’t participate with Medicare Part B, Medicare will help pay for services provided by Mayo Clinic. Claims will be filed to Medicare Part B and supplemental or secondary insurance companies on your behalf. Medicare Part B and supplemental or secondary insurance payments may be sent directly to you. Patients will be responsible for reimbursing Mayo Clinic for any payments they receive and any balances not covered by their insurance.

In other words, Medicare doesn’t cover everything the patient is charged.  It’s not a free medical cost deflector shield.

But let’s have just one more bite at Bernie’s Medicare apple:

Do we need a system that covers people who only own 1 house?

We need a system that works not just for millionaires and billionaires, but for all of us.

Providing “Medicaid for All” would not change a millionaire or billionaire’s ability to pay for their own insurance, or handle out of pocket expenses.  Assuming, again, by this statement, that the system only works for rich people is hilarious on its face, if you’ve ever worked at a hospital.  Or been rational in your thinking.

And since Bernie seems to forget economic reality as part of his morning wake-up routine (after eating his taxpayer-funded breakfast), let’s remember that the richest people in the United States pay the vast majority of income taxes collected.  In fact, the top 10% of earners pay 70% of all income taxes collected.  And half the country pays no net income taxes, at all.  77.5 million households don’t pay any income tax.  Inevitably, Bernie will want to tap the incomes of the people he seems to hate the most, regardless of how much of a burden they already carry.

So what does Bernie really want?  More power, centralized, in the government, to be controlled by him and the rest of the

Free “Wellness”, America. Step inside. Carefully.

clownshow that thinks it’s qualified to make decisions on your behalf.  When the country drowns in debt and unfunded liabilities, and a recently failed presidential candidate thinks we should double down on that destructive debt strategy, then we clearly have put the wrong clowns in positions of power.

We need new clowns.

 

 

 

The Mask Drops: Sanders Unchained

Brooklyn’s own Bernie Sanders (Vermont Senator but really a flatlander with 3 houses, which really, really makes him a flatlander)

Not pictured here: The new chains Bernie wants to put on all of us.

has let slip the dogs of….single-payer?  Not that this is any surprise, but Bernie has stated that he will be introducing a single-payer bill, which he describes as “Medicare for All”.

What an enormous favor Bernie’s doing for Americans!  Why didn’t anyone think of this before?  A truly brilliant analysis and solution provided by a US Senator who didn’t receive his first paycheck until he was 40 years old!

What sort of delights will US citizens receive when Bernie puts us all on Medicare?  Let’s take a look:

Medicare Part A will go bankrupt in 13 years.

Medicare’s Hospital Insurance (HI) or “Part A” Trust Fund ran a cash flow deficit of $8.1 billion in 2014. Expenditures from the Part A trust fund exceeded annual income every year between 2008 and 2014. The Medicare Trustees estimate that the Part A trust fund will generate surpluses between 2015 and 2023 due to recently enacted legislation and an assumed continuation of the economic recovery. Specifically, the Medicare Part A trust fund income is expected to exceed expenditures by about $2 billion in 2015. This surplus continues for the next 8 years – through 2023. Deficits are projected to return in 2024 and will continue until the Part A trust fund is officially bankrupt in 2030, at which time the Medicare program will no longer be able to pay full benefits for seniors.

Medicare Part B will consume a quarter of all federal income taxes by 2089:

The Supplementary Medical Insurance (SMI) or “Part B” trust fund pays for physician care, outpatient services, and prescription drugs. According to Medicare’s actuaries, SMI spending is growing at a rapid rate. The Trustees report evaluates the long term implications of escalating SMI cost growth by comparing it to total Federal income taxes (personal and corporate) during the same fiscal year. The Trustees now predict that, if future federal taxes maintain their historical average level (relative to the national economy), then SMI general revenue financing in 2089 will represent 26 percent of total Federal income taxes.

The Independent Payment Advisory Board – an unelected board that sets target levels for spending on Medicare – will set “savings

Bernie brainstorming.

targets” annually, which means cuts to reimbursements to hospitals and providers.

The health care law created a 15-member Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) charged with making recommendations to cut Medicare spending if and when the program’s spending exceeds specified economic growth targets. Since 2013, the CMS Chief Actuary has been required to calculate both the projected and target growth rates. If the Chief Actuary determines that the projected Medicare per capita growth rate exceeds the per capita target growth rate in a given implementation year, then the Chief Actuary must set a savings target for that year. For determination year 2013 through 2015, target growth rates have not been exceeded.

The Trustees now predict that Medicare’s per capita growth rate will exceed the per capita target growth rate in 2017 – five years earlier than projected in last year’s report. Legislation (S. 141, the “Protecting Seniors Access to Medicare Act”) has been introduced in the Senate that would repeal this unelected, unaccountable IPAB board. The House of Representatives approved a companion measure, H.R. 1190, on June 23, 2015.

