Government Spending

It Sure Looks Like Democrats Don't Have the Votes To Raise Enough Taxes To Pay for Their Massive Spending Bill

And it just might reduce the tax burden for the well-off in the short term.

|

No one knows precisely what's in the massive Democratic spending bill—not even the Democrats who are supposed to vote for it. The plan started as a $3.5 trillion climate and welfare bill, and has now been whittled down to somewhere in the range of $1.5 trillion. 

As negotiations have dragged on, however, President Joe Biden and his fellow Democrats have repeatedly claimed that the bill would cost nothing—or, more precisely, as Biden tweeted in September, "zero dollars." 

This was always a fallacious argument: A $1.5 trillion spending bill still costs $1.5 trillion, even if the spending is offset by commensurate tax hikes. If you get a $100 bonus, and then use that money to go out for a dinner that costs $100, the dinner isn't somehow free. It is, however, paid for via additional revenue. 

Being generous, then, this argument was really just that the $1 trillion-plus in new spending would be paid for by tax hikes, which Democrats promised would fall mostly on the wealthy. The bill would cost however much it would cost. But it wouldn't add to the debt. And, Biden and company have hastened to add, the new taxes would fall primarily on the rich. 

Yet, as haggling over the bill has continued, it has become increasingly unlikely that this is a promise that Democrats can actually live up to, even as the bill has shrunk in scope and cost. 

The problem is both simple and not obviously surmountable: Despite controlling both the House and the Senate, it is not at all clear that Democrats have the votes to raise sufficient taxes to pay for their agenda—or even to tax the rich and well-off, who, Democrats insist, will bear the brunt of the cost of their plans. 

That problem has been brought to the fore over the last week, as it became clear that Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D–Ariz.) would not support any rate increases. Democrats had planned to raise a significant amount of new revenue by reversing some of the rate reductions in the 2017 GOP tax bill, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, but since they need every single Democratic caucus vote in the Senate in order to pass the bill, Sinema's no-rate-hikes position left Democrats scrounging for an alternative. 

The proposal they landed on was a so-called billionaire tax, a kind of spiritual successor to the wealth tax long backed by Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.) and Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.). The billionaire tax was designed to hit unrealized capital gains for approximately 700 billionaires and individuals whose incomes exceeded $100 million for three consecutive years. 

That idea had numerous inherent problems: Among them, it was almost certainly unworkable, since it was premised in part on annual valuations of unique, hard-to-value, illiquid assets. Also, like Warren's original wealth tax proposal, it was probably unconstitutional, since it could be challenged as either a bill of attainder (an attempt to punish either an individual or small cohort through legislation) or as a "direct tax." 

Even the move to adopt this proposal demonstrated how Democrats were struggling to find plausible revenue raisers to offset the cost of their plans. One argument floated in favor of the billionaire tax was that it was actually fine and perhaps even good that the tax was likely to be struck down by the courts. In this view, it was really just a deficit-reduction fig leaf—a budget gimmick, somewhat like the CLASS Act in Obamacare, that Democrats could use to make their spending package look paid for on paper, even if the tax never went into effect. 

The proposal gained traction among Democrats, but over the last few days, it became clear that Sen. Joe Manchin (D–W. Va.), arguably the most critical Democrat in the spending bill negotiations, might not support it. Some House Democrats also expressed concerns, indicating a deeper well of reservation than just a single moderate senator. 

Once again, congressional Democrats had run into a problem of achieving consensus among themselves. As of this afternoon, multiple reports suggest the idea has already been dropped because Manchin isn't willing to back it. 

Presuming this holds—again, the bill is in flux, and details are changing on an hourly basis—where will Democrats find support for tax increases to pay for the scaled-back $1.5 trillion plan?

It is certainly possible that some deal will still be negotiated, that some other tax mechanism or mechanisms will be found that can raise sufficient revenue to make the tax-and-spending math work. But even if something eventually passes, Democrats' down-to-the-wire struggle highlights the inherent political difficulty of raising taxes, even within a party that is nominally devoted to the idea that higher taxes, especially on the rich and well-off, are a popular political good. And the reason for that difficulty is not the intransigence of tax-hating Republicans, or the existence of the Senate filibuster, but the fact that Democrats are having trouble mustering sufficient support from elected Democrats. 

