Neil Howe illustrates why it will take a crisis of biblical proportions to balance the budget or even get on track to do so. A significant portion of people in both parties seriously want more spending and tax breaks. Often these sound nice; what curmudgeon can be against newborn child tax credits? But $1 billion here, $1 billion there and soon we’re talking real money. Neil also shows us how difficult it is to cut spending and/or raise taxes. This addiction is a powerful drug.

Download PDF

According to a new WSJ survey, six out of ten economic policies proposed by Trump and Harris received support from almost 50% or more of Republicans, Democrats, and independents. 49% of Republicans support Harris’ plan to provide a $6K tax credit for newborns. 60% support her plan to cap out-of-pocket spending on prescription drugs. And 75% support her plan to cap insulin prices at $35. On the other side, 76% of Democrats support Trump’s plan to eliminate taxes on Social Security income. And 76% support his plan to eliminate taxes on tips. (Harris has also since adopted this policy Oh, and where do we find the revenue to fund these goodies? This is a question neither Trump nor Harris address. But voters don’t seem to care. When the WSJ asked respondents if they would support these policies even if there were negative side effects (in particular: “even if they increased the national debt”), support didn’t dip all that much. In the abstract, to be sure, deficit reduction remains very popular. But when it comes to concrete proposals, a new benefit or tax cut beats out deficit reduction in the political marketplace every time. Just before the Trump-Harris debate, according to a Peterson Foundation survey, 61% of Americans said it is “very important” and another 30% “somewhat important” that the candidates talk about their plan to reduce the deficit. Guess how much Trump or Harris talked about deficit reduction? If you guessed anything more than nothing at all, you must not have been watching. If you’re an optimist, you may conclude that both candidates remained mysteriously silent on a topic that would have gained them millions of new voters. If you’re a realist (I hesitate to say a pessimist) you come to a different conclusion—that even if voters know that large deficits are unsustainable, they don’t trust the leaders of either party to reduce them. Today, so long as the roof isn’t leaking, give us what we want. Tomorrow, if the flood comes, leaders will do whatever they have to do. That day is no doubt coming in any event. Until then, at least, we get something.

More From Maudlin Economics:

More From The Wall Street Journal (subscription required):