Unfunded obligations in the tens of trillions of dollars:

Medicare Part A is financed by a 2.9 percent payroll tax that is split between employers and employees. The health care law (starting in 2013) mandated an additional 0.9 percent payroll tax on wages over $200,000 for single filers and $250,000 for married filers. There is no upper limit on earnings subject to the tax. Income deposited into the Part A trust fund is credited using interest-bearing government securities. Expenditures for medical services and administrative costs are recorded against the fund. Securities represent obligations the government has issued to itself. The Medicare Trustees estimate the Medicare Part A total unfunded obligation over 75 years is $3.2 trillion. Using the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Actuary’s alternative projection, which looks at Medicare’s financial footing using more realistic assumptions, the Part A unfunded obligation over 75 years climbs to $7.9 trillion.

Unlike the Medicare Part A trust fund which has a dedicated revenue stream (the HI payroll tax), Medicare Part B and Medicare Part D (prescription drug benefit) are funded by beneficiary premiums and general revenue. As a result, the Medicare Trustees estimate that the amount of taxes collected over the next 75 years that will be spent to pay for Medicare Part B and Part D services equals $24.8 trillion.

Assuming current law remains unchanged, the Trustees project Medicare’s 75 year total spending in excess of dedicated revenues is $27.9 trillion. Again, using the CMS Actuary’s more realistic alternative scenario, that figure soars to $36.8 trillion.

All of this is just the start for “Medicare for All”.  Because Medicare reimburses providers below the cost of providing that service, and there would be no more private insurance to push the costs onto (via increased rates in the private market), the inevitable result of underpaying for services is a reduction in services provided – or, as users of Great Britain’s NHS are enjoying right now – the rationing of health care.

Since Sanders currently enjoys a tasty exemption from the Obamacare mandate, through a subsidy provided to Congress and their staffs, I would also expect the Senator, once full ensconced in the warm, loving embrace of Medicare For All to ditch his subsidy and wallow in the results of his legislation, like the people he’s planning to foist it upon.

But the larger question remains:  If Sanders thinks Medicare For All is the solution to the nation’s health care problems, what, out of

Bernie looks great in a hat here.

the above, makes him think he’s doing anything other than setting us on a path that a) reduces access to care, and b) increases the rate at which the federal budget implodes?

And this is his best idea of a fix?  Then I’d hate to see the ideas he discarded as being unworkable.  His latest is another example of what happens when politicians are put in charge of our lives, and their only accountability to the impacts they make on us is whether or not they can sell 50% of the voting populace on the idea that they’re giving them something they need, for free, paid for by someone else.

 

 

 

The Screaming Hypocrites

Sen. Bernie Sanders, “independent” Senator from New York, er, Vermont, and is only as “independent” as his paychecks coming from the

Sayanara, suckers!

Sayanara, suckers!

pockets of working people allow him to be, recently demonstrated his solidarity with the proletariat by purchasing a $600,000 lakefront house in North Hero, VT.

For those with some semblance of self-awareness, perhaps even shame, purchasing a house that the vast majority of Vermonters can’t afford,bernie 2% a purchase certainly assisted by his wife’s $200,000 golden parachute earned by financially sinking Burlington College under her tenure as college president, seems, well….mildly hypocritical?  And might seem, to ardent, and occasionally frothing-at-the-mouth Bernie supporters, to be a complete and utter sellout to the values he espoused while happily taking in millions in contributions from their modest barista earnings from the corner coffee shop?bernie 2% calc

If the hypocrisy isn’t perfectly clear, let me shine a bright light on the Dome of Mt. Bernie:

In 2014, Bernie and his wife earned a bit over $200,000.  In Vermont, that puts them in the 2% category.  That’s right, in Bernie’s adopted home state, he’s not quite a 1%-er he’s been railing against for the past several years, but he’s almost there.  This New York 2%-er has spent the bulk of his adult life complaining about rich people.

And now he’s one of them, and he’s going to show it, by buying a house in Vermont that real Vermonters can only drive past, knowing that

Not shown here: Bernie's income.

with Vermont’s median household income slipping, there’s no way, ever, they will find themselves in the kind of surroundings the self-proclaimed “Man” of the people has laughingly ensconced himself.

Oh, and in case it wasn’t clear –there’s a long-standing tradition of feathering the Sanders family nest with money from other people.  Like Burlington College funding classes at a woodworking school, a school run by Jane’s daughter, Carina Driscoll, and one paid $500,000 for

Thanks Mom!

Thanks Mom!

classes from Burlington College.  Those Burlington College classes ceased as soon as Jane left Burlington College.  Did they run out of wood?

 

Or the son of a sitting Burlington College board member, getting his Caribbean “education program” funded by the college?

Burlington College offered its students a study abroad program in the Caribbean, according to tax filings. It reported spending about $47,000 on that program in the tax year beginning in mid-2008.

Around that time, the son of Jonathan Leopold, a Burlington College board member, purchased a small resort in the Bahamas called Andro’s Beach Club and an accompanying hotel, Nathan’s Lodge.

Leopold served with Sanders in the Burlington city government—as mayor, Sanders appointed Leopold city treasurer—before becoming embroiled in scandal involving millions of dollars in payments to a Burlington telecommunications company.