Indeed, a grace note to this story is that top Democrats, particularly Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D–N.Y.) and House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D–Calif.) have fought to raise or eliminate the cap on the state and local tax (SALT) deduction. This is a targeted tax carve out that allows people to deduct state and local taxes from their federal tax burden. In effect, it is a subsidy for high state taxes that mostly benefits relatively well off households in blue states and cities with high taxes—which is to say, Schumer's and Pelosi's constituents. 

Even those expected to vote on the bill don't know precisely what is in it at any given moment, but recent reports have suggested that Democrats are intent on raising or eliminating the cap. Indeed, according to Politico, the process was briefly stalled last week when a group of congressional Democrats became worried that President Biden might jettison the SALT provision. There is a definite constituency within the Democratic Party for eliminating the cap, and thus benefiting well-off, blue-state households. 

A recent analysis by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget found that, depending on how the final spending bill is structured, repeal of the SALT cap could end up delivering a net tax cut to high earners for the first two years. This is what congressional Democrats want. 

Even if a rough framework emerges this week or next, the bill could always evolve. But it's at least possible to imagine that, despite Biden's repeated, explicit promises, the Democrats' spending bill will add to the debt and decrease the near-future tax burden for the wealthy. 

NEXT: Georgia City Sued Over Ban on Tiny Houses, Small Cottages

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. whittled down to $1.5 trillion seems oxymoronic.

    1. Why the "oxy."

      1. ya that too.

        1. Sarah getting Paid up to $18953 in the week, working on-line at home. I’m full time Student. I shocked when my sister’s told me about her check that was $97k. It’s very easy to do.QEd everybody will get this job. Go to home media tab for additional details……

          So I started........ Visit Here

          1. Hey Guys, I know you read many news comments and posts to earn money online jobs. Some people don’t know how to earn money and are saying to fake it. You trust me. I just started this 4 weeks ago. I’ve got my FIRST check total of $3850, pretty cool. I hope you tried it.TOo You don’t need to invest anything. Just click and open the page to click the first statement and check jobs .. ..

            Go Here.............CASH APP

    2. "When the numbers are this big, they're just pretend."
      https://youtu.be/CPDr9wGNEfg?t=266

    3. Below Trump's $2.2 trillion Welfare, Handout, and Re-election CARES Act of 2020 that he a McConnell pushed through the GOP Senate.

      both parties suck.

      1. veritas.

        1. Shhh, not until after the election.

      2. Maybe. But Democrats definitely suck more. Another binary thinker who misses nuance.

        1. To be fair, 7.5 trillion dollars in new spending (1.9 trillion to rescue America, 2.1 trillion to rebuild America's crumbling infrastructure, and 3.5 trillion to save American families and address America's climate crisis) on top of the now baselined 6 trillion dollar annual budget is not very nuanced either.

          1. And less than a billion dollars of that money would really go to any of those things. Then remove the all the grift from what’s left, and you get a few hundred million, tops.

            It would be so much easier to dispose of the democrats, the RINOs, and everyone else with their hand out.

        2. White Mike and sarcasmic were teaming up in the morning thread to congratulate themselves on being the only true both sides centrists.

          1. I can see Sarc front and center at the liquor cabinet, but that's about it.

      3. You’re right Kiddie Raper, Trump did that all by himself. The democrat controlled house and senate had no involvement and there were no veto proof majorities.

      4. turd lies. It's all turd ever does. If turd posts something which isn't a like, it is totally accidental.
        turd lies; it's what he does.

    4. It's the old scam of trying to get us to accept the $1.5 trillion level because it's not the threatened $3.5 trillion originally threatened.

      1. Hey Guys, I know you read many news comments and posts to earn money online jobs. Some people don’t know how to earn money and are saying to fake it. You trust me. I just started this 4 weeks ago. I’ve got my FIRST check total of $3850, pretty cool. I hope you tried it.BHi You don’t need to invest anything. Just click and open the page to click the first statement and check jobs .. ..

