Tax and spend

"Tax and Spend" is an epithet applied to politicians ("tax and spend liberals"), programs, and opposing political philosophy by the American center-right, conservative, and libertarian movements. It does have another neutral, objective, meaning with regard to tax policy or fiscal policy, but this usage is rare/technical. In American political discourse it is used primarily to attack taxation and government spending outside of defense and a few other areas.

History

It appears the formulation first appeared in print in a 1938 New York Times report written by Arthur Krock, quoting President Franklin D. Roosevelt's trusted advisor Harry Hopkins, the Administrator of the Works Progress Administration (WPA), a key agency of Roosevelt's New Deal program: "[Hopkins] met a criticism of this sinister combination by saying: 'We will spend and spend, and tax and tax, and elect and elect.'" (According to Krock, the "sinister combination" was Roosevelt, Hopkins, United States Postmaster General James Farley, and New Jersey Democratic political boss Frank Hague.)

Two weeks later, Hopkins and Krock argued the point in duelling letters to the editor of The New York Times. First Hopkins flatly denied he had ever laid out the "tax, spend, elect" formulation, but Krock asserted that "I used and printed the quotation after careful verification because, while it fitting [sic?] completely into Mr. Hopkins's political philosophy as I have understood it, I wanted to be certain of the language." Krock also revealed that he had spoken with witnesses who claimed to have heard Hopkins make the comment at the Empire Race Track in Yonkers, New York, including a "reputable citizen" who was "in lighter hours, a playmate of Mr. Hopkins." The phrase endured.

Other uses

The term is also an allusion to the Taxing and Spending Clause of the US Constitution. This power gives Congress the power to impose taxes to finance government debt and the power to spend for the General Welfare, within strictly-defined limits.

Alternatives

The opposite approach is starve the beast; reducing government taxes to limit spending. There are other options that exist: high taxes and low spending leads to a budget surplus, while low taxes and high spending leads to a budget deficit. In the case of a budget deficit, the deficit can be paid for either by deficit financing, such as raising bonds to pay for higher government services, a strategy which puts the government into debt, or, in a fiat money system, by printing money to cover the deficit, called "monetizing the debt".

Some argue that the formulation should be reversed, instead being "spend and tax". One such argument comes from Chartalism, which argues that in a fiat money system, fiat money must first be printed and spent by the state before it can be collected in taxation.