By Allen Nitschelm
Today’s Democrats argue for Joe Biden’s new spending bill by minimizing its cost, misrepresenting its funding, and ignoring the future added debt.
The federal debt is now $29 trillion, and if the “Build Back Better” bill passes in its present form, it would add $3 trillion over 10 years, assuming new programs continue and are not arbitrarily stopped. This does not include yearly deficits on regular budgetary spending, which themselves have added 1/2 to 1 trillion a year in debt. This government spending is not just inflationary, it is also dangerous and even reckless. Whatever problems we will soon experience will pale in comparison to a credit default, a run on banks, hyper-inflation, or losing the dollar’s status as the world’s reserve currency.
The Dems response comes straight from the schoolyard: “But you did it too.” They point to Trump’s tax cut for adding $2 trillion to the federal debt. (And I’ll set aside the enormously important increase in military spending which was and is necessary no matter what the cost.) But they ignore the difference between spending and tax relief.
Entitlement spending creates dependency.
Think about that. If there is one cause for the terrible outcome in many minority communities that have been perpetually poor, compared to other minority communities that have been successful, it is this one fact. People who are dependent lose not just the incentive to achieve, they lose the ability to “over achieve” and thus create generational wealth. That is probably the underlying reason why poverty continues for generations.
Dems want to borrow money to create more entitlements. This is wrong because it makes citizens even more dependent rather than less. It also saddles future taxpayers with much higher overhead and thus higher taxes, making our capitalist economy less efficient.
Now let’s compare this to the charge that President Trump also increased the debt. The analogy would be that Trump “borrowed money” to provide tax cuts.
If you tax someone less and “borrow” to keep spending, you increase the deficit but add to the wealth of the taxpayers. If, in the future, you decide to raise taxes to pay down the debt, you are asking people to pay more when they theoretically have more money.
It would be like giving someone $100, adding $100 to the credit card balance, and telling them that they should spend (or invest) the money wisely because one day, they will have to pay that $100 back. Maybe the taxpayer spends it foolishly or maybe they start a new business and become successful and able to pay back 10x or 100x what they saved.
Thus, a tax reduction seems more like an investment than an expense. And there is a perfect matchup between those who pay taxes and those who get the benefit. We are rewarding taxpayers and giving them greater incentive to be more successful.
So tax cuts that increase the debt are nothing like entitlement spending programs that increase the debt. The first saves taxpayers money in the short-term, allowing them to perhaps increase their wealth, start new ventures, or otherwise improve their lives, with the possibility that this would have to be paid back in the future. The second provides a government program for a subset of citizens while saddling all taxpayers with that future debt obligation, and ends up training those citizens that reliance on the government is how to pay their bills and ends up hurting those recipients in the long run as they learn to be dependent on government assistance.
Sign up for our Acton Forum email list here
Please follow Acton Forum on Facebook here
Bill,
One part of me wanted to rebut every line of yours, but the other part of me has decided, don’t bother.
Nijan
Hi Bill,
You state, “If everyone followed Fauci’s lead, thousands of lives could have been saved.” I wonder if you could be more specific?
Are you referring to Fauci’s original insistence that we didn’t need to wear masks and that there was no scientific evidence that they worked? Or that he then claimed he purposely misled the public because he wanted to save the masks for First Responders?
Are you referring to his arguing against the travel ban that Trump imposed?
Do you mean that we needed to wash all our vegetables from the supermarket, wipe down every counter with Lysol, and wash our hands for 20 seconds every hour?
Are you referencing the plexiglass shields that were installed in supermarkets and restaurants to stop the spread?
Are you referring to his statement that we just needed to “flatten the curve”?
Are you referring to his statement that two masks are better than one?
Are you referring to his statement that the NIH did not engage in funding the Wuhan lab to conduct “gain of function” research and that Sen. Rand Paul was “lying”? Or that the Coronavirus was naturally occurring and not the result of a leak from the Wuhan lab?
Are you referring to his statements that one vaccine shot, sorry two, no three, oops possibly four will allow the recipient to return to normal life? Or maybe that the level of “herd immunity” kept changing to force more vaccinations?
