The Cost of Socialism Won’t Stay in Washington – Inside Sources

Before a business owner can raise wages, hire another employee or help a struggling family, there must be enough money to keep the doors open. That reality rarely makes it into political promises. Washington announces a new benefit, entitlement or mandate; it’s the employers and workers who eventually discover the costs.

A recent report by the president’s Council of Economic Advisers brings that question into sharp focus. In The Real Cost of Socialism in America, the council estimates that the Democratic Socialists of America’s proposed agenda would create $49 trillion in net federal fiscal costs over 10 years, $355,000 per American household. Those figures are projections under the report’s assumptions, not individual household tax bills. But they demand a serious answer from anyone advocating these policies: Who pays, and what happens to the people who are expected to pay?

As president of Christian Employers Alliance, I approach that question through the responsibilities of employers who view their businesses as a calling. They want to provide meaningful work, support families, serve customers honestly, and strengthen their communities.

Those commitments require freedom and the financial capacity to act.

When government expands its obligations, the costs reach far beyond Washington. Higher taxes can reduce the resources available for hiring and investment. More expensive borrowing can put a building purchase or equipment upgrade out of reach. Additional mandates can force employers to spend money on compliance that otherwise could support employees.

For a family business, those tradeoffs are personal. They can determine whether an owner offers an apprenticeship, expands health benefits, opens a second location, or helps an employee through a difficult season.

Consider the proposed 32-hour workweek examined in the report, which would preserve weekly pay while reducing standard hours and requiring overtime beyond the new threshold.

More time with family is a worthy goal. Employers should have room to develop schedules that serve their employees and customers well.

But a nationwide mandate must account for businesses whose work cannot simply be compressed. A childcare center still needs adequate staffing. A manufacturer still needs to fill orders. A service business still needs someone available when a customer calls.

If the same work requires more staff or overtime, someone must absorb the cost. Lawmakers should explain how their proposal would affect prices, hiring and the survival of smaller employers before promising that everyone will benefit.

Healthcare raises an equally consequential question.

The council’s analysis assigns $47.4 trillion in federal costs over 10 years to Medicare for All. That figure describes the projected federal budget effect; it should not be mistaken for an equivalent increase in total national healthcare spending, because a government system would also replace existing sources of payment.

The debate, however, cannot end with financing. Employers also need to know what happens to conscience protections when government assumes greater control over healthcare.

Who determines which services are covered? What protections would religious employers and healthcare providers retain? How would patients preserve meaningful choices? These questions have practical urgency.

Christian Employers Alliance has pursued federal court protections against specific mandates involving contraceptive coverage and gender-transition procedures. Experience shows why lawmakers must address religious freedom before imposing requirements that conflict with sincerely held beliefs.

All policy should start with religious freedom, not after the effect creates litigation.

Economic freedom and religious freedom belong in the same conversation. An employer needs the resources to serve others and the freedom to make decisions consistent with faith.

Christian concern for struggling families should make us rigorous about policy outcomes. A proposal’s compassionate language does not establish that it will improve someone’s life. We should ask whether it expands opportunity, preserves choice, rewards work, and allows families and communities to build lasting stability.

Free enterprise also carries responsibilities. Employers should pay fairly, honor their commitments, treat workers with dignity, and use their success generously. Defending their freedom means expecting them to exercise it responsibly.

The Council of Economic Advisers’ report deserves debate, including scrutiny of its assumptions. It examines the Democratic Socialists of America’s agenda, and that distinction matters. Each proposal should be judged on its actual provisions, financing and consequences.

At Christian Employers Alliance, our Five Freedoms framework brings those questions together: religious, economic, healthcare, operational and workforce freedom.

Before lawmakers promise another government solution, they should explain what it asks of the people creating jobs and serving their neighbors.

Can employers still grow? Can workers still advance? Can families still choose? Can people still live and work according to their faith?

The cost of a policy includes the opportunities it closes and the freedoms it places at risk.

America needs policies that give employers and workers room to build, serve and flourish. Washington should protect that capacity with the same seriousness it brings to announcing its next promise.