Sen. Sanders has described Leopold as so close a friend as to be considered “family.” He reportedly discouraged Sanders’ socialist impulses early in their careers. Efforts to reach Leopold were unsuccessful.

Shortly after Leopold’s son, also named Jonathan, purchased the resort, Burlington College began writing it large checks for all-inclusive stays for its study abroad students.

Where Jonathan’s job is “Tour Guide, Captain, and Snorkeling Instructor for Burlington College”?

There's a snorkeling major?

There’s a snorkeling major?

 

None of this is necessarily new news, but it is telling that so many Sanders supporters quite happily endorsed a candidate who’s been telling

them one thing, about how they should live their lives, that there’s too many choices of deodorant on store shelves, that rich people are essentially monsters, taking from the working class.  But how he’s lived his life and

provided for himself and his family seems to look, a lot, like how those evil rich people cariacatures he’s demonized all his life live their lives.

 

 

 

The Power of No

What happens when you have the power to deny, to say “no”?  Then you are in control.  The person denied has no control, no power, no other option.  The power to say “no” is like being an umpire in a baseball game.  You can complain all you want, yell, kick some dirt (if you’re a

When good people hear the word "No". OK, marginally good people.

When good people hear the word “No”. OK, marginally good people.

former Yankee manager), or throw second base, but 99.9% of the time, you will not get what you want.  You’ll go back to the dugout (and like it), or you’ll get ejected.

Those are your two options.  That’s it.  Neither option satisfies the complaint.

In markets, competition means choices for the buyer, of whatever product or service they’re interested in acquiring.  With competition comes incentives for the business to provide a better service at a lower price, in order to gain more market share.  Choice erases the power to say “no”, because if you don’t like what you’re offered, you can take your business elsewhere.  Now the customer has the power to say “No”.

But what if you’re the only game in town?  A monopoly?  Those are generally illegal, which is why the government spends so much time enforcing antitrust laws.  In fact, they helpfully define them:

Many consumers have never heard of antitrust laws, but enforcement of these laws saves consumers millions and even billions of dollars a year. The Federal Government enforces three major Federal antitrust laws, and most states also have their own. Essentially, these laws prohibit business practices that unreasonably deprive consumers of the benefits of competition, resulting in higher prices for products and services.

But what the DoJ does not do is enforce antitrust laws against the US government, which has the market cornered (so to speak) on cornered markets, especially for health care, in Medicare and Medicaid, and other recipients of federal…care.

In fact, for some on the receiving end of the government’s monopoly on health care for their particular demographic, not being able to shop for better coverage means you’re stuck with whatever the government gives you.

In some cases, that means much more than sub-standard care.  It means catastrophically bad care, which is why only the US government could be the entity providing “care” to veterans, and have them die on their watch.  In the very place that’s been created and funded specifically for their needs.

Who has had the responsibility and oversight for this organization, the Veterans Administration?  Politicians.  More specifically, a politician who sat as the Chair of the Veterans Affairs committee from January 3, 2013, through January 3, 2015, and still sits as a member today?

Bernie celebrating his victory over Hillary Clinton.

Bernie celebrating his victory over Hillary Clinton.  (Ahem)

Bernie Sanders.  The politician that wants to expand the size of government, in order to expand its power – its power to say “no” to the people it’s supposed to represent.  The same politician who failed to oversee his own agency’s power to deny care.

But it’s not just veterans that fall before the power of “No”.  Medicaid and Medicare, both bright, shining examples of your government working for you (sort of), has a long and distinguished history of saying “no” to applicants, to people appealing decisions, and have gotten pretty good at saying “no”.

In fact, let’s take a look at the sweet KPIs HHS is compiling on appeals.  Looks like there might be one or two people out there unhappy with the one, single choice they have for health care, in Medicare (below).  For example, through FY2015, the average processing time for appeals decided (both for or against the person appealing) was 547.1 days.

That's a hot new trend in government service.

That’s a hot new trend in government service.

Now I’m no rocket surgeon, but a year and a half or so of waiting for the lumbering apparatus of those entrusted with tax dollars to disburse them to those who need them seems like, maybe, just a bit longer than is reasonable?  Especially if death is a more probable outcome if an issue goes untreated, thanks to your friends at HHS?  Especially considering those people on Medicare are typically retirees and the elderly?

So how does HHS measure itself against these appeals to power?  What do the results of these appeals look like – what are the outcomes? From the chart below, more than half are Unfavorable or Dismissed.  The power of “no” in action.

Kind of a "read 'em and weep" chart here.

Kind of a “read ’em and weep” chart here.

Even if one does receive a favorable appeal, there is one final, telling stat, the Average Processing Time.  A stat that if it was shown at a high enough leadership level internally in an organization other than one run by the USG, would result in one of the following:

  1. Firings of leadership.
  2. Money thrown at the problem to alleviate the downward trend and mediate loss of market share.
  3. Both #1 and #2.

Even if a favorable outcome is decided, the person appealing might have have outcomes other than favorable already.

As far as trends go, this is Not A Good One.

