There’s a dangerous floodgate opened when liberals say that throwing money at a problem will solve it. If liberals say that spending more money on something–like health, education, or the economy–will improve it, then it follows that you should spend as much money on it as possible.
After all, if graduation rates or test scores would go up 10% if a state spends $50 million more on education, then why not spend $100 million and get even better results? Why not spend a billion dollars—a trillion!—and get a whole nation of guaranteed geniuses?
If a spending proponent would say that such an exaggeration is silly, I’d ask to see what evidence they have that their claims of money-based progress have noted any limits or diminishing returns. In the absence of such, if they believe what they say they believe, it would only be reasonable to spend as much as absolutely possible on these priorities.
This is the same problem liberals run into with things like the minimum wage. If it’s possible to artificially demand that everybody get paid at least a certain amount so their standard of living will be adequate, why stop at just $5 or $10 dollars an hour? Isn’t that just arbitrarily putting a ceiling on the quality of life that the working class can enjoy? Why not make it $100 an hour? Wouldn’t that automatically make everyone rich?
The next time someone says that we need to spend X millions of dollars to solve a problem, my reply will be, “Only X? If X will make it better, then we need to spend at least ten times that much—more, if we can! Anything less would rob our precious friends of their rights! Why don’t you care about that? What’s wrong with your cold, evil heart?”