The US would greatly benefit from Build Back Better, asserts Paul Krugman of The New York Times. It would alleviate issues that plague large sections of the country, such as being uninsured or unable to afford medical expenses, by improving the healthcare system. Additionally, it would address the long-term dangers of climate change as well as more immediate threats, such as polluted air that causes damage to health. This act is needed to upgrade the US economy in ways that create innovation, growth and provide a better life for all citizens. Fearmongering about its costs misses the price we are already paying by sticking to an imperfect status quo.
Build Back Better is bad for the US, write the editors of National Review. First and foremost, it would cost a huge amount of money that the country doesn't have right now. It hides funding for several new programs that are too expensive and too unpopular between important and necessary legislation, for example regarding infrastructure. Democrats had hoped to squeeze this legislative behemoth through, while hiding funding for unpopular projects, such as abortion programs. All of this would accrue incredible costs, ballooning the national deficit. Doing this is at such a time of national uncertainty and financial turmoil would have been incredibly irresponsible.