
Policy analyst for @CatoInstitute covering the federal fisc. Fan of struggling causes (limited government & Buffalo Bills).
United States
Joined August 2011
- Tweets13.5K
- Following85
- Followers5.6K
- Likes91
David Ditch retweeted
A big reason I don't like the government funding many things is because it inevitably leads to the government controlling those things.
"This might be the most predictable plot twist in Hollywood history. After decades of begging for government subsidies for nine-figure movie productions, filmmakers are shocked that politicians are using taxpayer dollars as leverage to make demands of their own."
@PostOpinions
washingtonpost.com/opinions/…
RT @RussLatino: Believe it or not, “rich people” are paying “their fair share” of taxes, low income earners are the primary beneficiaries,…
David Ditch retweeted
Agree with desantis and callas 100%. I think capitalism is not a good word and I wish libertarians would stop using it. "Markets" and "free enterprise" are more accurate. Freedom and markets are not just about capital.
Bullseye from @RonDeSantis. It’s “free enterprise,” not “capitalism.” Capitalism can mean crony capitalism, state capitalism, and other forms of government intervention.
Not only does “free enterprise” poll better; it works better.
David Ditch retweeted
Even if policymakers were willing to impose such large tax increases on a relatively small group of taxpayers, doing so would not resolve the broader fiscal challenge. Medicare’s long-term financing shortfall is even larger than Social Security’s.
David Ditch retweeted
Vice President Vance is mistaken. The reason we Republicans lost yesterday is not just the war in Iran. Yes, the resulting higher fuel prices contributed to the inflation that infuriated Americans who were promised lower prices by this administration. But the war is not the only cause. Arbitrary and capricious tariffs directly raised costs for all American consumers. Lower income Americans can least afford them. Many voted for Democrats yesterday.
Tariffs should be a central part, but only part, of the “honest conversation” VP Vance wants Republicans to have about the future of our party. For instance, we all seem to oppose government-owned grocery stores. But are we ok with government ownership of semiconductors companies and rare earth miners? We oppose rent controls. But do we support price controls on medicines and credit cards?
The bigger question is does the Republican party now agree with the left that we need a large, powerful central government to run the economy, allocate capital and control prices? Or, do we believe that free men and women should be able to engage in commerce as they see fit and that a free enterprise system will create a higher standard of living and the greatest opportunities for the most people as it always has?
Let’s have an “honest conversation.”
One of the things the data analysts on our side obsessed over was "composition"—whether the electorate looked close enough to 2024 for Republicans to win. And despite polls that showed a Democrat blowout, the data kept on telling us the same story: in some states turnout was merely OK, in other states it was downright amazing, and in no state was it catastrophic. There was a genuine sense of optimism on our team: our people were showing up.
So, I asked the smartest data guy I know, does that mean we're going to shock the world? "No," he told me. "We might do better than the polls suggest. But the data is telling us that a lot of Trump/Vance 2024 voters are pissed and planning to vote for the other guys. Our voters are turning out, but they may not vote for us."
Well, that looks prophetic now. Our voters did show up. In Florida, for example, the electorate was 9 points more Republican than Democrat, just a couple points worse than 2024. Undoubtedly there were places we could have done better on turnout. But the main problem is not turnout. The main problem is that many people who voted for Trump/Vance in 2024 voted for Democrats in 2026.
There will be a lot of infighting and arguing over what happened and why that is. One of the pollsters I really respect told me that our economic messaging wasn’t sharp enough down the stretch. I’m sure that’s true.
But the real reason we lost is obvious to almost everyone.
Another pollster—one of the smartest people I know in politics, told me yesterday we’d lose the generic ballot by 13 points. I felt negative going into Tuesday, but even I was shocked by this. In his polling, he saw that a lot of Trump 2024 voters were angry and planning to vote for Democrats. He asked those voters who had abandoned us what would cause them to come back on our team. The top four answers, accounting for nearly all of the responses were:
1) End the war
2) Focus on cost of living/inflation
3) Put America First
4) Change our relationship to Israel
Our voters showed up. And the above four reasons are why many of them voted for Democrats. This is according to a pollster who nailed the results. While many spent Monday attacking Rachel Campos Duffy for calling for a diplomatic resolution to the conflict, it turns out her political advice was sound. (She’s also a great person.)
In the next few months, there's going to be a lot of gaslighting. Expect to hear any number of establishment politicians say the solution to our woes is amnesty. I'm open to the idea that we should change enforcement—by focusing more on businesses that hire illegal labor, for instance. But anyone pushing amnesty is lying to you.
The reason we lost is the war. The president himself said so last night.
If you'd like to argue it was worth it, that losing the Senate for the next 6 years was worth it, then do so. Argue it was a worthwhile cost to pay. Agree or disagree, that's at least honest.
But everyone knows why we lost. And any honest conversation about where we go from here must start there.