        Go Here..............Earn App

    5. Add the 1.6 infrastructure and still over 3T.

  2. Democrats paraphrased, "YOUR LABOR IS FREE! .... for us elite princesses who tote Gov-Guns around anyways. All you little people working all day for a can a beans and a box of sticks -- YOU don't matter. But if you're lucky we might send you a *free* can of beans for your vote."

    Democrats biggest idiocy....
    Thinking Gov-Guns *creates* wealth.

      1. You can say Fuck. We're libertarians here.

        1. Chinga tu madre el presidente Biden!

          1. That's Spanish.

      2. Recently spoke with a Brazilian friend. She said they didn’t like Trump mostly because he stood up for the US. They laugh their asses off at how inept Biden is. He makes South American banana republic dictatorships seem legit.

  3. "And it just might reduce the tax burden for the well-off in the short term."

    LOL

    #VoteDemocratToHelpTheRich
    #OBLsFirstLaw

  4. Prediction: They will ultimately pass something that increases the deficit. And no one will care.

    1. Well, no one who matters to the morons in Congress will care.

  5. Psaki psays no new taxes.

    1. nobody tells Peppermint Patty she's fired if no shot, too.

      1. The more pertinent question is ,what did she do with Raggedy Andy?

        1. Wouldn't you like to know.

    2. does the carpet match the curtains?

      1. The carpet has a pstain.

        1. Psarc would psuck her nut psack.

          1. Only after a couple shots of hot psaki.

      2. No. But we have determined the politics match the drapes.

  6. Time again to propose a constitutional amendment to immediately remove from office, and permanently bar from politics, any legislator who votes on a bill that the legislator has not personally read entirely, in its final form. Any and all monies in their campaign funds will be forfeit to the treasury.

  7. $1.5 trillion over ten years -- the term I have observed -- is $150 billion per year.

    Isn't that roughly $500 per American per year? Less than $10 a week?

    People who hyperventilate myopically about Gabby the van dweller (one of how many murder victims in a year?), the movie set shooting (rather than more common and just as tragic accidents), and a $10-buck-a-week spending bill have a strange perspective.

    1. "People who hyperventilate myopically about Gabby the van dweller (one of how many murder victims in a year?)"

      Excellent point. She's just not as important as Trayvon.

      #BlackLivesMatter

      1. She didn't even get a statue. Not enough drugs in her system I guess.

    2. So for a household of 4 making median income of $66k/yr it’s only 3%of their gross income.

      1. For a household of four making $30,000 a year, it might be Grandma's blood pressure medicine.

        1. And that’s on top of all the other spending.

        2. Why new spending should be halted.

      2. I should have been clearer. That 10-bucks-a-week is average. Someone like me will shoulder maybe $100 weekly, which is reasonable. Someone who earns less than $100,000 annually, or maybe it's higher, would pay less toward that $10 weekly tab.

        Plus, lower-income recipients would probably tend to be bigger beneficiaries of the public works. Someone in my position already has a good life and wouldn't be helped much by a number of the programs, probably not even qualify for a benefit from them.

        Poorer Americans would be strong net beneficiaries.

        These 'what about the poor person earning $30,000 (or $50,000) a year' complaints are uninformed and largely valueless.

        1. Yes, the government has done so well for the poor since the war on poverty started in the ‘60’s.

          1. Well, yes.

            "We evaluate progress in President Johnson's War on Poverty relative to the 20 percent baseline poverty rate he established for 1963. No existing poverty measure fully captures poverty reductions based on these standards. We fill this gap by developing an absolute Full-income Poverty Measure (FPM) whose thresholds are established to obtain this same 20 percent official poverty rate in 1963 while using a fuller measure of income and updating thresholds each year only for inflation. While the official poverty rate fell from 19.5 percent in 1963 to 10.5 percent in 2019, our absolute FPM rate fell from 19.5 to 1.6 percent. This reflects increases in full income throughout the distribution, with real median income more than doubling between 1963 and 2019, together with the expansion of government transfers and tax benefits not fully captured by the official measure. It is also broadly consistent with the expectations of President Johnson and his Council of Economic Advisers, including Robert Lampman who predicted in 1971 that poverty based on these absolute standards would be eliminated by 1980. However, we also show that reductions in relative poverty since 1963 have been far more modest, falling from 19.5 to 16.0 percent in 2019. "