As far as trends go, this is Not A Good One.

Bernie Sanders, in order to fix what he thinks is wrong, wants the government to increase spending by 2X the current debt of the United States, or another 18 trillion in entitlements of one kind or another, but specifically in single-payer.  Given the examples above, and the power ceded to a government agency that can then tell you what you can’t have, how can Bernie argue on one hand that this is good for all Americans, while on the other, he’s removing choice from the equation?  How are people empowered when they have no choice?

Were veterans empowered while they sat on secret waiting lists for the care they deserved more than anyone else?  Or were they trapped in a

The Power of Choice - you're free to choose the one option.

The Power of Choice – you’re free to choose the one option.

system, one with no options, and left to suffer the consequences?

No.  If you can say no, that’s when you know you’re in charge.  Bernie wanted to be in charge of the biggest government apparatus in history, one with the largest and most expansive power, ever, to say “no”, and he effectively sold this idea to tens of millions of people.  The same politician who decided, on his own, that there are too many types of deodorant for sale, was telling everyone exactly what he thought of their power to choose.

Which begs the question:  Why let anyone make choices for you?

 

 

 

 

18 Trillion Oughta Do It

Bernie Sanders, a man whose entire existence has been funded by the earnings of people who work for a living, has famously proposed to spend even more of other peoples’ money, to the tune of $18 trillion or so, over the next 10 years.  This is in addition to what the USG is

In Bernie's mind, this is far too little spending. Wait. Did I say "mind"?

In Bernie’s mind, this is far too little spending. Wait. Did I say “mind”?

currently spending, which, as a percentage of GDP, is at WW2-era levels of spending, and last I saw, we weren’t driving Shermans through the Ardennes on the way to Berlin.  Call it an additional $1.8 trillion per year, over and above the 2015 benchmark spending level of $3.69 trillion per year.

A trillion here, a trillion there, pretty soon we’re talking serious money.

Well.  Where are all these massively underutilized dollars going to come from, anyway, so the federal government can correctly spend them for us?  Is $18 trillion sitting under a really large number of mattresses?

As it turns out, the answer to the mattress question is “No”, and even an economic simple Simon like Sanders (apologies to Simons everywhere, simple or otherwise, excluding an apology to Sanders) can look at the data and understand that, but he doesn’t want to.  Why?  Because he doesn’t have to, that’s why – he can easily peddle “free” to people who still believe in such things as, well, things not having a cost, to them or others, because there’s never a shortage of people who will line up for something they did not earn.

Bernie’s selling point is that The Rich ™ can and will pay for it, a canard that has been used by such other lovely humanitarians like Lenin and Mao, whose actions resulted in the deaths of tens of millions.  But instead of pointing out history to a reality denier like Sanders, let’s look at the actual income paid into the IRS at all income levels, and see what’s actually there to be taxed.  All data courtesy of the IRS.

In 2013, the modified taxable personal income total was $6.4 trillion.  Total taxes generated were $1.265 trillion.  But take a look at where the Taxable Incomes and taxes paid 2013 v2bulk of those tax revenues came from – they came directly from the middle class, not the “rich”.  Any plan of Sanders that involves increasing taxes to pay for additional spending will come directly out of middle-income pockets.

Why?  Because the “rich” often don’t earn a salary, they earn income off investments, which is taxed at a different rate, and is money actually risked in the economy.  Secondly, if someone has a million dollar home, they might be considered rich in assets, but you can’t install an ATM on the side of your house to give you cash from the asset on your way to the supermarket.  That asset can be converted to dollars (through a loan against the asset) or sold, but it’s not income that can be taxed.

In fact as a percentage of total taxes paid, the $100,000 to $200,000 bracket bears the biggest federal income tax smack of anybody.  Now, in Sanders’ world, $200,000 might sound like a “rich” person, but a married couple earning $75,000 apiece, for $150,000 in total household income, would probably not be perceived as rich by anyone who knows what a mortgage payment on a simple $200,000 home is, and if a child comes along, well, those incomes start looking even smaller.

The income brackets from $50,000 through $500,000 constitute 66% of all income taxes collected.  These brackets are the ones that are currently the hardest hit in terms of tax burden.  It’s where the potential income is to be taxed in the first place.

Soak the middle! Er, the rich!

Soak the middle! Er, the rich!

So anything Sanders proposes in terms of new taxes will be disproportionately burdened on the very families he preaches he’s going to take care of.

Where would Sanders get that additional $1.8 trillion of annual spending?  In order to generate that additional $1.8 from the $50K-$500K brackets, he would have to double the effective income tax rate.  Double it.  Raise your hand if you’ve seen Bernie mention doubling the middle-class income tax rates.

Now, Bernie wants a blend of additional tax increases and revenues, so it would not fall entirely on the middle-class, but since income taxes constitute about half the USG’s tax revenues, that’s where the biggest hit will have to come from.  It’s not a choice.

