Passage of Democrat’s $3.5T proposal is faltering, as numerous moderate members of Congress are putting on the brakes in recent days. And for good reason: this plan would saddle future generations with enormous amounts of debt. With a 50-50 chamber it is very possible that the plan will not pass. Call your Congress members to let them know where you stand – and pray!

The following article is excerpted from The Washington Post, written by Tony Romm and Marianna Sotomayor. You can read the full article here.

View Comments (3)

A slew of moderate Democrats in the House and Senate have toiled…to try to…scale back core elements of the party’s $3.5 trillion tax-and-spending plan, opening new internal rifts that complicate its path to swift passage.

In recent days, centrist Democratic lawmakers have questioned the price tag of the proposal, raised alarms that it could add to the deficit, and sought to whittle down some of its key components, including programs that would provide free prekindergarten and community college for all Americans perhaps regardless of income.

The political complications are hard enough to resolve…pitting warring factions of Democrats against each other over President Biden’s broader economic agenda. But they have taken on greater significance at a time when the party finds itself newly consumed with a wide array of additional problems…

For now, the most forceful objections have come from lawmakers including Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.), who met with President Biden to discuss her position last week…

But Sinema and her outspoken centrist ally, Sen. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.), increasingly represent only a fraction of the concerns raised among Democratic ranks. Other moderate Democrats in the House harbor their own doubts about the party’s attempts to overhaul federal health care, education, immigration, climate and tax laws…

Rep. Stephanie Murphy (D-Fla.)…recently has criticized “duplicative spending”… — as well as potential “unintended consequences” that could come from that tax increases that fund it. Rep. Scott Peters (D-Calif.) has sought to narrow Democrats’ efforts to rein in prescription drug costs for millions of seniors. And Rep. Ed Case (D-Hawaii) has questioned if the package is fully financed, despite Democratic leaders’ insistence that it is.

The moderates’ early objections are critical: Even though the lawmakers have not explicitly threatened to vote against the bill, Democrats cannot afford their defections. The party has no votes to spare in the Senate, and can only stomach the loss of three in the House…

With the clock ticking, some centrist lawmakers this week have offered a sober assessment of the package as it currently stands: “No, I don’t think that it would gain the votes necessary to pass the House,” Case said in an interview…

The $3.5 trillion package is one of two components, complementing a roughly $1.2 trillion measure to improve the country’s roads, bridges, pipes, ports and Internet connections…

“I think we are trying to put an awful lot into a huge bill, and we do need time to get these policies right,” said Rep. Carolyn Bourdeaux (D-Ga.), a moderate member of the bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus. “I would strongly recommend that we continue the negotiations over reconciliation, get it right, and get another great bill out, but it might take a little more time.”…

But moderate lawmakers have grown louder in recent days, as they try to ward off this approach out of a belief it violates Pelosi’s initial pledge. The nine centrists who initially held up the $3.5 trillion package reiterated that belief in a letter Friday, citing Pelosi’s past comments that the House would vote on a measure “that will pass the Senate.”…

Democratic leaders since then have insisted they covered the costs of their new spending in full, pointing to its tax increases as well as a broader belief that their investments would result in future economic gains. Murphy, however, said later she still had her doubts, joining a growing roster of moderates who have questioned the math in recent days.

Below is an excerpt from an article by Matt Weidinger, Senior Fellow and Rowe Scholar at AEI, which demonstrates the fiscal reality of Biden’s proposed “tax cuts.”

Democrats are fond of saying their massive $3.5 trillion spending bill includes significant “tax cuts.” They are referring to…the expanded child tax credit payments…

The facts say otherwise…

Tax policy is complicated for many reasons, but one is because such “tax credits” frequently include payments to low-income adults who do not owe federal income taxes…Such payments to those who do not owe federal income taxes are known as “refundable” credits, or in budget terms “outlays” — the same as benefits provided under welfare, Medicaid, food stamps…The outlay portions of these tax credits are not “tax cuts” for the simple reason that the payments exceed any taxes…owed in the first place…

Here are the two relevant parts of the JCT score on the cost of extending the child tax credit expansion, as proposed…:

Part 1: 10-year overall cost…: $556 billion

Part 2: Share of that 10-year cost that reflects “outlays”: $421 billion

These figures show that the expansion of the child tax credit…is expected to cost taxpayers a staggering $556B over 10 years (part 1). Of that amount, $421 billion (part 2) or nearly 76 percent reflects…new benefit spending that has nothing to do with “tax cuts.”…

