Socialism’s Promises Come With a Bill for Our Children

As a mother of two young children, I spend a lot of time thinking about the future. Will my children be able to buy a home, raise a family, and build a life they love? What can we do now to give them a better start?

Those questions should guide public policy, too. When Washington promises to make life more affordable by taking on enormous new obligations, parents deserve to ask who will ultimately pay.

A new report from the White House Council of Economic Advisers puts that question in stark terms. The administration estimates that seven major policies associated with the Democratic Socialists of America’s (DSA) agenda would add roughly $49 trillion to federal deficits over 10 years, approximately $355,000 for every American household.

That household figure illustrates the scale; it is not a tax bill arriving in everyone’s mailbox. These projections depend on the administration’s assumptions about the proposals and how they'd be financed. But the underlying question remains: How does an agenda become affordable simply because the government pays for it?

Families understand that putting a purchase on a credit card doesn’t make it free. Washington should be held to the same standard.

The appeal of these proposals is easy to understand. People want affordable housing, accessible healthcare, and more time with their families. I want those things, too. But good intentions don’t excuse bad policy. We should judge proposals by their consequences.

Consider the DSA’s call for a 32-hour workweek without reducing pay or benefits. As a working mother, I understand the appeal of more time at home. I also know that a business cannot wish away the work required to serve its customers.

Imagine a small business that needs employees on site for 40 hours each week. If Washington requires the same weekly pay for 32 hours, the owner must cover the remaining hours. That could mean hiring additional help, raising prices, reducing service, or accepting a smaller margin.

For the same weekly paycheck, moving from 40 hours to 32 increases the hourly labor cost by 25 percent. Unless productivity rises enough to offset it, someone must absorb the difference.

Some businesses may make a shorter week work beautifully. They should have the freedom to try. A federal mandate, however, assumes the same arrangement will work for a consulting firm, a restaurant, and a manufacturer. Employers and employees deserve room to find arrangements that fit their work.

Housing policy demands similar accountability.

A study of San Francisco’s rent control expansion by Rebecca Diamond, Tim McQuade, and Franklin Qian found real benefits for covered tenants, including less displacement. It also found that affected landlords reduced rental housing supply by 15 percent by selling to owner-occupants and redeveloping buildings. The researchers concluded that the lost supply likely increased market rents over time.

One city’s experience does not settle every housing debate. It does demonstrate why policymakers must look beyond the immediate benefit to people already inside a program.

What happens to the young couple searching for their first apartment? The parent moving closer to work? Their needs count, too.

I would rather see policymakers make it easier to build homes, streamline permitting, and remove restrictions that prevent communities from adding housing. A rent ceiling cannot substitute for an available apartment.

Healthcare deserves the same scrutiny. Government coverage does not guarantee timely treatment.

According to the Canadian Institute for Health Information, in 2024, only 68 percent of hip replacements and 61 percent of knee replacements were performed within the recommended six months. That means roughly one-third of hip replacement patients and nearly four in ten knee replacement patients waited longer.

For someone living with pain or struggling to walk, that delay is a real cost, even when it never appears on a medical bill.

Canada faces workforce shortages and rising demand; these numbers do not prove that public financing alone caused the delays. They do show why lawmakers must explain how any sweeping healthcare overhaul would protect timely access. Promising coverage does not create the doctors, nurses, or operating rooms needed to deliver it.

A budget table also cannot capture the cost of the authority we hand to government. Every new federal guarantee requires decisions about eligibility, funding, rules, and enforcement. Families deserve to know what choices they would surrender.

I want my children to inherit a country where they can work, build, save, and make decisions for themselves. That requires a government willing to exercise restraint today.

Before Washington promises our children everything, it should explain how much of their future it plans to spend.

Editor's Note: Do you enjoy Townhall's conservative reporting exposing the radical left and woke media? Support our work so we can keep bringing you the truth.

Join Townhall VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.