            https://www.nber.org/papers/w26532

            1. Alright, let's try discussion:

              The relevant pdf whose abstract you are quoting is a 60 page document. The abstract sounds good. Now, if you are using it as a source to make a point, I would assume you might be familiar with more than just the abstract. Hence my following question: Without criticizing the way poverty is measured here, where in this document can I find the relevant passage that shows me that said reduction in poverty is indeed due to government actions and doesn't just run parallel to them?

              Because see, governments will try to take credit for everything that gets better over time. And this seems to cover a time frame from 1963 to 2019, very extensive. I know it says "It is also broadly consistent with the expectations of President Johnson and his Council of Economic Advisers, including Robert Lampman who predicted in 1971 that poverty based on these absolute standards would be eliminated by 1980". Such predictions could very well be made if someone just has some trust in progress and innovation.

              TLDR: So whatever reduction in poverty is being postulated here between 1963 and 2019, and irrespective of how it is measured, how can you show me that this has happened BECAUSE of whatever government actions have taken place and not despite of them? How do I know that this is not just a baseless attempt to take credit for a positive development that was somewhat predictable anyways, as economics weren't exactly a myth back in the 1960s? Is there a way to at least show me a correlation? Because, mind you, you are the one who seems to imply that the government can take credit for the positive development. How do you make this connection?

        2. Nothing motivates "the poor" (i.e. a poor nation) better than punishing the rich productive and subsidizing the useless poor.

          Well all see this everyday; Those driving brand new pickups to the unemployment office, those living in suburban mansions who have never had a job in their entire life but bopped out a couple of fatherless children and a drug addiction and why are those "poor" who are living far better than 99% of the working "poor" not motivated to be an asset to anyone but themselves??? And I quote from millions of stories across the USA.

          If I get a job it won't pay me nearly as much as STEALING from the productive people by Gov-Gun-Forces. Thank goodness we have a speckle of rich productive in this nation - the ROBBERS pretty much have every minor production out of business.

          1. The "welfare queen" myth again. Get some new material. That joke is at least 40 years out of date.

            1. Earn your own d*mn food - spoiled self-entitled "welfare-queen"...
              That's for you and all your "welfare queen" allies.

              If you want to support self-entitled "welfare queens" then do it.

              There is absolutely NOTHING stopping you. Just don't pretend packing and pocking guns at everything and STEALING from them is a-okay just because your spoiled self-entitled "welfare queens" are having a fuss about not having 250-channels to watch all day.

        3. Try dividing by the number of tax paying Americans and not our entire population, retard.

        4. You are missing the point entirely, fake Reverend.

          We have a debt problem. People are sick to death of being an ATM to Democrats that don't even feel the need at this point to tell us what they are actually taking our money for. The government is bad at everything except funneling dollars to their cohorts and and unintended consequences. Even if it's a buck a year it's too much to the criminal grifters in DC.

    3. 1.5 trillion in new debt is also around 10K for each of America's approximately 150 million taxpayers to pay off someday. On top of the 29 trillion we already owe (about 200K each).

      We're in debt up to our eyeballs. "A little bit more won't hurt" is true in neither regard.

    4. I knew I was going to see a non-bashing comment under your handle one day.

      Yes, it is less than 10 dollars per person per week, but about 20 if only applied to tax payers. So that doesn't sound like a lot over the course of 10 years if it does what it is supposed to do (which arguably includes paying for grandmas meds). Of course it would be on top of 29 billion of debt, but for the sake of having a meaningful discussion, I will accept that it doesn't sound like much, seen this way.

