Written by William Scoble   

Something you might want to consider - the charge that Sanders' programs would cost $40BN. This figure is put forward by Republicans as well as by Hillary - both for the same reasons : to discredit Sanders' programs, and to frighten Americans understandably confused in money matters; candidates pretend the money isn't there, when they know better. 

Of course Sanders' programs would cost something - plenty, in fact. But everything does: 750 (or is it 1,000?) military bases around the world; military presence in 52 of 54 African continents (See Turse: Tomorrow's Battlefield); billions for weapons systems; billions to Israel; wars in how many countries? nuclear-tipped missiles to Germany; CIA Black Ops in 120 countries - and so on and on…

Governments allocate money for what they value; a government's priorities can be seen in its budget, as Rosa Luxemburg famously said. Prof Emeritus of Political Economy and Philosophy Alan Nasser points out that if a government valued health care for all citizens, "There would be a national health program as there is now a national defense program. That government would spend on the elderly, the sick, the disabled the way it now spends on military equipment and interventions."

So just where is the money supposed to come from?! This is the disingenuous charge from politicos, disguised as a question but designed to squelch idealism, the implied answer being that the money simply isn't there. If that charge is nonsense, and it is, it belies a staggering amount of deceit, hardly attributable to innocent ignorance in career politicians.

The money will come from the same place it does now: from the Federal government, from the same spigot that funds the military programs just mentioned. It all depends, to paraphrase Bill Clinton, on what the meaning of "money" is. As those in government know, of course, the "money" is not physical; there is no gigantic repository of cash (only 3 to 4 % of all financial transactions take place in paper and coin). But the money can be created if the will to do so is there. Huge amounts of money could be withdrawn from the military, and that would surely be a splendid idea, but only for political and moral reasons, not out of economic necessity. The “money” that could be withdrawn from military expenditures is from computer accounts - accounts with private contractors, among many others - and it is not that “money” that would be used to the benefit of the people of the United States.

The bailout of the banks TBTF is a case study. How much did it cost? All in all, about $29 trillion, a figure one never sees. But it is all spelled out in this report:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/2/20/1188374/-The-true-cost-of-the-Bank-Bailout

So the question looms: where did the money come from? Ben Bernanke answered that in March 2009 on 60 Minutes, in an interview with Scott Pelley, who asked if the money for the banks were taxpayer money:

Bernanke: "It's not taxpayer money. The banks have accounts with the Fed, much the same way you have an account in a commercial bank. So, to lend to a bank, we simply use the computer to mark up the account that they have with the Fed."

It doesn't get clearer than that. And when you go to your local bank for a loan, the bank doesn't "have" or not “have” the money; they create it out of thin air on a computer and deposit it to your account - (and then they charge you interest for their computer stroke!) It is all virtual money, computer money, created and controlled by those in power, even at the local level.  

Precisely what the Feds did for the Big Banks, on the national level.  

So if we wanted Medicare for all, infrastructure repairs, better schools, $15 min wage, high speed rail - and "we" do want all that and much more  - we could do it all. So why don't we? Because we'd go bankrupt? No - in a fiat money system, the government can not go bankrupt, as Alan Greenspan was at pains to point out: 

"A government cannot become insolvent with respect to obligations in its own currency. A fiat money system, like the one we have today, can produce such claims without limit." (St. Louis, 1997)

Then why don't we? It can only be because Big Government doesn't want to. Again, Prof Nasser: "...a state commandeered for and by the wealthy is hardly likely to prioritize the needs of the unwealthy."

So when you are told that Sanders' programs would cost too much, you have a ready answer: nonsense! 

As for Sanders' so-called idealism... If ever there was a time that a measure of idealism is called for, surely this is one of those times. Take money out of politics? Reduce Corporate influence over government? Expand health care for all - including veterans? Free college tuition? Decrease gross income inequality between bosses and workers? Do for the people what the people cannot do for themselves? These are too idealistic? THESE are Radical Ideas? 

Yes, radical ideas, in the U.S., at any rate. But not in most of the developed nations of the world, where this idealism is called pragmatism - providing a just and healthy society for all. AND, just an afterthought, of course, an increased tax base.

Doubt any of this? As Wm Safire coyly titled one of his books: You Could Look It Up.