Speaking as someone who has legit published papers: you don’t actually seem to understand how science works, how science within economics works, how cause and effect work, what mean reversion describes, or indeed anything else in that buzzword salad. I’m legit not sure where to start, you’re all over the placeIf you think the tax is too low for you, why don't you make a gift to the US government? There is no limit on how much you can gift to the US treasury!
https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/public/gifts-to-government.html#
Economics is a science, not a philosophy. That's why it's in Nobel Prize as Economic Science, where as Philosophy is not.
What's the difference?
Science tells you what will happen. Philosophy tells you what should happen.
If you force the outcome, i.e., what should happen, then something else must give.
In the case of public spending, you are focusing on what we should spend tax money on, but you neglected where to collect those tax money from. Same with politicians in the US, they ran a deficit and kicked the bucket forward. Because no one want to be the term where the music stops.
That's eating the seed for next year because you are hungry. This is still predicted by economics, it's called revision to the mean. What goes up, must come down.
Not to mention your metaphor choice is interesting in context since, look, if you eat your corn seed because you’re *hungry* as opposed to gluttonous, because you’re starving, it really doesnt matter - you cant plant that corn seed next year if you starved to death first