Conservatives ought to stop shrugging their shoulders at Americans’ demanding and getting Big Government while demanding and getting a low-tax country.

I have immense respect for my brilliant young friend Dominic Pino. He’s forgotten more about the dismal science than I’ve ever learned. And yet — I think he steals a march in his response to what I wrote about Republicans’ disappointing and irresponsible “big, beautiful bill” because he doesn’t take into account the political, prudential, or moral cost of debt-fueled spending and low taxes.

Let’s start at the beginning and define the parameters of our disagreement.

On Tuesday, I criticized the Republican-controlled Congress and Donald Trump’s White House for “permanently” lowering taxes at a time when the United States government spent something like $1.85 trillion more than it raised in taxes last year, holds a debt of $37 trillion and counting, and is committed to unfunded entitlement-spending obligations that add up to tens of trillions of dollars over the next several decades.

“As everyone knows,” I wrote, “there is no such thing as a free lunch — and that goes even when Republicans control both houses of Congress and the White House.”

It may have been possible to believe, in 1980 or 2000 or 2016, that deficit-financed tax cuts would “pay for themselves” via vastly increased economic growth or that one could “starve the beast” by forcing a low tax regime on the federal government. . . .

But by not even attempting to significantly alter the downward trajectory of our federal fiscal ledgers by addressing runaway entitlement spending in Social Security and Medicare, what Republicans in Congress and this administration have done in the real world is pass on future tax increases to our children (or our older selves a few years down the line) either via draconian tax increases at the point of national fiscal crisis or by means of reduced purchasing power through the back-door tax hike of monetizing the debt.

“Many people apparently believe,” I continued, “that if they must choose between low tax rates with foolish spending and high tax rates with foolish spending, it’s better to choose the former. But we’ll pay for our drunken-sailor spending and debt eventually, and the effects will fall on us in more inefficient, stupid, and oppressive ways later than if we faced the problem now.”

That’s what I argued. I didn’t argue that taxes are a good in and of themselves, or that they’re popular, or that they aren’t often levied through stupid or inefficient methods. I am certainly not arguing that the government doesn’t often waste our money on boondoggles or that individuals, families, and businesses won’t almost always spend their dollars more efficiently than if they sent them to Washington.

I am arguing, however, that when there’s a debt that’s been incurred, it has to be paid, and that it’s prudent and necessary to pay it down rather than adding to that debt through further uncontrolled borrowing while at the same time reducing revenue intake.

In fact, I wrote, “Don’t get me wrong: I’d rather we cut overall spending dramatically, balanced the budget, paid down the debt, and created a sane and sensible tax code. But if we won’t do that, I’d rather we raise enough revenue to pay for our addiction to consumption and entitlement spending, because, if we don’t, we’ll likely suffer a worse result down the road than a return to the tax code of FY 2016.”

Now, I don’t want to straw-man what Dominic is arguing in response to all this. He says that congressional Republicans were irresponsible in not dramatically cutting spending in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. He agrees that piling up more debt will burden future generations of Americans. He criticizes Republicans for talking a big game about fiscal responsibility on the campaign trail while not following through once in office. And he agrees that the ultimate blame for our national financial predicament lies with the voters.

But it’s also fair to say that when I wrote, “Many people apparently believe that if they must choose between low tax rates with foolish spending and high tax rates with foolish spending, it’s better to choose the former,” Dominic would choose low taxes even if it’s combined with uncontrolled, foolish spending.

And this is where I part ways with him. This is where I think Pino is stealing a march. This is where he wants his free lunch.

Dominic writes that conservatives ought not “acquiesc[e] to higher taxation to fund bigger government.”

The U.S. has a lower tax burden for most people than other rich countries do. That’s a good thing, something conservatives should seek to conserve and have been effective at conserving for the past several decades.

The relatively low middle-class tax burden separates the U.S. from the cradle-to-grave welfare model that has failed in other rich countries. [Emphasis added.]

