Not a spending problem, but a “paying-for” problem?

Worse, a veiled liberal threat to correct what they deem a “misallocation of wealth.”

by Scott L. Vanatter

Over the past week liberal House and Senate leaders have spoken openly about how they see America’s spending problem. They don’t see it. They claim that we don’t have a spending problem.

First, Rep. Pelosi (D-CA) relabeled it as a “priorities problem.” Then, Rep. Hoyer (D-MD) redefined it as a “paying-for problem.” Finally, Senator Harkin (D-IA) revealed the usually hidden liberal designs on capital. He turned the equation upside down by describing problem of a lack of funds to pay for what we have spent, not because we do not have a budget, but because we have “misallocation of wealth problem.”

Pelosi’s relabeling is a half-honest, half-obfuscation. Hoyer’s redefinition is a half-hilarious, non-funny joke. Harkin’s restatement is half-scary. No; make that outright scary. Where does the Constitution allow an elected official to deem wealth as misallocated?

Emboldened by safe seats and an over-confident and a newly re-elected president, these liberal leaders are now more forthright about what, previously, only New York Times columnists would publicly admit to believing. They seek increased, almost unbounded spending, without any ties to the revenue side of the equation. They want to set in stone as the new normal the budget missteps of the past. If somehow they could spend more, they would. No constraints. They do this in the face of some European countries finally discovering that high levels of spending are absolutely unsustainable. To top it off, these liberal leaders have the audacity to talk about greedy business leaders.

Here is how it gets worse. Not only do they want to spend without constraint, they now seeming want to confiscate as much “capital” or “wealth” as they desire. Senator Harkin betrayed their ultimate designs on capital. On wealth. They want it. They always have. In their opinion, it is theirs to reallocate. There is no Constitutional authority for congress to determine whether wealth has or has not been allocated correctly.

At best, this idea is only their political opinion, with no Constitutional warrant to actually do anything about it. At worst, this idea betrays their confiscational designs. They have long scoffed when their Statist polices were called socialist. If having designs on reallocating America’s wealth is not socialism, nothing is.

PELOSI: NOT A SPENDING PROBLEM — A “PRIORITIES PROBLEM”

On Sunday, February 10, former Speaker Nancy Pelosi said we only have a “priorities” problem. “It’s almost a false argument,” she said, “to say we have a spending problem. We have a budget deficit problem that we have to address.” Contrary to her assertion, it is a false to deny we are spending more than we are taking in. It is dangerous to separate these two ideas.

HOYER: NOT A SPENDING PROBLEM — A “PAYING-FOR PROBLEM”

Two days later, Minority Whip Hoyer said we do not have a spending problem, but rather, “The country has a paying for problem.” If this theory wasn’t so infused with such bad results for the country, this redefinition would be hilarious. Recasting our “spending problem” as simply only a “paying problem” or a “paying-for problem.” It is not the spending, he says, it’s the paying. He speaks like the one does not have anything to do with the other. These two sides of the coin may be unconnected in Democrat minds and inside the Beltway. But, outside the Beltway in the real world, they are connected. They cannot be unconnected, not permanently. Not without trouble. And trouble is what we’ve got on our hands.

Their idea is not to temporarily delay payment on past spending, but to theoretically and formally unhook payment from spending. Somehow they must think that this new approach absolves spenders from any responsibility for payment. It doesn’t. This has been the informal way for too long here inside the Beltway. Now, however, they are doing it by proactive and professed design. This cannot stand.

HARKIN: NOT A SPENDING PROBLEM — A “MISALLOCATION OF WEALTH PROBLEM”

Two days after Hoyer’s sophistry, Senator Harkin pointedly asked, “Is it a spending problem?” “No,” he answers, “I want to disagree with those who say we have a spending problem. Everyone keeps saying we have a spending problem. And when they talk about that, it’s like there’s an assumption that somehow we as a nation are broke. We can’t afford these things any longer. . . . Well look at it this way, we’re the richest nation in the history of the world. We are now the richest nation in the world. We have the highest per capita income of any major nation. That kind of begs the question, doesn’t it? If we’re so rich, why are we so broke? Is it a spending problem? No.”

What we really have, he said, was a “misallocation of capital” problem. If that was not threatening enough, he went on to explain that it was a “misallocation of wealth” problem.

So, first, Pelosi broached the subject using the nebulous idea that it wasn’t spending, it was a “priorities” issue. Then, Hoyer hilariously re-defined and denied the clear, plain meaning of our “problem.” Finally, Senator Harkin revealed what liberals have truly believed. They have made clear their true aims. They mean to capture and correctly “allocate” our wealth. The wealth of our nation.