EDITORIAL: Bipartisan agreement on big spending

If there’s one thing politicians are expert at other than running for re-election, it’s spending other people’s money. And if you need any more evidence that this is a bipartisan problem, look no further than the semiconductor subsidy bill that the Senate approved this week.

The original concept was to dole out $76 billion in grants and tax breaks to Silicon Valley that supporters maintain is necessary to help the United States compete against China and to ensure this country isn’t reliant on imports for chips and other vital components. Yet once the bill hit the Senate floor, Majority Leader Chuck Schumer — faster than you can say “national debt” — introduced an amendment to add another $175 billion for various federal agencies.

Even if you buy the national security excuse for tolerating corporate welfare and federal industrial policy — this will “help the U.S. compete against China,” The Wall Street Journal noted wryly, “only if you believe that the key to success is a larger federal bureaucracy and more political allocation of capital” — the added spending extravaganza is indefensible.

The billions showered on federal agencies, the Journal reported, include $11 billion for the Commerce Department to create “regional technology hubs,” $10 billion for the National Institute of Standards and Technology to “promote competitiveness,” $20 billion to create a Directorate for Technology, Innovation and Partnerships and $81 billion over five years to the National Science Foundation, doubling its current budget.

Progressives love to howl about corporate welfare — and rightly so — yet they’re willing to turn a blind eye to subsidies for profitable tech companies because the measure also injects billions more into the federal administrative state. Kudos to Sen. Bernie Sanders, the only Democrat to vote against the bill. Say what you want about the Vermont socialist, at least he walks the walk. The next time populist Sen. Elizabeth Warren rails to the cameras about evil capitalists, perhaps she’ll also explain how she squares her fierce collectivist rhetoric with her warm embrace of welfare for tech titans.

On the Republican side, 17 senators supported the bill, most arguing they did so for national security purposes as protection against China. But they’ve also made it more difficult this election year for GOP candidates to present themselves as defenders of competitive markets and fiscal sanity. It’s doubtful that “we’ll spend a bit less than the other guys” is a winning campaign slogan for those waiting for Congress to deal seriously with the nation’s looming financial crisis.

The chip bill only further clarifies that Washington has a spending problem, not a revenue problem.