Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
“The White House on Friday sent Congress a $6 trillion budget plan that would ramp up spending on infrastructure, education and combating climate change… Biden's plan for fiscal year 2022 calls for $6.01 trillion in spending and $4.17 trillion in revenues, a 36.6% increase from 2019 outlays, before the coronavirus pandemic bumped up spending. It projects a $1.84 trillion deficit, a sharp decrease from the past two years because of the COVID-19 pandemic, but up from 2019's $984 billion.” Reuters
The right is critical of the budget, arguing that it is far too expensive, will not increase economic growth, and does not spend enough on defense.
“As the pandemic recedes and the entitlement trust funds keep dwindling, one would think a return to pre-COVID levels of spending would be in the cards. But no, Biden would like the government to spend about $6 trillion in the 2022 fiscal year while bringing in only $4.2 trillion, with spending levels only growing from there. The budget will drive debt as a share of the economy to the highest in U.S. history, exceeding the World War II record…
“In February, before the most recent COVID bill became law, the CBO estimated the federal government would spend about $61 trillion between 2022 and 2031. Biden’s budget puts that number at $69 trillion. That $8 trillion increase is $62,280 in additional spending for every household in the country.”
The Editors, National Review
“Even if we combined virtually every progressive tax increase — including a 70 percent income tax bracket, higher capital gains taxes, Social Security taxes on all wages, an 8 percent wealth tax, a 77 percent estate tax, a carbon tax, and steep new taxes on Wall Street and corporations — they would not even balance the baseline budget over the next decade, much less finance any of President Biden’s spending spree. And even that assumes that combined marginal tax rates of nearly 100 percent do not devastate the economy. This leaves the middle class to ultimately finance most of this new spending — just like they do in Europe.”
Brian Riedl, New York Post
“Biden’s budget assumes a lot. It assumes Congress will pass both its massive spending proposals and dramatic tax hikes targeting both corporations and individuals. It assumes a substantial level of deficit spending, leaving the government to run a nearly $2 trillion annual deficit. But it doesn’t assume that this will produce economic growth. Instead, Biden’s aides estimate that the economy would grow at under 2 percent per year for much of the decade—roughly the rate at which the economy somehow managed to grow in the 2010s without World War II-era levels of public sector spending…
“It assumes unemployment would fall to 4.1 percent by next year and stay there, which is exactly where economists expect unemployment to be even if Congress doesn’t pass Biden’s budget… And it assumes no profound crisis will interrupt this decade of stasis; no foreign military crisis, since Biden’s budget cuts the Defense Department’s procurement budget, and no domestic fiscal crisis like the kind that Medicare’s trustees insist will be upon us in 2024 when the Hospital Insurance Trust Fund is projected to reach insolvency… the administration’s various multi-trillion-dollar projects is a hefty sum only to keep our heads above water.”
Noah Rothman, Commentary Magazine
“The OMB press release on the subject did not even mention defense. The discretionary totals contain a nearly 16 percent increase for domestic activities, while defense does not even keep pace with inflation…
“[But] the static defense number and lack of priority in summary documents were only part of the story. The defense budget contains billions in non-defense spending and proposes to reduce procurement by more than $8 billion… It is tough to argue that the nation has its priorities aligned correctly when the only federal department to lose ground on the budget and receive nearly no priority or attention from the White House is the organization charged with the security of the nation.”
Elaine McCusker, American Enterprise Institute
Finally, “Biden’s decision to strike the Hyde Amendment [which bans federal funding for abortion] from his budget represents a rejection of his own more moderate record and an extreme stance most voters reject… A Marist poll from January 2020 found that 60 percent of American voters oppose taxpayer funding of abortion. This year, the poll found that 58 percent of American voters oppose it. A Charlotte Lozier Institute study found that the Hyde Amendment saves an estimated 60,000 lives every year.”
Tyler O’Neil, PJ Media
The left is generally supportive of the budget, arguing that it includes popular programs, but calls for cuts to the defense budget.
The left is generally supportive of the budget, arguing that it includes popular programs, but calls for cuts to the defense budget.
“The President wants to build up roads and bridges, transition the country away from a fuel-based economy, granting kids more guaranteed education and helping parents pay for childcare… Biden will say his priorities are investments in the future and the just rewards for Americans who work and pay the taxes that pay for these programs…
“Biden's budget is important because it formally lays out his priorities, even though it has exactly zero chance of becoming law. Congress doesn't even vote on it, although lawmakers will apply it to the appropriations process and consider elements in separate pieces of legislation. It's an opening bid and will help put Democrats on Capitol Hill on the same page. Their argument is that a government working harder for more people is more important than keeping spending in check. The debt, in other words, is worth it.”
Zachary B. Wolf, CNN
“‘The budget is a moral document,’ as the old saying goes… To judge by their behavior, Democrats and Republicans agree that it’s fine to increase the deficit as long as what you’re spending the money on is worthwhile. The difference is what they consider worthwhile: Republicans will raise the deficit to fund tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations and the occasional war, while Democrats will raise the deficit for social spending. In the big picture, the Democrats have the much more popular agenda.”
Paul Waldman, Washington Post
“I’ve previously offered a rule of thumb for evaluating politicians’ economic proposals: The more economic growth a politician promises, the worse their policies probably are. That’s because predicting turbocharged growth suggests they need turbocharged growth to get their budget numbers to add up…
“As president, [Trump] pledged sustained economic growth of ‘4, 5 and even 6 percent.’ Such figures allowed him to (falsely) claim that his expensive fiscal policies, such as the 2017 tax cuts, would pay for themselves. In reality, economic growth under Trump pre-pandemic was not appreciably different from that during Barack Obama’s second term (2.5 percent vs. 2.3 percent)…
“The [Biden] administration projected strong growth this year and next — 5.2 percent and 4.3 percent, respectively — as the economy bounces back from the pandemic recession. But over the rest of the decade, it estimated, the economy will grow only about 1.8 to 2.2 percent each year. That’s roughly in line with forecasts from the Congressional Budget Office and the Federal Reserve… Two cheers for moderate economic growth, which is mostly beyond the president’s control — but three for honesty, which falls squarely within it.”
Catherine Rampell, Washington Post
Regarding the defense budget, “Even the most disastrous weapons programs regularly get a pass and it's unlikely the Biden era will end that reality…
“The cost of the creation and maintenance of [Lockheed Martin's F-35 Joint Strike Fighter] alone has already ensured that it will be the most expensive weapons program in history: an expected $1.7 trillion over its lifetime. Even department officials and members of Congress have — and this is rare indeed — balked at just how expensive and unreliable that fighter aircraft has proven to be… Often, in fact, they aren't in good enough shape to fly, raising serious concerns about whether enough F-35s will be available for future combat…
“Spreading defense contracts across congressional districts, a practice known in Washington as ‘political engineering,’ also needs to end. Lockheed, for instance, claims that the F-35 program has created jobs in 45 states. According to conventional wisdom, it's this reality that makes the Pentagon too big to fail… Here, then, is a question that might be worth considering in the early months of the Biden administration: Is there a more striking indictment of this country's approach to military budgeting than continuing to buy a weapon because our political system is too corrupt to change course?”
Mandy Smithberger, Salon
