Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) national co-chair Megan Romer has a problem with a $49 trillion estimate for her movement's policy agenda. She calls it a "made-up number." But when asked to provide a number of her own, she had no answer.
The exchange unfolded on Fox News after DSA-backed candidates made significant gains in the midterm elections, putting the group's radical economic proposals under greater scrutiny. Among their priorities are Medicare for All, student debt cancellation, and sweeping changes to federal spending.
The White House Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) estimated that implementing the DSA's policy wish list would cost American taxpayers approximately $49 trillion. That works out to roughly $355,000 per American household over the next decade.
Romer wasn't buying it.
"The White House, who does not like us very much, managed to come up with some math that made us look bad," she told Martha MacCallum on The Story. "But we don't agree with these numbers."
Fair enough. Political disagreements over economic projections are nothing new. But rejecting an estimate is easy. Explaining how much your own proposals would cost is another matter entirely.
When MacCallum pressed her for an alternative figure, Romer declined to provide one.
"There's no, like, one, solid number because it depends on what pieces we can build in the meantime," she explained.
She went on to describe a strategy of building new government programs while "sunsetting old, bad programs," arguing that the final cost would change as different proposals became law.
Then came the admission that deserves attention.
"I'm not going to give you a solid number. That's not what I'm here to do," Romer said. "What I'm here to do is talk about how we collectively can democratically decide how we want our money to be spent."
And there it is. A movement proposing enormous changes to the American economy wants greater control over taxpayer money but cannot provide a concrete estimate of what its agenda would cost.
Romer also turned her criticism toward America's military spending, arguing that money devoted to overseas operations should instead finance the DSA's domestic priorities. Those priorities include amnesty for illegal immigrants and abolishing the Senate.
"We don't believe in having 800 U.S. military bases around the world," she said. "That is an insane amount of money to spend."
She also attacked defense contractors, arguing that military spending primarily enriches a small group of wealthy interests.
"Our military spending is outrageous, and most of that money is going to defense contractors. It is making a handful of billionaires richer," Romer added.
There is a legitimate debate to be had about government spending, military priorities, and the influence of defense contractors. But that debate does not erase the responsibility to explain how sweeping new entitlements would be financed.
Medicare for All, mass student debt cancellation, and other expansive government programs are not free. Someone ultimately pays the bill — and in America, that means taxpayers, workers, businesses, or future generations carrying the burden through borrowing.
The America First approach should begin with a simple principle: Washington must be accountable for every dollar it takes from the American people.
If socialist leaders want to reshape the nation's economy, they should be prepared to explain the price before asking taxpayers to foot the bill. Calling an inconvenient estimate "made-up" is not an economic plan. And demanding control over Americans' money without explaining the cost is not fiscal responsibility.
