Jim Acosta Had a Sad Gathering of Resistance Losers in DC
We Are in a Political Game
Democrats Have Suddenly Become Interested in the Epstein Files – I Wonder Why?
Top Lawyer Shuts Down Elon Musk’s Explosive Claim About Trump and Epstein
'Corrupt As Hell': Trump Goes Off on The New York Times and Washington...
The Spat vs. the Scandal
Tehran’s Nuclear Lies Unraveled by Iran’s Democratic Resistance
Trump Administration Blasts Boston Mayor's 'Sickening' Comments About ICE Agents
The Latest Jobs Report Is Here
Musk Changed His Tune on Decommissioning Dragon Amid Trump Feud. Here's Why.
There's Been an Update About That Reported Phone Call Between Trump, Musk Following...
Here's What Jasmine Crockett Thinks Is Going to Help Her Party for 'This...
Disgusting: Major Event in Texas Canceled Over Jihadist Threats
Four Democrat-Led States Urge the FDA to Lift Abortion Pill Restrictions
Scott Jennings Certainly Has Thoughts on KJP’s New Book
Tipsheet

Kamala on How She'd Pay For Her Big Government Agenda: 'It's Not About a Cost'

This answer reminds me a little bit of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez asserting that self-assigned moral righteousness is more important than being "precisely, factually, and semantically correct," in that it's an entirely unserious cop-out.  Pretending that factual accuracy is a minor annoyance is both revealing and irresponsible. So is waving off the enormous price tags for massive proposed expansions of government as irrelevant.   It's not a cost, you see, it's an "investment:" 

Advertisement


It's a snappy, superficial sound byte, but it doesn't answer the fundamental question.  Harris and other Democrats are welcome to try to make the case to the American people that their various statist "investments" are worth the costs -- but that doesn't eliminate those costs.  They still exist in reality, and they must be paid for somehow.  As we've discussed at length, just one major piece of the Left's agenda -- single-payer healthcare -- would mean well over $3 trillion in new spending every single year, in perpetuity.  Paying for that would require giant, across-the-board tax increases on all American families and businesses.  This includes small businesses, as well as working and middle class households.  

Everyone would get hit, and the tax hikes would not be modest.  And that's just a one agenda item.  Once you toss the 'Green New Deal' into the mix, all of the numbers just balloon even further.  The New York Times' analysis of how expensive it would be drew ire from liberal readers, many of whom apparently believe that the urgency to act renders the math unimportant.  This tweet prompted furious complaints:  

Advertisement


Grappling with fiscal realities, it seems, is enabling the "deniers."  This Times account ended up firing off a string of quasi-apologetic and defensive tweets.  Meanwhile, there's this wild component of the Green New Deal's infamous FAQ document:


This truly nutty theory, which is absolutely not accepted by nearly any serious economists, posits the following:

MMT has many elements, and its advocates tend to express these in terms that aren’t familiar to many mainstream economists. But the central argument that the U.S. government doesn’t really have a budget constraint — and thus, that taxes are never needed to pay for federal spending — is simple enough to grasp. Basically, it’s because the government can print dollars whenever it wants. 

Will Democratic proponents of endless new "investments" embrace this insanity? Or will they be forced to address the literal fact that these are costs that must be paid by someone?  On that score, I'll leave you with yet another push to spend even more money -- this time, to expand a major entitlement program that is (a) already going insolvent and (b) already running annual cash deficits:

Advertisement


What could go wrong? Eh, who cares? People with big ideas, no matter how reckless, are apparently the "boss." Haven't you heard?

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement