Ryan Ellis of the Center for a Free Economy argues that the deficit is caused by overspending, not undertaxing:

To hear the Left tell the story, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) has not only been a policy flop, but it’s putting a gaping maw in the federal budget outlook. The Left is wrong, and CBO numbers prove it.
Since 1972, federal tax revenues have averaged just over 17 percent of economic output. Like the 21 percent spending number, this is the “normal” amount of federal taxation one should expect. So what does tax revenue look like?
The CBO is required to assume that all the tax relief which is set to expire will expire (notably, they have the opposite mandate when it comes to entitlement spending). Under that baseline, federal revenues will hold steady at over 18 percent of economic output for this decade, a full percentage point over the historical average. Thus, the CBO assumes that both spending and taxes will come in at historically high levels over the next decade — taxes are more than pulling their weight, and it’s fully a spending problem we are dealing with.

Kenin Spivak argues that venture capital doesn’t need progressive ideology to succeed:

I have founded, co-founded, invested in, and advised close to 200 start-ups. My results include spectacular returns and losses. At present, I am actively involved with about a dozen early-stage companies, ranging from pre-operating vehicles seeking seed financing, to companies in registration for their initial public offerings. The founders of these companies include Asians, blacks, Hispanics, whites, men, and women.
Progressive publications, such as a frequently quoted 2020 McKinsey article, and “Entrepreneurial Inequity,” just issued by the Alliance for Entrepreneurial Equity (AEE), parrot the same statistics, conclusions, and mandate for “equity” in venture capital. Their analyses are disconnected from the prerequisites for business success and offer false hope to underprivileged Americans.

Casey Mulligan writes about government’s terrible track record on marketing:

The private and public sectors have different incentives when it comes to producing, distributing, and promoting a product. For-profit companies aim to generate the profits that create value for their owners. Public officials aim to stay in office and enhance the power they have while in office.
The public–private difference is especially stark when it comes to the advertising and marketing activities that could increase the fraction of the population that uses a good, whether it be health insurance, schooling, vaccines, or other goods with social benefits. In the private sector, the purpose of product advertising and marketing is to generate profit by making potential consumers aware of the product as well as increasing the intensity of their interest.

On this week’s episode of the Capital Record, David Bahnsen talks to Fr. Robert Sirico, co-founder of the Acton Institute. Listen here, or wherever you get podcasts.