Or maybe that the government under Fauci’s direction apparently does not recognize natural immunity from previous Covid infection, and Biden’s vaccination mandates ignore this scientific fact.
Are you referring to his suggestion that we should “card” people who come to family gatherings to make sure they aren’t lying about their vaccine status?
Are you referring to Fauci’s “public theater” of wearing masks when not necessary in order to send a political signal to the country?
Or perhaps you are referring to his funding of gruesome experiments on dogs that could never be conducted in the US?
https://www.factcheck.org/2021/11/answering-questions-about-beaglegate/
Maybe it was that we need to close down schools for a year, education be damned?
Let me know, and thanks in advance,
Allen
The essence of science is that it evolves. New information guides us differently as the virus changes. Much of what Fauci recommended was common guidance from his colleagues and most other scientists. EVERYONE was wiping down groceries in early 2020. Your attempts to mark him as some sort of villain is surprising given your level of thoughtful intelligence. And many of the accusations you have listed sound like they are straight out of Tucker Carlson’s mouth. It would be helpful if you could provide documentation for some of the “charges”. BTW, the Wuhan lab issue is unresolved and probably never will be. But from what I have read the live wild animal market is still the most likely culprit. Fauci said that it is still yet to be determined.
Two masks ARE better than one. And yes, the idea was that early on there were too few masks and we ALL knew we were keeping them for first responders. I love the plexiglass shields – what’s not to like when your cashier sneezes?
And guess what, Covid is evolving faster than anyone imagined. Please read this article about what we can expect very soon. Everything is about to change with Omnicron: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/12/18/omicron-variant-denmark/
The entire virus situation is about to change in ways you and I can’t imagine. It behooves us to keep tuned in and adapt as necessary.
My attitude is to support the scientists. None of them will ever be perfect. But they will save more lives than Fox News and TFG.
Hi Bill,
My point, which you seemed to have missed, is that “science” is not infallible, even when personified by Dr. Anthony Fauci, if he does say so himself.
We both watch cable news. I could make an “ad hominen” attack on you that everything you say comes out of Chris Cuomo’s mouth on CNN, but I won’t. Perhaps it is Don Lemon’s.
We agree that science evolves, but your original statement, which I quoted, implied that we must blindly follow science because it is right. My list of statements by Fauci and the “scientists” prove that science is only one part of the puzzle. We must also look at several other factors, the largest being “unintended consequences” and “we don’t know what we don’t know.” On the first point is closing down schools and what it has done to children, and closing down businesses and what it has done to the economy. On the second point is the refrain that “there is no evidence to support x” which implies that we cannot support x without evidence.
On this second point is the Wuhan lab. The Communist Chinese government will NEVER admit to any culpability at any level. Period, end of story. So if we are going to wait for their admission, we will be waiting forever. Absent proof and considering their stonewalling, I think we can draw several conclusions based on what we know, what has been said, and what has been done.
The exchanges between Dr. Fauci and Senator and doctor Rand Paul were illuminating. Fauci knew he was funding what essentially was “gain of function” research when he lied to Paul under oath. This was because he was protecting himself and his organization for at least slack oversight if not knowing complicity. How the virus started is vitally important not just to prevent a future occurrence but for accountability. This may have been perhaps the greatest error committed by “science” in human history.
The virus appears to be doing what viruses do, which is mutate and become less lethal to their hosts. Yet Kamala Harris insists that the administration was taken by surprise. I’m no scientist but even I’m not surprised by this.
You seem unconcerned about the attack on our civil liberties. It used to be that the Left championed things like free speech. How times have changed. What happened to the concept of being in control of one’s own body and not being forced to take “medication” without consent? Do you think someone should be coerced into being vaccinated through threat of economic ruin? Seriously? Denying people unemployment benefits who are laid off for refusing to get a vaccine? Really?
I happen to be “pro choice” on abortion, and my position that women have a right to control their bodies and people have a right to refuse vaccination without unfair coercion is consistent. You must be “pro-Life,” and if you are not, I’d like to know why. I’m sure you will argue that the unvaccinated can infect other people, but your pesky science would contradict that argument since vaccinated (and boosted) people can also infect other people, and if masks work, then the unvaccinated should at most be forced to wear one.
