Four years ago, when former President Joe Biden was hocking his Inflation Reduction Act — a misnomer if there ever was one — he and his fellow Democrats reassured the public that the law would reduce health care costs.

Changes that would allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices, end drug rebates, and amend Medicare Part D benefits, they said, would produce $129 billion in taxpayer savings — a big chunk of the $290 billion of savings the law was supposedly going to deliver, all while also capping prescription drug costs and expanding Obamacare coverage.

"It's a Godsend. It'll literally be a Godsend," Biden insisted.

But, as the old saying goes, if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

Last month, at the request of several House Republicans, the Congressional Budget Office revisited those estimates. Its findings? Not only were the initial estimates wrong, but the projected reductions actually added to the federal deficit.

Instead of cutting the deficit by $129 billion, the law tacked on some $700 billion more to it.

The reason for the gross miscalculation is typical of Washington, D.C., math. The economic modeling overstated the savings (in this case, from drug price negotiations and rebates) and lowballed the costs (higher-than-anticipated drug utilization).

While lawmakers might be forgiven for trusting such rosy estimates — it's how Democrats lured former Sen. Joe Manchin, one of the party's only fiscal hawks, to sign on to the bill — the situation reflects the flaws of big government interventionism.

The projected health care savings were predicated on what effectively were price controls: caps on drug prices. These were pitched to voters as a free lunch, saving with no downside. However, as demand grew, so did the bill. Suddenly, a deficit reduction was an even bigger tab to tack onto the national IOU.

That same type of assured, but ultimately hollow, savings aptly characterized the Inflation Reduction Act. It was sold as a necessary measure to fight inflation and put our country on "sounder economic footing," as Sen. Elizabeth Warren and her fellow progressive lawmakers put it.

In actuality, the law was a masterclass in the failed philosophy of socialism.

Even if one were to accept the law's estimated $250 billion of deficit reductions — a number largely reliant on deferred spending cuts and aspirational forecasts, like the faux Medicare savings — the savings were offset, many times over, by Democrats' uncontrollable penchant to spend taxpayers' money.

By the end of 2024, just two years after the Inflation Reduction Act was signed into law, the Biden administration and its allies in Congress had increased spending by three dollars for every dollar of additional revenue. The upshot was an extra $1 trillion added to the annual deficit, beyond what was expected when Biden took office.

Under Biden, inflation rose more than 20%. Real wages and benefits fell by over 3%. Inflation exceeded the Federal Reserve's 2% target for the entirety of his term, compelling the central bank to raise interest rates. As a result, the monthly payment on a median-priced home loan increased more than 50%, putting the dream of owning a home further out of reach for many.

Historic inflation, increased consumer costs and an extra $7.2 trillion in federal debt. That hardly sounds like "sounder economic footing."

To be fair, leaders on both sides of the political aisle are responsible for our nation's rapidly growing debt load. And the root of the problem is grounded in a fundamental truth: Unless Washington gets serious about cutting spending — real cuts based on measurable data and evidence — the ticker will continue to roll, and faster.

As the House Oversight Committee reported earlier this year, the United States now owes about $39 trillion. When implicit obligations, like payments owed to Medicare and Social Security, are factored in, that number jumps to over $65 trillion. The national debt could be the largest federal budget item within five years.

Washington's math isn't working. If the left continues to herald false saving on one hand, only to spend even more on programs our country can't afford and doesn't need with the other, we will hit a fiscal cliff from which we cannot recover.

Lawmakers would be wise to consider an old bit of advice: If you're in a hole, quit digging — which, in this case, means "stop spending."

Ken Buck served in the United States House of Representatives from 2015-2024 representing Colorado's 4th congressional district. He now serves as a Fellow with the Independent Center. To find out more about Ken Buck and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

Photo credit: Andrew Dawes at Unsplash