As we get closer to the Democratic primaries, we hear many ideas floated by many candidates. Most of the ideas would be very expensive to enact into legislation. And while those costly programs may make some happy, too many tax increases tht would be necessary to pay for the program, may tank the economy.
The best reason to raise taxes would be to pay down the national debt and to strive for a balanced budget. We have seen that politicians on both sides of the aisle are reluctant to reduce spending, so if we want to do anything about our country being in the red, some tax increases are needed – whether or not they’re desired.
One item that’s interesting is that many Americans, according to a recent Gallup poll, were not satisfied with the way income was distributed in our country. It’s noteworthy because the number one thing our government does is redistributes people’s earned wages through taxes and various programs.
So? Well, according to the Constitution, the federal government has the power to levy taxes. That income is meant to pay for the “limited and enumerated powers” the federal government has, which are listed in the same piece of paper. However, nowhere in our founding document is there anything about the government being a blackjack dealer.
Keeping that in mind, there are some proposed programs that would necessitate big tax increases. Since Congress won’t cut spending, those big taxes, particularly if enough of those programs become law, could do more to tank the economy than help anything else.
The most dramatic expense would be that of the Green New Deal. The former director of the Congressional Budget Office estimates that it would cost $93 trillion, meaning $600,000 per household. There goes the Friday after-work pizza.
Even if that cost is spread out over an epoch – it would have to be – how would it ever be paid off? The accompanying increase in taxes would greatly inhibit a family’s disposable income. Like it or not, ours is a consumer-driven market economy, and the constant flow of money makes it hum.
The Medicare-for-All plan is no slouch when it comes to cost, either. According to the same Congressional Budget Office, it will cost $34 trillion in just its first decade of operation. That’s an additional $219,000 in the first decade per family. Warren Buffett, check your email; we need help.
Citizens who want their federal government to ameliorate conditions not covered in its Constitution have lost their independence, or at least their willingness to be creative through private enterprise to solve those problems. And given our nation’s debt, our economy must continue to grow so that we don’t default on our loans.
If there’s anyone who now thinks that the federal government doesn’t have enough social programs, just wait. The most austere budget you can imagine will be the product of our country’s bankruptcy, which will require many programs to be eliminated in order to balance the books.
President Trump certainly is vulnerable in the next election. However, a moderate Democrat, particularly one with common-sense and low-cost solutions to the nations’ problems, has the best chance to win. The city of Sacramento, California just announced the closing of several long-established eateries due to the minimum-wage hike, another economy killer.
At George Will’s lecture in Erie on Nov. 7, he said that if Democrats are serious about beating President Trump, then they have to drop some of their zany ideas. Let’s add the word costly as an adjective describing their ideas as well.