In various corners of the Democratic Party, a rebranded philosophy of plundering those with wealth is once again ascendant. Its new moniker is “Democratic Socialism,” but it’s the same old playbook as a number of other schemes: take money from wealth creators and give it to wealth destroyers. The danger today lies in the newly organized form this movement has taken. Known as the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), these looters want to nearly triple the amount the federal government spends, adding anywhere from $71 trillion to $212 trillion in new taxpayer outlays over the next ten years. At the Cato Institute, Adam N. Michel explains the DSA’s goals and the costs. He writes:
Totaling up nine of the largest proposals in the DSA platform would mean new federal spending equivalent to between 18 percent and 53 percent of GDP.
Table 1 reports various low-end and high-end estimates of proposals for programs that approximate the DSA’s vague descriptions. Each proposal’s original spending estimate is converted to a share of GDP and then applied to the 2027–2036 projected GDP, so all estimates are in current dollars.
Medicare-for-All-style proposals for universal healthcare would increase federal spending by $40 trillion to $75 trillion over 10 years. Reparations, a federal jobs guarantee, infrastructure, green energy investment, larger retirement benefits, free housing, paid family leave, and no-cost college would increase spending by tens of trillions of dollars more. In total, the DSA’s new spending would cost between $71 trillion and $212 trillion over the next decade.
This exercise is inherently imperfect, which is why the estimates vary so widely and should be understood as orders-of-magnitude estimates. They likely overstate the cost where programs overlap with each other or existing spending. They understate the cost by failing to fully capture behavioral responses, broader economic effects, and the comprehensive scope contemplated by the DSA. Each estimate comes from different authors using different methods and assumptions, and builds on a similar methodology by David Burton.
The best-known recent win for a DSA-allied politician was that of New York City Mayor Zohran Mamadani, who has rapidly deployed his strategy of taxing the wealthy to fund government spending. His most recent big announcement declared the city’s intent to open its own grocery stores. One can imagine the enjoyment of bringing the efficiency of the DMV to your next shopping trip.
Other politicians friendly to the DSA have been on ballots in a number of primary elections so far this year. The biggest win among them is Abdul El-Sayed, who won the Democrats’ primary for Senate in Michigan. El-Sayed has appeared at a number of DSA events, but insists he’s not a socialist. His campaign priorities include “taxing billionaire wealth,” building government housing projects, price controls on rent, and nationalized healthcare. A list that echoes the DSA in harmony.
The DSA’s biggest hope is Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who is now leading the Polymarket odds of winning the Democratic nomination for the 2028 presidential race.
Ocasio-Cortez’s campaign priorities also mirror the DSA points outlined by Michel above. The Green New Deal (her signature flop), housing as a “human right,” Medicare for all (i.e., nationalized healthcare), and a “federal jobs guarantee” are all on her most recent congressional campaign website. Democrats are increasingly fielding candidates with plans for government spending that are far beyond realistic.
The problem with all of these plans is that they require ever larger amounts of government theft from taxpayers to pay for them. As Margaret Thatcher explained decades ago, “The trouble with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.”
