An $18 trillion deception: Why The Washington Post editorial board should read The Washington Post

Fred Hiatt's Washington Post editorial board seems intrepid in its efforts to find new ways to embarrass itself. The title of its September 15 editorial on Bernie Sanders sets the tone:

Bernie Sanders isn’t as progressive as you think

And to make that point, they write this:

Beyond the hyperbole, however, must be real policy. And on that score, this self-described socialist from New England is less progressive — in the real effect of his proposals — than he sounds. His promises, according to a new analysis from the Wall Street Journal, would cost the government an eye-popping $18 trillion over 10 years. Instead of carefully crafting policy to help those who need it, he would shower largess on young and old, poor and well-to-do.

The good news is that the Post has undermined any claim it might later make that Sanders wants to wage class warfare. Wanting to shower largess on everyone seems pretty generous and non-discriminatory. But the real point seems to be that supposed $18 trillion price tag. Eye-popping. The Post is all but telling its readers to be agog. There is no analysis or even explanation of how the Wall Street Journal came up with that number, and the Post takes it at face value. In fact, taking it at face value is the basis upon which the entire editorial is premised. To anyone wanting to draw a fair conclusion, that basis and that premise might be worth comprehensive examination. Fortunately, such an examination was undertaken by Paul Waldman, and it was published on the exact same day as the editorial. September 15. In the Washington Post.

To find out more, keep reading below.