Biden's Own Budget Chief Says It: WH Spending Agenda Is DOA Without 'Trillions in Tax Hikes'

AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster

What do we know about Joe Biden? As opposed to the pablum the Democrats and liberal media have tried to feed us for two years. We know he is well beyond his prime — both physically and mentally — and most likely more so than the average 78-year-old.

We know Corn Pop’s pal often can’t remember which city or state he’s in, confuses his wife with his sister, thinks every American has a “right” to “badakathcare,” and refers to GOD as “the thing” — when he can’t even remember “God.” And of course, the confused mumbling.

Having accurately laid that out, is it reasonable to assume that Biden is so consumed (manipulated) by the far-left faction of the Democrat Party that he cluelessly supports, and ridiculously tries to defend — at least half the time lying through his teeth — grandiose, socialist spending boondoggles that don’t even come close to making sense, mathematically? From a tax-revenue perspective? From a National Debt perspective?

Hell yeah, it’s reasonable to assume. Look no further than Biden’s own White House budget director for confirmation of everything I just said. Moreover, Shalanda Young, the White House’s acting budget office chief, said on Tuesday, in effect, that Biden’s drunken sailor spending proposals are DOA without trillions of dollars in tax hikes — across the board.

Even “worse” — from a Democrat perspective?

As The Washington Times reported on Tuesday, Young believes trillions of dollars in tax hikes are DOA in Congress. In other words, “Joey from Scranton,” your math comes nowhere near making dollars and sense. Let’s rephrase that. The math contrived by your puppeteers is smoke and mirrors at best — and a bald-faced lie at worst.

As noted by The Times, Young, deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget, told the Senate Budget Committee:

“My guess is if the Senate doesn’t pass the offsets that the spending is also in danger. So we [would] have to see the full package the Senate and House would move on.”

Here’s a dirty little secret that Nancy Pelosi, Chucky Schumer, Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, and every Democrat politician will never say out loud in public. Democrats are far more concerned with re-election than in dying on the hill of Biden’s “Custer’s Last Stand” administration. That has been the case with the Democrat Party for at least the last sixty years, and it will remain the case “forever.”

Don’t misunderstand me.

Of course, “all above” support so-called “progressive” agendas and ideology— it’s what makes them who they are. But at the end of the proverbial day, if Nancy, Chucky, and on down the line in both chambers of Congress even get a sniff of a young girl’s hair — sorry, I got off-track — future trouble at the ballot box, they’ll bail on anything faster than Michael Moore inhaling a Quarter Pounder with Cheese and a large order of fries — with nary a second thought.

Young’s Tuesday testimony was focused on Biden’s $6.1 trillion budget request for the fiscal that begins on October 1. As noted by The Times, the budget projects a $1.8 trillion federal deficit for fiscal 2022, which would be down from $3 trillion-plus deficits in 2020 and 2021, amid a surge of coronavirus-related spending.

Republican Sen. Rick Scott asked Young to explain how the White House’s math would work without massive tax increases.

Young responded that the administration does not want to cut spending in mandatory programs like Medicare and Social Security — both of which are primary drivers in the ever-growing National Debt.

“We are reducing the deficit, but as you know we have an aging society — which is part of the structural growth in spending we’re not addressing.

“We don’t think we should be cutting Social Security and Medicare at this time. And if the choice is between that and asking the wealthiest to pay more, that’s what we need to do.”

And there it is.

Let’s think that through. We have three components, here.

The “structural debt” of Social Security and Medicare, the federal income tax base, and out-of-control socialist spending proposals. The “free” stuff.

And as is always the case, just like any child spending mom and dad’s money vs. his or her own — or irresponsible adults piling up debt on high-interest credit cards until their credit limits are maxed out — Young admitted the foundational reality of today’s Democrat Party:

We must “ask” the “rich” to pay their “fair share.”

That is one of the most ridiculous statements— yet plays well with the useful idiots of the Democrat Party — that liberals have ever concocted. Sell the idea of “fair share” to the proletariat. Turn them against the evil rich — billionaires, Wall Street, large corporations.

The late distinguished economist Walter E. Williams said it best.

“But let me offer you my definition of social justice: I keep what I earn and you keep what you earn. Do you disagree? Well then tell me how much of what I earn belongs to you — and why?”

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) hit the nail on the head for Ms. Young, Joe Biden, and Congressional Democrats, The Times reported.

“This budget will come to your neighborhood soon. There’s just not enough 1 percenters to bear all the load in this.”

Graham was right. There never is. And Democrats are like spoiled children. The more they get, the more they want. Of your money.

Even Mitt Romney piled on Young, asking her what exactly constitutes a “fair share.”

“The top 10% earn 40% of the income and are paying 71% of the taxes. And so should they be paying 80% of the taxes? 85? 90?”

“I think we’d have to look at what they’re paying compared to what they make,” Young said. And again, there it was.

Random: Remember this guy? Still apparently combs his hair with a balloon and still talking like a crazed socialist. Who knew? Anyway, I tossed it in for grins — and of course to illustrate the point even further.

Massive wealth redistribution. Pure and simple. Never mind that it has never sustained a country or civilization without ultimately collapsing — or worse. I’m often reminded of a line from the classic Ten Years After song, “I’d Love to Change the World,” during these types of discussions.

“Tax the Rich… Feed the Poor… Til There Are No… Rich No More.”

And after that? Ask Joe Biden’s puppet masters.

As I was finishing this article, the following happened — which sums everything up, “nicely.”

Via the Washington Times:

Biden abandoned bipartisan infrastructure talks with Senate Republicans on Tuesday over the party’s unwillingness to compromise on raising taxes.

The White House said Mr. Biden decided to jettison talks because Republicans were not ready to “meet the essential needs of our country to restore our roads and bridges, prepare us for our clean energy future, and create jobs.”

Republicans blamed the president for not backing off his plan to raise taxes.

The song remains the same.