without taxing the middle class. that s possible? justin haskin s the editorial director and research fellow at the heartland institute. thanks a lot for comingnd on. this sounds like magic but i m keeping an open mind. you are a math guy. is it possible to do what kamala harris said she s going to do? even by kamala harris standards, this is delusional. there is absolutely no way that you can pay for single-payer health care without taxing middle-class people. we have an analysis coming out next week probably on monday that shows not only do you have to double taxes for everybody,dd double taxes, but that tens of millions of middle-class people are going to end up paying more in taxes than they will receive in any sort of health care benefit that they might receive from the federal government. this is a terrible deal for w americans, and that is why kamala harris is selling like you can pay $32 trillion,
tucker: $30 trillion without taxing the middle class. that s possible? justin haskin s the editorial director and research of the heartland institute, thank you for coming on. this sounds like magic, but i m keeping an open mind. you are a math guy. is it possible to do what kamala harris said she s going to do? even by mike comeau lists kamala harris to standards this is delusional. there is absolutely no way that you can pay for single-payer health care without taxing middle-class people. we have an analysis coming out next week probably on monday that shows not only do you have to double taxes for everybody, double taxes, but that tens of millions of middle-class people are going to end up paying more in taxes than they will receive in any sort of health care benefit that they might receive from the federal government. this is a terrible deal for americans, and that is why
picking him first or second choice. only 1 of 2 that had that. tucker: not a math guy. i ve got to tell you, lisa. as of tonight, my favorite doomed candidate is beto o rourke. mine is gillibrand, but that s a personal choice. tucker: we ve got a fair difference of opinion. great to see you tonight. thanks, tucker. tucker: news isn t even that great for joe biden who is still the front runner. a new iowa poll shows that his l lead over the rest of the field is falling, now under ten percentage points. meanwhile democrats and the press are criticizing biden for his light travel schedule, lack of a clear message, and obvious dependence on barack obama to boost his popularity. joe biden, his policies and possessions don t fit with the current democratic party the way it did before. we asked biden support is if you are extremely enthusiastic about this choice, 39% of them
myself consider the world immoral, ineffective, and expensive. to spend billions of dollars on an immoral, ineffective and expensive wall. don t waste billions of dollars of taxpayer money in order to build something that will not make our border more secure. border security is enormously important but i think building the wall is a very costly and inefficient way to do that. tucker: so mr. math guy, bernie sanders, says the border wall is a very costly. how costly is it precisely? get your calculator out. the estimated cost of a border wall is about $25 billion, estimated. so let s say it s twice that. that would still be a tiny fraction of the price of the pointless stalemate that we are now waging in afghanistan which costs about 45 billion per year not even including the vast human costs. compare that to the 25 billion
ineffective, and expensive. to spend billions of dollars on an immoral, ineffective, and expensive wall. don t waste billions of dollars of taxpayer money in order to build something that will not make our border more secure. border security is enormously important, but i think building a wall is a very costly and inefficient way to do that.re tucker: oh, so mr. math guy, bernie sanders, says the border wall is very costly. okay. how costly is it precisely? get your calculator out. here are the numbers. the estimated cost of a border wall is about $25 billion, it s estimated. so let s say it s twice that. that would still be a tiny fraction of the price of thete pointless stalemate we are now waging in afghanistan. that costs about 45 billion every year, not even including the vast human cost. compare that to the 25 billion needed to restore national sovereignty with the wall. hmmm. and yet, and this is strange, nobody in washington seems to be