The smart thing to do would be to raise taxes (not just on the wealthy) and cut entitlements. Reducing the deficit would indeed slow down inflation, give the Fed room to cut interest rates, and boost business investment. The economy would be in a much healthier place.

Oddly enough, there are plenty of European countries with lower taxes holistically, higher entitlements, and lower debt / deficit levels.

As far as I can tell, the solution isn't nearly that hamfisted. It requires:

- Reinstituting rule-of-law (not just Trump; the whole system)

- Instituting basic proper management of funds

In Europe, I can walk into a government agency and be done in 15 minutes, with a smile from the administrator, for what would take months of fighting in the US. If a part of the government is breaking a rule, I can point them to it, and they'll follow it. Courts are slow, but follow clear laws; I don't see black robe syndrome. And police follow and enforce laws.

US used to be closer to that too; it actually led the world in good governance for much of history.

That's hard work of diving in and cleaning up every piece of the administration. There's no stomach for that. Until there is, the deficit will keep going up.

There's no "entitlements" you can cut that wouldn't cause more harm to the economy than they would save up in federal spending. And there isn't enough income that taxing it to pay off the debt would be practical. You have to tax capital, that's where the entire world's wealth has been sucked up in the last decades. That's the only solution that doesn't involve the country defaulting on its debts.

Billionaires know that and are already starting to speak against such taxes[0], before there's even any real possibility of them being adopted. They would rather see everything turn to shit than give back a single cent.

[0] https://paulgraham.com/winc.html

Targeting "entitlements" as a universal fix ignores both the fiscal math and the human costs. Healthcare makes up the lion's share of that spending; cutting it just shifts uncompensated care burdens onto hospitals and inflates private premiums. Cutting programs like SNAP and WIC means pulling food support from children, which causes long-term economic damage.

If the goal is deficit reduction through spending cuts, policy needs to evaluate actual economic ROI. Programs like nutritional and income supports have positive fiscal multipliers, which is why blunt austerity measures trigger negative feedback loops and contract growth.

Spending cuts have a place, but treating entitlements as a slush fund without accounting for the economic return or impact on people isn’t a productive policy proposal.