The Democrat talking points are out as tax cuts takes center stage, and the complaints are rolling, with a sudden new concern about government debt.

Does anyone recall reporters and Democrats having concern about running up $10 trillion in debt during Obama's eight years?  The deficits and debts were rising at the end of his term, but not once did I hear the suggestions that the debts were unsustainable and should be immediately addressed.  Every time the debt limit needed to go up, we were told that was OK and necessary.  Any time Republicans would try to freeze or slow the growth of spending, or just cut spending a little, the cuts were described as devastating.  As costs from Obamacare skyrocketed, did anyone say how devastating those debts and entitlements would be on future generations?

But now, when Republicans suggest that the people and businesses be allowed to keep more of their own money, we are told how harmful it is to run up debt.

Tax cuts have routinely yielded the government more money because they yielded more growth, yet reporters and other Democrats just repeat over and over again how they cost the government money.  Here is a hint for reporters: more revenue doesn't increase debt – only spending more than you take in.  Facts have been irrelevant for an extremely long time.

Here is an excerpt from the New York Times:

When House Republicans proposed their tax-cut plan last week, critics noted that it came with a towering price: It would swell the nation's debt by $1.5 trillion at a time when the economy is already faring well on its own.

Adding to the government's debts poses risks, too: More debt could drive interest rates up as the government competes with private borrowers for credit. It could also eventually require cuts to popular spending programs. And it might leave policymakers with less ammunition the next time a recession strikes.

In a report last month, the International Monetary Fund concluded that many wealthy countries could afford to pare their deficits by raising taxes on the wealthiest without jeopardizing economic growth.

"We should be running surpluses when the economy is strong," William Gale, co-director of the Tax Policy Center, wrote in a blog post after the tax plan was released last week. "The proposed tax cuts would add to an already unsustainable long-term fiscal situation."

Since economists and others say the economy was growing so well, why didn't they ever suggest during Obama's term that government should cut back some government spending to start paying down debt?  After all, the massive increase in government spending and taxes during Obama's term caused the slowest economic recovery in seventy years.

When the government passed the $900-billion stimulus plan in February 2009, we were told it was temporary, yet government spending never went back down.  The economy actually came out of recession in June 2009 before almost all of the stimulus spending took effect, so it wasn't exactly necessary.

To summarize reporters and Democrats' policies: Government spending is always good, dependency on government is good, allowing people and businesses to keep more of the money they earn is bad, and we should always remember that the rich can pay more and that will not hurt the economy – unless, of course, itemized deductions are cut back for the rich in high-tax states, and then that, of course, hurts the economy.  Debt is of course OK if it is caused by spending too much, and the overriding principle is that the government can never cut back.