Have a nice Xmas and New Year,
Allen
Allen,
I don’t have disagreement with your analysis (that tax cuts are preferable to increasing entitlement spending, largely because the former allows for wealth creation while the latter encourages dependency).
But there is more to debt creation. I view the government’s intrusion into the economy as a tripod of taxes, regulation, and spending. Ideally, we want all 3 legs of this stool as small and simple as possible. But the combination needs to also lead to balanced budgets. Unfortunately, while there is lots of movement back and forth on the first two items, there is almost zero political appetite for spending restraint (let alone spending cuts). It is used as a talking point on the campaign trail and quietly dies once the election is over. The Public Choice Theory of Economics keeps its stranglehold and prevents meaningful spending cuts.
Gramm-Rudman-Hollings and later PAYGO tried to make meaningful cuts in spending which didn’t last for very long. Obama and the Republican Congress tried sequestration but unfortunately it treated baby and bathwater alike and made across the board cuts for a few years, which depleted military readiness (including insufficient ammunition) which compromised national security. I don’t know what is a long-term politically acceptable solution to this out of control spending. Perhaps tying Congressional (and Federal government) salary increases not just to inflation but also to debt reduction will focus all their brains on reducing spending where we can, including curbing entitlements. One low hanging fruit which may be possible is to raise the retirement age by 2 months each year till 70 (currently it only reaches 67, and 68 several decades hence, which is too long).
Until then, the debt clock keeps ticking and who knows what social upheavals await us as inflation rages and Fauci’s permanent pandemic keeps half the country scared to the point of psychosis.
Nijan,
Your last sentence IS the psychosis. It reflects the attitude that science should be ignored because…oh, well, you explain that foolishness. If everyone followed Fauci’s lead, thousands of lives could have been saved. And, dude, it is going to get worse because of comments like yours. Yes, anti science blather is complicit.
As to debt? I agree that deficit spending can’t go on forever. The answer is payment. The richest nation in the history of the planet lets the super rich escape taxation and they send joy rockets into space. WHOO HOO. There is plenty of money to fund all the nescessary programs to be a civilized society. But the funds are in the wrong pockets.
More thoughts about “debt”: Most major companies are freeloaders with ENORMOUS amounts of debt – subsidized by stupid low interest rates. They are operating on essentially free money. OUR money. And the execs get paid obscene amounts of money with OUR subsidies!
If you are looking for a villan, consider the Fed. Savers have been punished for years with insanely low interest rates. This has sent the unsuspecting but desperate for yield average person into a stock market they don’t belong in. 2008 was just a dress rehearsal.
So go ahead and beat up on the government for doing the same thing that the fat cats do. The difference is that my government wants to feed kids and yours floats yachts.
Hi Nijan,
Thanks for your comment.
The problem as I see it is simple American politics. Most Republicans favor a balanced budget and paying back the debt. But when they have to run for re-election, they are running against the Democrats who promise free lunches, not to mention dinners, breakfasts, and snacks. Everything is “free” to the Dems and they claim they can pay for it just by “taxing the rich.” But the underlying flaw to this is that a Capitalist society with very high taxation rates will perform no better than a Socialist society. And, of course, the taxes never stop with the “rich” but must get down to the middle class because that’s where the bulk of the wealth is in this country.
I would make an analogy to why all politicians lie. If they told the truth, they would alienate motivated groups of voters such that they couldn’t get elected. And those that are elected who cut entitlements can’t get re-elected. And this is why the Republicans who are against “Build Back Better” insist that all new programs be scored by the CBO as lasting for 10 years (not one, or two, or five.) That is because the motivation to keep programs going is extremely strong.
Maybe only a major crisis can solve this dilemma, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try as hard as possible to avert the crisis as long as possible, which means trying to moderate spending and control the debt and our annual deficits as best we can. And maybe one day, enough people will realize the danger of perpetual deficits and trillions in debt and will somehow empower Congress to fix it.
Perhaps Congress could take the “baby step” of passing a balanced budget amendment. And then we would just be debating how much to raise military spending to counter our foreign adversaries and how can we reduce the welfare state, increase productivity, and empower our citizens to stop thinking that the sole function of the government is to “help” them.
Allen