The Real Spending Problem: Why Pentagon Waste, Not Social Investment, Drives the Debt

What Happened

According to The Hill, Senate conservatives allied with President Trump are planning substantial federal spending cuts in the lame-duck Congress after the November 2026 midterms. The stated purpose: to offset tens of billions in new defense spending, including funding for what the article describes as "the war in Iran." Senate Majority Leader John Thune announced these plans on Tuesday.

This is a familiar playbook. When the government wants to spend more on defense, the answer from one side of Congress is always the same: cut social programs, trim Medicare, reduce support for working families. Cut from the bottom to pay for the top.

What It Means for You

If this plan moves forward, here's what ordinary Americans should understand: someone will choose what gets cut, and it won't be billionaire tax rates.

The article doesn't specify which programs would face the knife. But history tells us where these cuts land. Medicare and Medicaid, where seniors and low-income families depend on coverage. Veterans' benefits, ironically, given that new military spending is the justification. Infrastructure spending that keeps roads safe and water clean. Student loan programs. Housing support. The programs that keep people from falling through the floor.

Meanwhile, the Pentagon cannot account for $4.65 trillion in assets, according to its own audits. We spend more on military and defense than the next nine countries combined. And yet the answer from Congress is to spend even more, paid for by cutting the services that help people stay healthy, educated, and housed.

This isn't about whether we need a strong military. It's about priorities. A working parent choosing between insulin and rent doesn't benefit from spending more on defense. A teacher in an underfunded school doesn't benefit. A vet waiting months for benefits doesn't benefit.

The Bigger Picture

The real spending problem in America isn't what we spend, it's what we fail to collect.

The Clinton administration proved this in the 1990s. When tax rates on the wealthy went up, federal revenues rose. The government ran a surplus. The debt shrank. This wasn't theory; it happened.

Instead, for four decades, America has cut taxes for the wealthy. The result: a revenue problem disguised as a spending crisis. Now, whenever Congress needs money, working people and the poor are asked to give up more while the wealthy give up nothing.

The Common Good Party's position is clear: America doesn't have a spending problem. We're the wealthiest country on earth. We can afford to keep our people healthy, educate them without drowning them in debt, build housing they can afford, and maintain a strong defense, without making ordinary Americans choose between programs they depend on.

What we need is a tax code that asks the most of those who have the most. Close the loopholes. Tax capital gains like wages. Make the Pentagon account for every dollar. Then we don't have to choose between defense and people.

Where This Goes

The lame-duck Congress after the 2026 midterms will set priorities for the next two years. If conservatives succeed in their spending-cut plan, they'll be making a choice: to protect defense contractors and Pentagon waste rather than protect working families.

The Common Good Party would make a different choice. We'd close corporate tax loopholes, raise rates on the wealthy back to levels that actually fund government, and hold the Pentagon accountable for $4.65 trillion in unaccounted-for assets. Then we'd spend what we collect on things that matter: keeping people well, keeping their kids educated, keeping communities safe, and yes, keeping the country secure.

That's not a radical idea. It's what fiscal responsibility actually looks like.