
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
Pinned Tweet
Pleased to announce that I will be joining @RominaBoccia's budget team at @CatoInstitute later this week!
I'm glad to be joining an outstanding organization that fights for American founding ideals such as limited government and free markets.
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,…
Republicans have a lot on their plate for the lame duck session, and many priorities relate to spending. For each of these, the GOP can choose fiscal responsibility or political shortcuts. THREAD:
1
1
178
Supplemental appropriations, Highway Bill, and Farm Bill would all increase deficits if Republicans use the shortcut approach of waving away deficit concerns. The responsible approach would be to offset spending and seek net savings at every opportunity.
1
44
Social Security will probably move in a progressive direction. The question is whether we do so by reducing benefits for well-off retirees, or subsidize retirees by taking more from younger workers. This is an easy choice to me: cut the subsidies.
Replying to @SenSanders
You should start by cutting benefits for the wealthy, the moderately well off, and the others who don't need Social Security to retire in comfort.
2
8
368
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