      In that case, the problem is trust. Trust that the money will end up where it should, when it should. Trust that it will stay in the time frame and not be a gateway to something else. Trust that it will not be used in much the same way a heroin dealer will use a first free shot to gain new customers. Trust that anyone even knows what they're doing with so much money, which doesn't seem to apply to the people who would sign it into law.

      The original bill had more than 2400 pages. I do not know how many it has now. What's in it? Will this be used to achieve something positive? I read some of what it proposes. Can I know anything about potential sneaky legal implications of a document this long, even if I had read it all? If you have a JD, you know this better than me.

      I received an email from one of my financial institutions that asked me to take action (letter to representative prompt) because of that proposed IRS transaction reporting law. Which has a solid share of democratic politician's support - not necessarily from voters. Said institution is left-leaning, if anything.

      Currently, the Democrats present me with all sorts of red buttons that are labeled "PRESS THIS TO MAKE GOOD THINGS HAPPEN". This bill is one of them. Said buttons are attached to a black box that has displayed bizarre behaviors in the past that don't allow me to have a high level of confidence in any positive prediction I could come up with. And that's a diplomatic way to put it. So either way, opposition seems to be a reasonable heuristic here, unfortunately.

      1. I like public investments. I needed money for college and graduate school; no help from family. I worked throughout school, but also borrowed $6,000 or $7,000 (best recollection), which seemed like a pile of money at the time . . . roughly as much as my father ever earned in a year. I repaid those loans for 10 years. Today, I pay a six-figure tax bill every year. I favor those types of investments and returns.

        Similarly, I had a terrible financial statement when I graduated, especially after I bought a small house. Nothing but debt that was a multiple of my annual income (then). No real assets other than what might come of a life insurance policy. But investing in that education and that house were great ideas, and today those "big" debts would be rounding errors on my balance sheet. So I don't get exercised over snapshot, out-of-context financial statements. Context (including scale and reasonable projections) is important.

        1. Nothing stopping you from investing your money for public good but why do you think you get decide where I invest mine?

          1. That.

          2. Because he's an authoritarian bootlicker with an oral sex fetish.

      2. Edit: I meant to say 29 trillion of debt, not billion.

    5. Try dividing by tax paying Americans not the entire population retard.

    6. Try dividing by the tax paying population and not 330 million, retard.

    7. Ah yes, the old "it's only pennies a day!" routine. It's sad that people still fall for this. To buy into it, you have to forget certain realities, like:

      --the fact that government programs always cost more than advertised
      --the fact that these programs aren't going to end in ten years; they're intended to last forever
      --the fact that this "$10 a week" is going on TOP of an existing tax burden that is just a wee bit more than $10 a week
      --the fact that this is not the last "little" spending bill that's going to be foisted on us
      --the fact that my one paycheck also has to pay state and local taxes...I just had to cut a check to pay property tax on my car
      etc.

      You see, Rev, here in the real world you can't look at a given government program in isolation and pretend it doesn't affect anything else.

    8. $10 a week.

      For less than that you can sponsor an African elephant and get a free plush doll and nice picture to go with it. Makes a nice gift. Could I do that instead?

      Also Alec Baldwin because he was great in Hunt for Red October.

      And Gabbie was cute as the dickens. So that.

  8. Since the federal government has done such an outstanding job of managing the trillions we send them every year, what's the object to sending more?
    Oh right, the federal government sucks at everything they do. Never mind.

  9. I hope this drags on for another week. That will kill this stupid piece of legislation. All attention will then have to be on the debt ceiling. Ten years ago, I think they did sequestration. Maybe it needs to happen again.

    1. How often have your wishes prevailed in America during your lifetime?

      In general, right-wing preferences have been crushed by American progress for so long as any of us has been alive. I see no reason to expect that trajectory to change.

      1. And that's why the blacks living in our urban centers under majority Democrat rule have the worst outcomes of any demographic in the country.

  10. Fuck Democrats in their brown eye!

  11. In effect, it is a subsidy for high state taxes that mostly benefits relatively well off households in blue states and cities with high taxes—which is to say, the upper 5% of Schumer's and Pelosi's constituents.

    That is, their largest individual campaign donors.

