My colleague, Andy Wilson, recently wrote a column titled "Sanders' fiscal policy unsustainable" and posited that the fiscal policy of Bernie Sanders will leave the next generation in an economically worse situation than their parents. By Mr. Wilson’s assumptions, the only real concern of a tax plan should be its impact on the federal debt. However, what Mr. Wilson neglects to consider is the even larger potential negative impact of income inequality on the next generation and what Sen. Sanders’ fiscal plan could do to fight it.
Income inequality is prevalent throughout the world but especially in the U.S. This country, according to an analysis of data by the Pew Research Center, has more inequality than nearly every comparably developed country. We rank above nearly all Western European nations and many of our other counterparts across the globe due, in part, to policies that cut taxes for the "high earners" and stagnate wage growth for the lower and middle classes.
This is no small problem either. Income inequality has been linked by an International Monetary Fund study to a decrease in GDP over time. For example, if the top 20 percent of Americans get proportionally richer, GDP growth declines. This study also suggested that trickle-down economics simply exacerbates income inequality rather than lowering it.
That’s only the economic angle. Income inequality has also been linked to problems in rectifying disparities in health, education, poverty and crime, four areas that are already in need of drastic help in this state and the rest of the country. While the federal debt is important, and neglecting it could have consequences down the line, the federal debt alone does not have the same damning and widespread impact that income inequality possesses.
So what does Sanders' fiscal plan offer to fix this already enormous and growing problem? For one, Sanders’ plan directly challenges income inequality by eliminating many of the cuts, breaks and loopholes prevalent throughout our tax code. This will result in an increased tax burden on businesses and the very wealthy, with some of the burden shared by middle and lower income citizens. This money will fight some of the costlier problems that help drive income inequality in this nation, such as wage stagnation, health care, education and chronic joblessness.
Despite this plan’s cost, one must consider the benefits of it, such as fixing our failing infrastructure and adding 13 million jobs at the same time, raising the minimum wage above inflation, streamlining our bloated health care system by adopting a set up similar to that of the universal health care that many nations employ and fighting off the looming bubble of student debt. These are all serious problems created, in part, by income inequality, and, unfortunately, there are no easy solutions. Despite the difficult nature of combating these problems, sometimes the hard road is the right road.
To quote my colleague’s former preferred candidate, Marco Rubio, "We have never been a nation of haves and have-nots. We are a nation of haves and soon-to-haves, of people who have made it and people who will make it. And that's who we need to remain."
What Mr. Rubio and Mr. Wilson fail to understand is that not only has that vision of America been long dead, and the data shows as much, but also the only way for America to be successful for this generation and the next is to level the playing field a bit more by combating income inequality.