But to make it worse, half the country pays no net income taxes.  Yet they get to vote in the economic duferati like Bernie Sanders, who has promised to give that half something for nothing, again, and has ridden that mantra all the way through Iowa.  Greed sells, it seems, but only Bernie seems to think it’s corporations that are greedy.  When the people who are apparently not too busy to be working at an actual job rush out to see him on the campaign

Or the true cost of dependency, but go Bernie!

Or the true cost of dependency, but go Bernie!

trail, waving “Free College!” signs, it’s fair to ask:  Who’s the greedy one here?

Bernie’s Economic Babbling: Trotsky Style!

Bernie Sanders, Brooklynite-In-Exile in Vermont, has a long series of errors on his campaign website, mostly related to economics.

And you can start thanking Bernie now by voting in 2016!

And you can start thanking Bernie now by voting in 2016!

It’s unclear as to whether or not anyone in Bernie’s camp has had the time to point out the stupidity of these errors, so as a service to the aging comrade, I’ll do that work for him.  Because he seems almost purposefully incapable of understanding the errors himself.

Where to begin?  Oh, inequality, of course, because if big government was created to do one thing, it’s to assure the right to life, liberty….oh, wait.   It’s to make everything equal for everybody.  Got it.  To wit:

  1.  Today, we live in the richest country in the history of the world, but that reality means little because much of that wealth is controlled
Bernie charts: We tell almost half the story!

Bernie charts: We tell almost half the story!

by a tiny handful of individuals.

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.

Well, actually, we’re not the richest country in the history of the world, depending on how you measure it.  In fact, by GDP on a per-person basis, the US ranges from 10th to 14th in several versions of this metric.  Since Bernie loves to separate the classes by income, he’s already missing the point, and making a mistake – we’re not the richest country in the world by standard comparative metrics.  If one family makes $200,000 per year with 5 people in the house ($40K/person), and a second family makes $100,000 per year with 2 people in the house ($50K/person), the first family is “richer” in aggregate, but on a per-person basis they’re poorer. And they likely have much larger expenses than the 2-person family.

Having the biggest pile of money in your house (or your country) doesn’t mean you’re rich.  Especially if you consider that unfunded liabilities like Social Security and Medicare are over $100 trillion dollars.

2.  The reality is that since the mid-1980s there has been an enormous transfer of wealth from the middle class and the poor to the wealthiest people in this country. That is the Robin Hood principle in reverse. That is unacceptable and that has got to change.

Thieves! Well, not really.

Thieves! Well, not really.

 

Here Bernie seems to miss the point entirely about wealth creation, and that the wealth “pie” is not a finite box of dollars, and the wealthy have somehow been sneaking in at night to take money out of the middle-class’s wallets without their knowing about it.  The dollars aren’t “transferring” from the middle-class to the 1%.  The economy has grown larger, and with it, incomes.  In fact, middle-incomes have grown in that same timeline, but so have incomes at the upper levels, just at a faster rate.

But massive and historically unprecedented increases in federal entitlement spending haven’t increased incomes.  In fact, incomes dropped,

Hmm - the govt spends more, yet people earn less? That's un-possible!

Hmm – the govt spends more, yet people earn less? That’s un-possible!

even prior to the federal spending expansion.  Why?  Because when you encourage people not to work, by providing enough support through entitlements so you don’t have to work, you will see a massive reduction in the workforce.

In this scenario, if the government is providing enough income to live without working, then whatever capital is owned and invested, risked in the marketplace, will inevitably grow larger as a larger share of a growing economy.  So those who work and invest will inevitably have more than those who choose not to.  Is it “fair” that I work two jobs at 60 hours per week to earn more income, only to have those additional hours be taxed at a higher rate because I then make too much money, as deemed by a politician who gets paid off the sweat of my labor?

So people leave the workforce and incomes drop? Shocking.

So people leave the workforce and incomes drop? Shocking.

The other piece Bernie seems to so easily forget is that money invested is money risked, which is something he never asks his followers to do – risk their own time, their own money, and their own futures, on investing in an idea, a stock, a project, that might pay dividends somewhere down the line.  Instead, he wants to take earnings from those who will willing to take risks, and be successful through hard work, and give it to those who risk nothing other than a mild hand-cramp when automatically pulling voting levers for people like Bernie who have sold them a bill of class warfare goods, and want to be paid for it, in votes, every few years.

There is something profoundly wrong when the top one-tenth of one percent owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent.

What’s wrong?  If you’re poor, and extremely poor, then obviously you’re not going to own a lot of assets.  It’s very likely that you own much less than zero assets, and are receiving entitlements of one kind or another, which would make you a net negative wealth “owner”.

In case Bernie missed it – half the country pays no net income taxes.  That’s the bottom of the bottom 90%.  Secondly, the top 50% of income earners pay 97% of all income taxes collected.  That means the biggest earners carried the biggest burden of wealth transferred since the history of these efforts has been kept.  We live in record-setting times, in that wealth is being transferred from the productive sector to the non-productive sector at larger and larger rates, every year.

There is something profoundly wrong when 58 percent of all new income since the Wall Street crash has gone to the top one percent.  

You can't win if you don't play.

