Everything You Need to Know About the $3.5 Trillion Bill

1125

If this reckless spending plan passes, it will not be because the powers that be convinced the public it will cost nothing. As the bill’s ideological opportunities have dwindled, liberals are realizing President Biden’s ideology is far too optimistic.

Now, the left is attempting to reposition themselves by claiming a generational expenditure binge will cost nothing at all.


Biden Says It Will Cost Nothing – What is He Smoking?

Last week, Biden claimed the bill will cost diddly squat, citing regulations to offset expenditure. At a Wednesday media briefing, Speaker Nancy Pelosi reiterated this assertion with absolute confidence.

“It’s not about the amount of money,” she told news agents. “The amount, as the head of state said, is nill. The cost of the bill will be covered.”

“The net impact of Build Back Better is 0,” U.S. Chief of Staff Ron Klain said at the SALT symposium in New York City a few weeks earlier; compassionate reporters have scooped up the catchphrase.

Attempting to reframe the cost of a $3.5 trillion invoice as $0 has to be one of the most blatantly absurd efforts at changing truth through a buzzword ever tried. At the peak of his creative abilities, Lewis Carroll would be perplexed by this logic.

That’s the kind of logic you’d expect from an insolvent or someone who is blissfully clueless they are about to go insolvent. The truth is spending more money is spending any money by nature.

This claim would have been unproblematic in the past. Indeed, until it ran into trouble, the purpose of the reconciling measure was it would entail spending a lot of money, just like FDR and LBJ did.

Liberals haven’t received the message. Bernie Sanders stated the plan should include “at least” $3.5 trillion in expenditure, which is far more than $0. The best protection for the Biden/Pelosi claim is it all relies on how “cost” is defined.

“If liberals aim to spend $3.5 trillion while also paying for it without increasing the government deficit,” MSNBC’s Steve Benen argues, “then the plan costs zero — since, unlike the GOP’s 2017 tax cuts, the security proposal will be deficit-neutral.”


The bill’s reconciling rules state it might increase the debt by up to $1.75 trillion across ten years; moreover, if Biden was truly opposed to fresh deficit funding, he may pledge to reject any bill that added a nickel to the debt. He has just not, and he isn’t going to.

The Bill is Not Covered by Raised Taxes

Nevertheless, even if the measure is entirely funded by increased taxes, it still costs money — otherwise, the increased taxes would not be actually necessary. Consider this: many of us who don’t reside in San Francisco (which is famous for its shoplifting) purchase the items we take from businesses.

Of course, this implies the items we purchased were not free. It’d be small comfort to a gambling man if he lost $100,000 in the Bellagio’s Legends Suite, while incurring no debt in the process. He’d still be out $100,000.

The differential budgeting for Republican tax cuts and Democrat expenditure ideas is alleged to be unjust, according to Catherine Rampell of the Washington Post. Tax cuts are frequently defined in terms of their net cost.

For example, a bill that cuts taxes by $1 billion, but increases taxes by $100 million, is referred to as a $900 million reduction in taxes. Increase in expenditure, on the other side, are defined by their gross cost.

For example, a bill that increases spending by $1 billion, while also raising taxes by $900 million, is still referred to as a $1 billion spending increase.

However, as she admits, referring to the net benefit of a tax bill when it’s offset by other tax hikes makes sense. The net amount is the total tax decrease; in other words, a tax cut that is offset by an equivalent rise in taxes isn’t a total tax cut.

It’d be fair to claim the $3.5 trillion reconciling bill’s overall cost is zero if spending cutbacks were fully offset.