  12. "The plan started as a $3.5 trillion climate and welfare bill, and has now been whittled down to somewhere in the range of $1.5 trillion. "

    WHITTLED DOWN

    HEH.

  13. The D party is all about punishing people they don't like politically now. As bad as Team Red still is Team Blue needs to be stomped and ground into dust next year. Perhaps the survivors can salvage something sane and not completely worthless. Then it will be time to stomp Team Red.

    1. I can endorse this plan.

  14. It's the old scam of trying to get us to feel relieved enough to accept the $1.5 trillion level because it's not the $3.5 trillion originally threatened.

    1. “Stop crying victim. We will only rape you in the ass. Your mouth is safe!” - Progressive ideology

  15. If you get a $100 bonus, and then use that money to go out for a dinner that costs $100, the dinner isn't somehow free.

    Actually, the 100 dollar bonus is about 60 bucks after taxes.
    And the 100 dollar dinner is about 130 bucks after taxes and tip.

    1. And in this case, someone else gets to eat the dinner.

  16. To be fair, the "billionaire tax" was never going to pay for all the spending either. There aren't enough billionaires. It was estimated to raise only around 200 billion over 10 years (although most of it would be the first year, on accumulated unrealized capital gains from time immemorial).

    And no one seemed to realize (or be willing to admit) that forcing the very wealthy to sell 30% of their stock portfolios ALL AT ONCE to cover the new tax in Year 1 would crater the stock market and hit the wealthy of every American prudent enough to have an IRA or a 401k.

    1. You assume a 30% tax on unrealized gains. To be fair, have any Democrats advocated for this?

      1. I haven't read the entire law but it seems the unrealized gains would be counted as income, and thus susceptible to income tax.

        The highest bracket this year of income taxes is individual 520k, married 620k at 37%.

        And the tax rate is still over 30% until you get down to making less than 120k.

        1. What happen when the valuation of the assets decreases? Will The Gov't then issue billion dollar checks to billionaires?

    2. The billionaires pay minimal taxes because most of their wealth is in unrealized gains which they borrow off of. All their yachts and islands are bought with borrowed money.

      We'll never get any money out of the billionaires unless they pay something for their unrealized gains. Getting some of those taxes they owe won't touch their lifestyles. Maybe one less fancy house.

      1. "All their yachts and islands are bought with borrowed money."

        You realize that they need to pay that money back, right? These loans have absolutely zero effect on you or others except to the extent that the bank profits from the loan.

        1. They just pay the interest and eventually sell the place. They are just renting from the bank at a low interest rate which they can deduct. The stock just sits there making money.

          Trump has it even better. He borrows from the banks to fund his properties which he lives, eats, works, and plays in so he doesn’t need any income to be taxed. His travel expenses all count as business and his rallies are paid for by his PAC.

        2. "You realize that they need to pay that money back, right? "
          Which they pay from the proceeds of their next loan.
          Eventually the banks will own the assests.

  17. I remember an old letter to the editor of the Austin American Statesman that I wish I had saved, because it never gets old.

    In it, a sweet lady who moved there to escape oppressive cost of living in California, lamented that despite voting for every bond to improve the city, her taxes continued to rise and threatened to price her out of another city.

    They never fucking learn.

  18. Expect Sinema to get a very posh DNC appointment some time in the future.

  19. It seems like Biden & Co missed the memo from all of the social democrat countries from Australia thru Canada to Sweden that you can't finance an extensive welfare state by "Taxing the rich".

    Every single country with a generous system of entitlements to everyone relies on heavily taxing the "middle class". It becomes not so much a system of "taxing the rich" as a system of "those who get the benefits" need to pay for them.

    That means that in the countries that have these generous entitlement it isn't just the "middle-class" that get burned it's basically minimum wage workers as well.

    So, yes, you get "free" medical care in those countries but if you actually want good medical care you "go private".

    1. Yes, but you can significantly reduce the existence of the rich with your tax policies.

      1. Punishing the rich does seem to be at the heart of these movements.

        1. Nominally. Throw a bit of SALT in for seasoning before serving.

    2. All of those countries have higher top marginal tax rates than the US. But the people they are really hurting are those with earned income not the truly wealthy.