Dominic is correct of course that conservatives have convinced the American people that low taxes are good for the economy and their pocketbooks. (Imagine that.)

But is that an unqualified “good thing”? Because what conservatives have manifestly not done while convincing Americans to demand low taxes is to convince the American people of the virtues of small government, that the government should pay as it goes, or that they should reject the “cradle-to-grave welfare model that has failed other rich countries.”

I accept that the United States may have a system that, at the edges, is more stringent than 1950s Sweden. But the United States offers — and the American people demand at the ballot box — that the state provide services that include early-childhood education, K–12 education, free lunch at schools, health care for kids, health care for expectant mothers, subsidized college education, food stamps, subsidized health insurance via Obamacare, subsidized health care for the poor via Medicaid, subsidized health care for the elderly via Medicare, and subsidized retirements via Social Security, to name but a few of our many and varied social-support programs. I am not here arguing for or against the efficacy or worthiness of any of these particular programs. I am arguing against the idea that the American government is not Big Government with a capital B.

What we have — and what Dominic happily acquiesces to — is the American people wanting and getting Big Government but not paying for it through taxes.

Dominic says that’s okay, because at some point down the line, the American people will learn to demand a smaller government. Call me skeptical. After a crisis, maybe. When Argentina found itself at the bitter end, before it took a chance on Javier Milei’s ideas about smaller government, maybe. But on its own accord? One could bet on California’s high-speed rail being completed sooner.

As Dominic waits for the American people to change their minds and demand small government, entitlement reform, and spending cuts, how big is he willing to let the debt grow before he thinks more tax revenue might be prudent? To $50 trillion? To $75 trillion?

In the meantime, debt-fueled consumption and entitlement spending, especially when combined with low taxes, are bad for us. They’re bad for the American people and they’re bad for conservatism. They’re bad for us economically, because the debt will have to be paid at some point either through draconian tax increases or by monetizing the debt, the cost of both of which will fall disproportionately on the most vulnerable Americans. They’re bad for us politically as conservatives, because they teach voters that they can get Big Government programs for “free.” And they’re bad for us morally, because we’re passing on the debts to our children, who have no say in the matter.

Again, it may have been possible to accept the short-term irresponsibility of a low-tax regime combined with high deficits in 1980 or 1999. In 1980, the Reagan administration was attempting to get the economy moving again by cutting taxes dramatically, and the debt-to-GDP ratio stood at about 31 percent. At the turn of the millennium, the economy had boomed for 20 years, and the debt-to-GDP ratio, while standing at 53 percent, had been falling for a half decade because of Republican congressional pressure and the Clinton administration’s willingness to compromise. 

Today? Well, today, after 25 years of adding entitlements (Obamacare), after fighting two decade-long wars, after the financial crisis, after the Covid pandemic, after the Biden-era spending and the Trump-era spending, the American debt-to-GDP ratio stands at 120 percent.

With the Baby Boomers scheduled to retire in their millions (and collect Social Security and Medicare for decades), the debt — which already stands at $37 trillion — is scheduled to explode.

What’s more, there are more and new things we need to spend money on today. The United States probably needs to radically increase defense spending from 3.5 percent up to 5 percent of GDP to confront an aggressive, rapidly arming China. For our safety and security — and to deter China and prevent a war from starting in the first place — it’s prudent to spend hundreds of billions of extra dollars per year on armaments, and especially on the Navy. But where is that money going to come from? Taxes, of course. That’s just the reality — unless you believe in magical fairy dust or modern monetary theory.

The paradigm must begin to shift. Conservatives can and should continue arguing strenuously for smaller government and entitlement reform, as we do here at NR every day. If we win that argument and get small government, our reward ought to be low taxes. But conservatives ought to stop shrugging their shoulders at Americans’ demanding and getting Big Government while demanding and getting a low tax burden.

Unless, that is, you believe in Dominic Pino’s free lunch.