But Democrats’ policy would continue to provide “full refundability” of that smaller $1,000 credit in 2026 and beyond. Again, that means increased benefit checks to those who do not owe income taxes — including some who don’t work at all…None of the cost of this policy from 2027 through 2031 is attributable to “tax cuts.”…

The bottom line is that, in the biggest spending bill in American history, the lion’s share of even what supporters tout as “tax cuts” is really spent on old-fashioned government benefit checks…

The following is an excerpt where Bloomberg weighs in with their not-so-glowing opinion. Article by Michael R. Strain. Read the full article here.

With his $3.5 trillion spending proposal, President Joe Biden would move toward extending the government’s reach from cradle to grave. This is the wrong goal…

Instead of designing an innovative American version of the European-style social democracy…the plan pours money into flawed existing programs rather than fixing them. It creates unnecessary redundancies and fails to target assistance to those who need it most…

The details are still unclear, but the hope is to combat widening economic and social inequality by offering Americans increased government support throughout their lives. That much government would make the U.S. less dynamic and more sclerotic. It would sap energy and boost dependency, weakening the value of personal responsibility.

But dismiss those objections if they don’t persuade you. Consider, instead, the likelihood that the approach won’t accomplish the Democrats’ goals because it doubles down on the current defective system, mindlessly boosting spending on government programs in need of an overhaul.

Take the proposed Medicare expansion. Key parts of the Medicare program are in precarious financial shape. The trust fund used to finance hospitals is expected to run out of reserves in five years…

If the Democrats want to offer retirees more generous health care, putting the program on solid fiscal footing is the right first step. Adding on additional services will only quicken the day of financial reckoning…

The same is true of child-care services…This would do little to address the underlying issues pushing up the price of child care, like regulations that restrict the supply of providers. Until those are addressed, the…plan amounts to throwing good money after bad…

To achieve their stated goals, Democrats should figure out why some of these programs work better than others, and how to expand the successful ones to meet the need…

According to estimates by Moody’s Analytics, the plan would put $435 billion into an expansion of the tax credit for children over the next five years. With this much additional money going to households with kids, why is a paid family-leave program also needed to finance time away from work?…

Senator Joe Manchin, the West Virginia Democrat, has called for a “strategic pause” in his party’s attempts to ram through this spending bill, in the hopes that stopping to take a breath could lead to a better law. He’s right. Democrats are advancing the wrong vision of government…

This excerpt from an analysis written by Eric Boehm of Reason shows the “Build Back Better Plan” will leave Americans poorer in the long run. 

…Biden’s plan to hike federal spending by about $3.5 trillion over the next 10 years…will decrease future economic growth and reduce private wealth, according to a new analysis from the Penn Wharton Budget Model (PWBM)…

The report projects that the reconciliation package would cause GDP would fall by about 4 percent by 2050 relative to…if the proposal did not pass. That decline is driven by an estimated 6.1 percent reduction in private capital…and an 8.9 percent increase in government debt.

Higher levels of spending and higher amounts of government debt “crowds out investment in productive private capital. Less private capital leads to lower wages…,” the PWBM analysis warns.

That higher levels of taxation, spending, and borrowing are an albatross on future economic growth is not exactly a revolutionary conclusion—unless you work in government… Congress…plan[s] to hike the corporate income tax, capital gains tax rate, and personal income tax…cryptocurrencies, and more…

…[W] hether the bill relies more heavily on revenue raised from taxation or by borrowing, the negatives outweigh the positives.

“Higher revenues decrease government debt, which offsets…negative effects on wages and GDP,” the report says. “…[But] higher tax rates on wages discourage households from working.” Other aspects…like greater levels of spending on public housing and increased Medicare benefits…will further “reduce households’ incentives to work, which accelerates…decline in GDP.”

Workers might benefit from the…surge in government spending in the short term, but they…lose out in the long run. The PWBM analysis says wages will rise by 0.7 percent between now and 2030 due to a reduction in the labor supply that will make workers more valuable. “However, as the decline in private capital grows over time, labor productivity continues to decline, which lowers the wage,” the report says…

What are your thoughts about this spending plan? It’s not too late to call your legislator to encourage them to vote ‘NO.” Share your comments and prayers, below!

(Photo Credit: Drew Angerer/Getty Images).