      1. When you factor in state and local taxes, our top marginal rate is comparable to those in Europe. The big difference is that these high marginal tax rates kick in at much lower income thresholds than in the US. Our top marginal rates kick in at around 10x of median household income, while in Europe, the top rate kicks in at around 1.5x of median household income. This is how it is that despite their higher top marginal rate, our income tax regime is more progressive than that of Europe. And all of this ignores Europe's value-added tax, which is essentially a consumption tax and is therefore regressive in its effects.

    1. Your country smells like ass.

  20. The Democrats just haven't figured out how to commit fraud on a roll call vote, YET!

  21. It really shouldn't surprise anyone that the Democrats are having a lot of trouble getting this bill passed. There are way too many different things jammed into this one little sack. Is it any wonder they can't even get their own party to agree on all of it?

    The sensible way to do this is to give each issue its own bill. But, heh, this is the federal government in action. Doing things sensibly is racist or something.

    1. Line item voting would be ideal.

    2. Well, they jam everyone's pet project into them to get everyone to vote for it. Quid Pro Quo in one big package.

  22. “ It is certainly possible that some deal will still be negotiated, that some other tax mechanism or mechanisms will be found that can raise sufficient revenue to make the tax-and-spending math work. ”

    They can’t make it work, because it depends on static analysis, where dollars in equal dollars out. But that nonsense was debunked in the 1970s, and esp under Reagan. It’s just convenient for the Democrats, in particular, to pretend that is the case.

    Taken simply, the problem is first that governments cannot spend money as efficiently as the private sector. The Keynesian multiplier is empirically less than one, with apologies to Nancy Pelosi, who projected a multiplier of 4-5 with her infamous Porkulous spending bill, which, instead, mired our economy in a record long 8 year recession. Cash for Clunkers and her Train from Nowhere to Nowhere didn’t contribute to the National store of wealth, but reduced it, by their pure waste. And the economic cost of most of the rest of her spending boondoggles, including solar and wind subsidies, etc, cost more than they contributed. The money funding these things came out of somewhere, and ultimately, much of it was financed by reducing growth of the economy, greatly extending what otherwise would probably have been a much steeper and quicker cyclic recovery.

    This time their spending plans are worse for the economy, with much of the money being transferred from the private sector to transfer payments and massive graft. With their Green New Deal, they appear to be trying to nationalize California’s ecological and economic collapse. Since CA is facing seasonal power blackouts at the worst times, due their feckless policies, the rest of should join them. There is a real cost in diverting money from building power plants, pipelines, and electric grid into supposedly “renewable” power sources.

    What it comes down to, is that when the government misspends money, that misspent money comes out of more productive uses of that money in the private sector. That means that Keynesian economic stimulus does not, and cannot work, except possibly in very rare circumstances, and Static Analysis budgeting is a farce, used by Congress to justify their massive misspending of money.

  23. Sinema is bought and paid for by big GOP donors. She's a power-hungry opportunist.

    https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2021/10/sinema-gop-donors-money-budget-republican-megadonors/

    1. And Chuck Schumer is bought and paid for by big DEM voters. He's a power-hungry opportunist. What's your point?

      1. No! Impossible! Schumer is a man of the people, with nothing but the good of the nation in his innocent, pure little heart!

        As Milton Friedman said,
        “I do not believe that the solution to our problem is simply to elect the right people. The important thing is to establish a political climate of opinion which will make it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing. Unless it is politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing, the right people will not do the right thing either, or if they try, they will shortly be out of office.”

  24. The Democratsjust haven't figured out how to commit fraud on a roll call vote, YET! Once they find out we gonna be in a mess

  25. "Top Democrats, particularly Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D–N.Y.) and House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D–Calif.) have fought to raise or eliminate the cap on the state and local tax (SALT) deduction. "
    For many the SALT cap was offset by the virtual elimination of the Alternate Minimum Tax. Simply eliminating the SALT cap would be a huge tax break for wealthier Americans including a large number of their constituents.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.