You can’t win if you don’t play.

Actually, it makes complete sense that new income goes to those who risk their own money in the markets.  Would Bernie expect people to risk their money in order to earn less money?  Take a look at the labor force participation rate, Bernie – it’s gone down, dramatically, as people have shifted to consuming available entitlements.  Then Bernie complains that those who shifted to getting something from the government don’t earn as much as people who work for a living?  Really?  That’s like complaining about dinner without paying for the ingredients, and not making dinner.  See how that flies at the dinner table in your own home.

 

How’s re-distribution working out, historically?  Not so well.

People make less when the government takes in more tax dollars? Gasp! I repeat: Gasp!

People make less when the government takes in more tax dollars? Gasp! I repeat: Gasp!

In fact, the more money the government spends, the lower median incomes are.

Hm.  I wonder why?  The facts seem to fly in the fact of Bernie’s claim that the more government spends, the better off its citizens are.  The facts show that the opposite is true.  If taxes increase, and federal income goes up, how would those dollars translate, even on a one for one basis, to people earning the median incomes?  They’re working, so they don’t receive direct federal assistance.  In fact, you can make the claim that raising taxes, even on the wealthy alone (which won’t, in fact, be enough to cover annual federal expenditures), would have the opposite effect of increasing incomes – because you will have placed an increased tax burden on those earning the incomes in the first place.

As has been demonstrated, you would have to start raising the federal tax rate on middle-class earners in order to support any additional federal spending.  There just isn’t enough income lying around the country to feed the yawning chasm that is the federal maw, one that Bernie wants to continue to feed in order to keep his cushy lifestyle telling workers how much of their money he needs to re-distribute to buy votes.

Finally, Bernie tries conflating two things, on two different timelines, and tries to call that an argument:

Despite huge advancements in technology and productivity, millions of Americans are working longer hours for lower wages. The real median income of male workers is $783 less than it was 42 years ago; while the real median income of female workers is over $1,300 less than it was in 2007. That is unacceptable and that has got to change.

First, median household income, even inflation adjusted, has increased by $5,000 from 1976 to 2012.  This includes a massive increase in the labor force by women that began in the 1970’s and is still increasing today.  So no, median incomes aren’t decreasing, they are increasing.

Secondly, for female workers, Bernie chooses 2007 as a comparison, which was the highest female rate of earnings, ever.  He doesn’t go

Hey look! Women earn less now than their peak in 2007 - but more than they did in 2000! Now explain to me how that's bad, again?

Hey look! Women earn less now than their peak in 2007 – but more than they did in 2000! Now explain to me how that’s bad, again?

back 42 years for this metric, does he?  No, because he wants it to look worse than it is – but it’s going to look bad, regardless, due to the recession.  Incomes generally don’t go up much during recessions, but both male and female earnings did, after the bottoming-out of the recession trough.

Male earners followed the exact same pattern – their earnings dropped in the same fashion.  Why?  Because recession.

Did the increase in federal spending (as shown above) increase incomes?  No, because people who work for a living are rarely in line waiting for a handout.  So that wealth transfer has only a negative impact on them, via tax increases.

Finally, how would raising taxes, on the wealthy, on corporations, or anybody, increase incomes?  History has shown that incomes have actually decreased while federal spending increased, so why would even the simplest of dullards double down on a demonstrably losing bet?

Answer:  Because Bernie is not in it for incomes.  He’s in it for power, and for filling the empty spot where his soul used to be, before he sold it

This is Bernie's idealized world.

This is Bernie’s idealized world.

to a class warfare paradigm in order to live a life he could never have earned on his own dime.  He can only enjoy his lifestyle off the earnings, the work, of others.  A lifestyle, as Bernie should know, is what caused the Russian revolution in the first place, and put its 20th-century

heroes into power – and caused the deaths of 100 million people in the 20th century.

But hey – let’s raise taxes!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bernie Sanders: Federal Spending Hawk

In a shocking turn of events, Sen. Barry, er, Bernie Sanders (current whereabouts unknown, but might be found in a server storage facility at DNC headquarters, or apologizing spasmodically at the last debate to his Probably Pantsuit Overlord) recently decided that he opposes federal spending!  In the interests of saving digital space, I omitted any additional exclamation marks at the end of the previous sentence.

Bernie has taken this bold stance as a result of the House and Senate passing the omnibus spending bill, just in under the wire to continue funding the federal government, and just a few weeks from the New Year:

The Senate voted overwhelmingly Friday in favor a $1.8 trillion package of spending bills and tax breaks, sending the legislation to President Obama’s desk for his signature.

(As an aside, out in the real world, if you’re finally getting around to authorizing your next year spend two weeks before it starts, you get fired.)

Bernie’s response to this record-setting spend?  Billionaires are evil.  Insert shocked meme here.

I guess I'm shocked he's still peddling this idea.

I guess I’m shocked he’s still peddling this idea.

Millions of Americans are unemployed and working longer hours for lower wages, yet this spending package gives more tax breaks to billionaires, encourages large corporations to ship jobs overseas and makes worse an already corrupt campaign finance system.

