Share
Commentary

Warren's Big Plans for the Presidency Would Literally Cost More Than All the Money on Earth

Share

Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren is but one of several Democrats running for her party’s presidential nomination in 2020, and she has ambitious plans to enact if she attains the White House.

In fact, “I have a plan” has become a sort of unofficial slogan of Warren’s campaign already, so ubiquitous has that particular phrase become with the progressive legislator and her grand ideas for the nation.

There’s just one problem, though: All of the plans that Warren has either expressed support for or devised have costs associated with them, and those combined costs over 10 years are estimated to be a greater sum than all of the  world’s money put together.

The Washington Free Beacon conducted a rough cost analysis of five major proposals Warren backs — two put forward by others, three proposed by herself — that would cost upward of $129 trillion in federal spending over 10 years.

The first two proposals are the Green New Deal and Medicare for All, which have estimated costs of $94 trillion and $32 trillion over 10 years, respectively, for a running total of $126 trillion.

Trending:
'Holiday Nightmare Comes True' When Man Makes Strange Discovery in a Ravine on His Property

Then there are the estimated costs over a decade of Warren’s own three specific proposals: $100 billion to combat opioid drug addiction, up to $1.5 trillion to cancel student debt and provide free college education for all, as well as $700 billion to provide “universal” child care for working parents. That would add another nearly $3 trillion in spending to the $126 trillion above, a rough total of $129 trillion over a 10-year period, or some $12.9 trillion annually.

Unfortunately, that grand sum — which would be on top of the roughly $4 trillion in annual federal spending already — is likely a greater sum than all of the money in the world at this moment combined.

Business Insider reported in November 2017 that, at best, it was estimated there was anywhere from $5 trillion to $80 trillion around the world at that point.

The low estimate of $5 trillion came from the Bank for International Settlements and was essentially a tally of all of the hard currency — coins and paper notes — in circulation around the globe.

Are you sick of economically illiterate leftists like Sen. Warren?

In just the United States, the Federal Reserve estimates that there is only about $1.5 trillion in hard U.S. currency circulating around the country.

The much-higher estimate of $80 trillion came from the CIA World Factbook, but it included far more than just the hard currency in circulation that the international bank tracked.

The CIA estimate included what is known as “broad money,” another way of describing the combined total of accessible money around the world, which includes such things as personal bank account balances, money markets, assets and properties, and other intangibles that could conceivably be converted into cash.

The problem with “broad money,” however, is that much of it only exists theoretically as balance figures on digital ledgers, since banks don’t keep vaults stocked full of everybody’s funds and instead loan those funds out to others.

Were everyone in the world to attempt to withdraw their saved money from banks at the same time, only a fraction of the people would actually receive their money before the banks ran dry. Yet, Warren’s few plans would exceed all of the known cash in the world on an annual basis, and the projected 10-year costs of her plans would be more than one and half times all of the theoretical wealth accumulated around the world.

Related:
Sweden Elects First Female Prime Minister, But 7 Hours Later Everything Falls Apart

To borrow a phrase often used by the enviro-lefties such as Warren, that is beyond being “unsustainable” in the economic sense, but is in fact unfathomable in its monstrosity.

To be sure, none of the sums presented here is an exact calculation, but the basic point remains the same nonetheless: Sen. Warren’s ambitious presidential plans would not only be too expensive for the United States’ taxpayers but would even be too costly for the entire world.

Truth and Accuracy

Submit a Correction →



We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

Tags:
, , , , , , ,
Share
Ben Marquis is a writer who identifies as a constitutional conservative/libertarian. He has written about current events and politics for The Western Journal since 2014. His focus is on protecting the First and Second Amendments.
Ben Marquis has written on current events and politics for The Western Journal since 2014. He reads voraciously and writes about the news of the day from a conservative-libertarian perspective. He is an advocate for a more constitutional government and a staunch defender of the Second Amendment, which protects the rest of our natural rights. He lives in Little Rock, Arkansas, with the love of his life as well as four dogs and four cats.
Birthplace
Louisiana
Nationality
American
Education
The School of Life
Location
Little Rock, Arkansas
Languages Spoken
English
Topics of Expertise
Politics




Conversation

Notice: Due to threatened de-monetization, we have temporarily removed commenting while we build a long-term commenting solution that allows you to voice your opinion freely and allows us to continue to publish the news fearlessly and cover topics that you care about. If you would like to personally partner with The Western Journal to help us continue publishing while under relentless assault by Big Tech, please visit our subscription page here. We encourage you to share this article and discuss with your friends.