Democratic leaders in Congress are moving ahead with a $1 trillion infrastructure bill and a $3.5 trillion reconciliation bill to expand entitlement programs. Both bills are fiscally reckless and fund activities that are the proper responsibility of the states and private sector.

Many politicians seem to think there are no downsides to expanding the federal budget. But that is not the case. I discuss 10 reasons why both spending bills are misguided in a new National Review op-ed.

Some Republican members and conservative commentators favor the infrastructure bill but not the entitlement bill. But the flaws in both are the same. Expanding federal spending and regulatory power over state, local, and private activities makes no practical sense. If Ohio needs more highways, then the Ohio legislature should fund them. If Kentucky needs more public transportation, then local governments in the state should handle it. If Louisiana needs a hydrogen hub, then businesses in the state should invest in it.

The federal government does a lousy job of managing its vast array of current programs, and more spending would further overload federal policymakers. Expanding federal spending and control would undermine the democratic choices of state and local governments for no good reason.

Further discussion of federalism is here and infrastructure is here.