We've been told in campaign speeches over and over again that government should not spend on things that are not necessary. Usually this admonishment appears to be for “reduced spending” or “elimination of spending.”
I don't think that either party wants to spend for the sake of spending. There's no logic in that. It seem that they don't want to spend on projects or programs that the other party wants to spend on, as this may promulgate the interests of the other party.
Even the expectation that a given program may require spending in the future is enough to give rise to opposition. The use of government revenue is usually the spending of money that is mostly received through taxation.
Therefore, it is believed that if we keep taxes down, we keep revenue down and consequently we can keep spending down. However, at the Federal level especially, it has been found that government can borrow in order to spend.
Borrowing creates debt that not only requires payment in the long run but also requires that interest be paid on the debt as well.
Therefore, even without taxes or in-coming revenue, the government can spend money that it does not have that still obligates future taxpayers so that in time they shall be required to pay.
It is said that politicians find it easy to spend the government's money because it is not their money. That money comes from or is the obligation of the taxpayers, the citizens who are inclined against using their money to pay taxes, who are also inclined to believe that taxes should be paid by others.
The poor find it difficult to pay for anything let alone taxes. It is difficult then to directly tax the poor.
Yet the poor pay the hidden taxes that everyone pays, taxes that goods and service incur directly and indirectly. The poor that pay rent at times even pay property taxes without owning property.
The rich who are accustomed to extra privileges are disdainful of paying taxes especially direct and proportional taxes. Their disdain of taxes makes them equally disdainful of what tax money is spent on unless it's spent in their interests.
It is in this situation, briefly described here in which the government operates and in which it attempts to manipulate taxes and its spending, a situation that determines the basis of politics including the manner of taxation and the manner of spending.
Beyond the aspect of taxes in politics is that of “class.” We don't like to speak of class these days, but attitudes of class exist just as attitudes of race and of nationalities and of recent and present immigrants exist.
And much of legislation is based on class and on which class the legislation shall benefit.
The two main parties are split on two main attitudes, the attitudes as to class and which of the classes they have set out to assist in terms of which classes are to be benefited and which are going to pay for the benefits. That's the game.
Even some rich develop attitudes for the underprivileged and join the party that favors the lower classes while on the other hand, some of the underprivileged may join the party favoring the upper classes, both for reasons perhaps requiring much more time for discussion
The general conclusion then is that one party is wanting the rich to pay more taxes to assist the working and lower classes, perhaps because the rich have the money and spending it in this way is considered to be in the general interest.
The other party in reaction considers that notion to be aimed at destroying our economic structure and the freedom it creates, therefore not in the general interest but is based instead in the desire for the redistribution of wealth.
And there we have it for now. Good day and good luck.