I remain hopeful about our country. To the people who are pissed off and want to say, “I told you so”: you’re right, you did tell us so. Take that energy into electing Republicans who share your worldview. To the people who are just pissed at the results, you should be. Let’s take that anger and get back to the work of saving our country.
David Ditch retweeted
The Section 48D Gravy Train Should End open.substack.com/pub/unseen…
David Ditch retweeted
Remember to vote no on bond issues today, no matter what.
I explain why @PostOpinions
David Ditch retweeted
.@USCBO estimates the Senate farm bill adds $4.4B to deficits, front-loading $7.8B in costs through FY2031 before uncertain savings later.
Delaying SNAP accountability sets a bad precedent: once Congress delays it, it becomes easier to delay it again, or abandon it altogether.
David Ditch retweeted
On Friday, hundreds of businesses asked congress to re-authorize $50 bn in corporate handouts. WOTC is masked as a pro-workforce tax credit. In reality, it is a windfall subsidy captured by large corporations and staffing firms.
David Ditch retweeted
Marc is right. I do not understand why @KFF and @larry_levitt refer to premium as only the enrollee share. It’s a small part of total premium.
The taxpayer share of the premium has risen from 75% to 88% under the IRA redesign.
The existing Part D subsidy is massive.
David Ditch retweeted
Two key facts that are often missed in reporting on ACA premium increases:
1. The taxpayer pays nearly the entire premium increase for subsidized enrollees.
2. Nearly 90 percent of enrollees are subsidized.
Affordable Care Act plan premiums will rise by 13% in 2027, the second straight year of double-digit increases in a strained market that is already facing shrinking enrollment. on.wsj.com/4jQmzqC
David Ditch retweeted
I don’t get the headline.
The victims are Americans with Obamacare (largely the unsubsidized) and taxpayers who finance the vast majority of the premium increases. They have been dealt blow after blow from Obamacare’s costly and misguided mandate and subsidy structure.
Obamacare Dealt Yet Another Blow as Premiums Rise Again nytimes.com/2026/10/30/busin… via @NYTimes
David Ditch retweeted
Good article about how China has gone massively into debt and kicked millions of people off their property to build pointless bridges and underused airports and high-speed trains so that gullible people on websites like this one think communism is cool.
economist.com/china/2026/10/…
David Ditch retweeted
María Corina Machado's return fundamentally alters the dynamics of Venezuelan politics and exposes the flaws of delaying a transition to democracy, says Cato Institute Vice President for International Studies @VasquezIan.
ow.ly/j8Nr5102iX8
David Ditch retweeted
"The California High-Speed Rail Authority was established in 1996 and, 30 years later, oversees as many miles of operational railroad as The Post does, which is zero."
@PostOpinions
washingtonpost.com/opinions/…
David Ditch retweeted
🧵Welfare Digest Today:
• Cost-Sharing Requirements Prompt Arizona SNAP Reform
• USDA Moves to Strengthen SNAP Integrity
• Fraud in DC’s Medicaid Community Support Program
• Guaranteed Income Lowers Lifetime Work Earnings
👇
David Ditch retweeted
Wasteful nonsense from a wasteful project.
Stuff like this is why people don't trust government.
How to get more trust: be trustworthy. It's that simple.
Breaking News: The chief executive of California’s High-Speed Rail Authority has abruptly resigned after a recent state report that found that the agency had misused nearly $600,000 to pay for the travel of consultants. This is a developing story. nyti.ms/4zoacHi
David Ditch retweeted
Retired millionaires do not "warrant" the benefits they receive. To claim a senior citizen deserves, or "earned" their benefits is to deny a worker's right to his income. It is to say the idle elderly rich have a stronger claim on young people's labor than they do themselves.
I think this is mostly reasonable although the top quintile of seniors did pay enough to warrant the benefits they receive and I don't see how they have any more responsibility than anyone else for a program that was created 90 years ago and has been headed for this end for decades. (Indeed, it's unlikely a group that large probably has a close to uniform position on anything.) Nevertheless, avoiding real hardship will have to involve some benefit reductions and that won't work for lower income retirees. And it will involve some revenue, but raising the cap is a very bad idea for the economy. Everyone is going to have to give up something. FDR famously said no one could end "my social security" because politicians wouldn't want to leave anyone holding the bag.
David Ditch retweeted
Great charts in this new @PostOpinions piece on the relationship between permitting, housing construction, and rents.
Tl;dr: the longer THEY take, the more YOU pay. washingtonpost.com/opinions/…
David Ditch retweeted
The Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) has evolved from a tool to simply cut and track checks for farm bill programs to a source of nearly unrestrained administrative power. With more than $40 trillion in debt, taxpayers can no longer afford it. taxpayer.net/agriculture/the…




