First of all, unemployed Americans are not going to become more employed by doing the opposite of what Bernie’s complaining about here – raising taxes will reduce employment, as more money flows to the federal, state, and local governments rather than being invested in businesses, which leads to hiring.  The fact that federal spending has exploded in the last 8 years (with Bernie cheering the way on much of that increase in spending) while employment and incomes have remained stagnant seems to escape the reality of a man who’s literally fed himself off the labor of other people.  Taking money from the productive sector of the economy will in no way create a job.

Government spends more, incomes stay flat. Another economics lesson that Bernie hasn't bothered to wrap his receding hairstyle around.

Government spends more, income drop or stay flat. Another economics lesson that Bernie hasn’t bothered to wrap his receding hairstyle around.  That’s a *doubling* of federal expenditures in 15 years.  Federal spending does not improve incomes.  Period.

Oh, and “shipping jobs overseas”?  Don’t worry about the budget or spending bills, Bernie – our corporate tax rate is enough to do that as it is.  And since Bernie loves to tout European countries as being more progressive than the knuckle-draggers here in the states, maybe he can explain why, say, Sweden has a lower corporate tax rate than the United States?  In fact, why does the US have the highest rate out of all these countries?  Are those countries also shipping jobs overseas?  I guarantee that they’re not shipping them to the US with a higher corporate tax bite.

Can't wait for Bernie's platform to call for European-level corporate tax rates. How long will I have to wait for that to come out of Bernie's mouth?

Can’t wait for Bernie’s platform to call for European-level corporate tax rates. How long will I have to wait for that to come out of Bernie’s mouth?

Oh, and as for corruption in campaign finance – who are some of Bernie’s biggest campaign contributors?  Public-sector employees.  So tax dollars collected from the private sector are paid to those employees, a portion of which is also paid to their union, then the union lobbies Congress – and Bernie Sanders – to increase their rates of pay and benefits.  It’s a circular kickback scheme.

Yes, by all means - let's end campaign contribution corruption, starting with unions.

Yes, by all means – let’s end campaign contribution corruption, starting with unions.

Still, Bernie is by no means finished; he’s still going to take a swing at industries that produce that hated result – jobs:

Scientists tell us that we must act immediately to combat climate change, but this bill will lift the crude oil export ban and encourage the burning of more fossil fuels.

Scientists also tell us that climate change is directly correlated to solar activity, and that the cooling period that’s occurring now (prompting a change from the “global warming” nomenclature to “climate change”) is part of normal solar activity.  Scientists also tell us that smoking tobacco will kill us, yet Congress hasn’t banned tobacco.  Or banned cancer.  What’s Bernie waiting for?

Now, lest we forget the children, Bernie reminds us how evil Republicans are, again, in case anyone’s missed his earlier messaging on this issue:

And 16 million children are living in poverty in this country, but Congress has decided to cut food and nutrition services for our most vulnerable and increase the already bloated defense budget.

Yes, but by the measures used to define “poverty”, Bernie ignores the one trillion or so spent annually in the US on welfare programs, of all kinds.  From the article:

The government’s own data show that the actual living conditions of the more than 45 million people who are deemed “poor” by the Census Bureau differ greatly from popular conceptions of poverty.[18] Consider these facts taken from various government reports:[19]

  • Eighty percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, at the beginning of the War on Poverty, only about 12 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
  • Nearly three-quarters have a car or truck; 31 percent have two or more cars or trucks.[20]
  • Nearly two-thirds have cable or satellite television.
  • Half have a personal computer; one in seven has two or more computers.
  • More than half of poor families with children have a video game system such as an Xbox or PlayStation.
  • Forty-three percent have Internet access.
  • Forty percent have a wide-screen plasma or LCD TV.
  • A quarter have a digital video recorder system such as a TIVO.

Only in Bernie’s America do poor people have 2 cars and a plasma TV, and get to be categorized as “poor”.  Since the War on Poverty began,  $19.8 trillion has been spent on it – triple the total spent on military wars for the entire history of the US.

Since the beginning of the War on Poverty, government has spent $19.8 trillion (in inflation-adjusted 2011 dollars) on means-tested welfare. In comparison, the cost of all military wars in U.S. history from the Revolutionary War through the current war in Afghanistan has been $6.98 trillion (in inflation-adjusted 2011 dollars).[3] The War on Poverty has cost three times as much as all other wars combined.

But Bernie complaints continue:

While there are some important and positive provisions in this bill like the expanded Earned Income Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit, the truth is we cannot afford another spending package that expands the power and wealth of the billionaire class at the expense of everyone else. Congress must pass legislation that make our rigged political and economic systems work once again for the vast majority of Americans not just the 1 percent.

As Bernie fails to note, again and again, is that the 1 percent, the 10 percent, the 50 percent – those are the only people in the country paying taxes.  So if you’re going to create tax incentives or cut rates, it will of course impact the people actually paying the taxes, not the net recipients of those taxes collected.

If the 1% are so powerful, why are they the ones always stuck with paying the bills?

