American politics has always been dominated by promises about what the country should look like and how it should operate. But the sweeping expansion of government promoted by the Democratic Socialists of America deserves considerably more scrutiny than its receiving.

Consider Colorado congressional candidate Melat Kiros, whose published priorities include Medicare for All, universal childcare, housing initiatives, and a Green New Deal. These proposals would give Washington substantially greater responsibility for providing and financing the necessities of American life.

Supporters call these ideas compassionate, necessary, and long overdue. Perhaps. But those descriptions don’t answer the questions that matter: Compared to what?  At what cost?  And where is the evidence that the proposed remedy will produce better results?

Economist Thomas Sowell has spent decades emphasizing the unavoidable trade-offs in public policy. In his essay “No Trade-Offs?” he explains how acknowledging those trade-offs can earn someone accusations of lacking compassion. Yet refusing to discuss consequences doesn’t make them disappear.

That distinction belongs at the center of this debate.  A policy’s compassion should be judged by what happens to the people affected, including those who pay the bill.

Start with tuition-free public college.  Eliminating a student’s tuition payment doesn’t eliminate the cost of educating that student.  It just shifts responsibility.  Without firm spending controls, shifting the bill to taxpayers will continue to weaken pressure on universities to economize.   Meanwhile, universal subsidies raise another question: Why should a mechanic who never attended college help finance the education of someone headed toward a substantially higher income?

Student debt forgiveness poses a similar fairness problem.  What do we tell the graduate who worked evenings to repay every dollar?  Or the family that chose a less expensive school? If forgiveness becomes an expectation, future borrowers and institutions may reasonably anticipate another rescue.  That is an incentive problem worth addressing before writing the next check.

Universal childcare could help parents remain employed.  But public funding alone doesn’t create qualified caregivers, suitable facilities, or additional places for children, in fact quite the opposite.   If demand expands faster than capacity, families will face waiting lists and unqualified staff caring for their children.  Besides, a benefit on paper is little for a parent who cannot obtain it.

Housing requires the same distinction.  Helping someone pay rent can prevent immediate hardship.  But expanding purchasing power without expanding the supply of homes will one of two things, it will drive up prices or preclude necessary upkeep on existing housing.  A serious housing policy must address construction, permitting, infrastructure, and the rules that prevent additional housing from being built.  DSA policies address none.

I hear them say they’ll address waste, but they fought tooth and nail against DOGE – see the disconnect?  The big problem of the left is they fail to understand that the the government has no money, MONEY – the money to pay for these wonderful things comes from taxation – all the left is actually proposing is rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.  Nothing in their platform calls for the creation of wealth – only redistributing it.

Meanwhile, the risks of further “streamlining” healthcare are substantial.  In a 2020 analysis of illustrative single-payer systems, the Congressional Budget Office projected that federal healthcare subsidies in 2030 would increase by $1.5 trillion to $3 trillion.  But the other consequence, the one they don’t talk about, is the increased unmet demand that will occur, including delays and forgone care – just like Obamacare, demand will increase faster than supply.  Broader coverage is great, but so is actually getting an appointment with a qualified doctor in under six months.

Then comes the familiar answer: “Tax the rich,” where the top 1% are already paying 39% of all federal taxes, the top 5%  are paying 59% and the top 10% are paying 71% while the bottom 50% pay less than 2% – who decides what’s fair?

The issue comes down to the fact that  any money the government has comes from us the taxpayers.  As a practical matter, what these left-wing quasi-communist politicians are telling Americans, is by giving government control they believe that the government can do a better job of spending their money than they themselves can.  C’mon, which of these three entities needs government subsidies to exist and which stand on their own in a competitive marketplace –  The U.S. Postal Service, UPS or FedEx?

What we should all object to are liberal politicians  comparing of an imperfect present with an idealized future.  It’s like comparing apples to a can of worms –  Helping the citizenry is a worthy ideal.  But true compassion requires explaining who benefits, who pays, what could go wrong, and how success will be measured – otherwise, it’s just a government power grab.

Before Washington assumes another enormous responsibility, its advocates should show their arithmetic and explain their trade-offs.