And to keep Bernie somewhere in the vicinity of Honesty, USA, the top 10% of income earners in the US pay 68% of taxes.  The top 50% of taxpayers pay 97% of all income taxes collected.

I guess coughing up 6-7 times your earnings in taxes paid relative to everyone else isn't enough in BernieLand.

I guess coughing up 6-7 times your earnings in taxes paid relative to everyone else isn’t enough in BernieLand.

If there’s something unfair in that tax scheme, it’s that half the country has almost no skin in the game whatsoever in paying taxes – so of

In his defense, though, it's not like it's *his* money.

In his defense, though, it’s not like it’s *his* money.

course they’re going to vote for tax increases on the wealthy, because it nets them more government stuff.

And that, in its entirety, is why Bernie Sanders is a presidential candidate.  His supporters’ votes have been bought and paid for by the 1% he so routinely demonizes.

Infrastructure, Schminfrastructure: Bernie Sanders – The Anti-Jobs Candidate

Recently, the politician who recently demanded the minimum wage be raised to $15/hour, has, um, come out against a pipeline project that would

"Hey, don't ask me about jobs - I'm a Socialist."

“Hey, don’t ask me about jobs – I’m a Socialist.”

create jobs at hourly rates much higher than $15.

“I believe the Northeast Energy Direct pipeline that would carry fracked natural gas for 400 miles through 17 communities is a bad idea – and should be opposed,” the Vermont senator said.

Looks like Sen. Sanders has his list of environmental trigger warnings at hand, making sure that “fracked” is the qualifier for “natural gas”, which somehow indicates that the natural gas has been tainted in the fracking process, and is now worthy of scorn and derision.  No word yet as to which Vermont families are equally horrified to find that natural gas – WHICH IS CARRIED IN PIPES IN NEIGHBORHOODS NEAR YOU, OH MY GOD THE EVIL OF FRACKING IS CALLING FROM INSIDE YOUR HOUSE! – is available when they want to heat their homes when it’s three degrees in January.  And oh, I don’t know, what families might question their prior Bernie votes when gas is unavailable when they turn on their aptly-named gas stoves to cook and grimly digest the thin gruel that only Vermonters can afford in their $15/hour jobs.

Thanks Bernie!

Here’s a couple of hideous natural gas facts for Bernie to digest, in between his economics classes he must surely be taking now (courtesy of Vermont Gas):

Vermont’s natural gas is transported from Canada via the TransCanada Pipe Line and enters at Highgate, on the Vermont/Canada border. Vermont Gas serves customers through a network of more than 750 miles of underground transmission and distribution lines.

What?  There’s already 750 miles of underground transmission lines?  And the state of Vermont hasn’t exploded?  But wait:  Could there be even more good news about (gasp!) gas?

Vermont Gas Systems provides clean, affordable natural gas to almost 50,000 families, businesses, and institutions in Chittenden and Franklin counties. Through energy efficiency and prevented emissions from heating oil and propane, the company’s customers annually avoid carbon emissions equivalent to almost 10% of the emissions of Vermont’s cars and trucks.

So:  We already have longstanding proven gas infrastructure, as if we needed more evidence of pipeline reliability.  Secondly, natural gas is

One assumes that Bernie wants more natural gas transported via roads, then. Got it. Understood.

One assumes that Bernie wants more natural gas transported via roads, then. Got it. Understood.

less of an emissions sinner than other energy sources, if that’s a significant concern to you.  Third, once the pipeline is built (if it is built), you reduce the need to haul natural gas via trucks on carbon-infused roads.  Or via non-solar-powered trains.

One can see why Vermont’s most upstanding Senator and job-creating genius is against such ghastly efforts.  Why, it’s almost as if he’s arguing to keep the cost of energy high in Vermont, in a state that is supremely reliant on having affordable and on-demand energy sources so its citizens don’t freeze to death.  It’s almost as if he’s arguing that Vermonters should pay more for and have less access to heating fuels.

But that can’t be what he’s arguing, can it?  A Senator arguing against both the financial and health prospects of its constituencies?  Oh, wait, never mind – I forgot.  He also voted for Obamacare, and claims to have partially written the ACAwhen he’s not too busy campaigning to miss a vote on its repeal, that is.  The ACA does the same thing as his opposition to the pipeline – reduces the financial and health prospects of the constituencies he purports to represent.

So don’t worry, Vermont – Bernie’s got your back.  He’s got your back, that is, if you work in Government or Education & Health Services (which includes Social Services), because according to the most recent employment data, those are the two sectors that incurred the most job growth between October 2014 and October 2015 in Vermont.  Of the roughly 2,600 jobs created between those two dates, these two sectors claimed all of that net growth:

And what Vermonter doesn't dream, as a child, to grow up one day and become a state employee?

In other words, don’t worry about critical infrastructure like energy sources.  After all, if you shut down the state’s most reliable and cheapest form of energy, and block natural gas pipelines from being built, the only logical result is that businesses will flock to Vermont in order to set up shop in the country’s most business-friendly state in the nation.