Slate Money: Money Talks – "Philosophy of The Budget"
Host: Felix Salmon
Guest: Barry Lam (Host, Hi-Phi Nation podcast)
Date: June 10, 2025
Episode Overview
In this episode, Felix Salmon sits down with philosopher and podcaster Barry Lam to unpack the philosophy that underpins public discourse and policymaking around the federal budget—specifically the meaning of deficit projections and the different baselines used in budget debates. Venturing deeply into the philosophy of language and the problem of induction, the conversation connects academic skepticism to very real consequences for public policy.
The two explore how definitions, assumptions, and seemingly neutral language can be manipulated to create confusion or justify partisan policy stances, using the U.S. Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) budget "scoring" process as a case study. They draw on 20th-century philosophy, bringing thinkers like Nelson Goodman and Saul Kripke into dialogue with present-day fiscal politics.
Key Discussion Points & Insights
The Problem: What Does "Deficit Goes Up" Mean?
- Budget Chaos Context: The conversation is set against the backdrop of ongoing budget debates in Congress, with politicians making conflicting claims about what various tax and spending bills "do to the deficit."
- Superficially Simple, Fundamentally Complex: While people talk about the deficit increasing or decreasing as if it's straightforward, Felix and Barry show the complexity underneath such claims.
- Economic Projections & Assumptions: Predictions about future deficits depend on underlying, unknowable economic forecasts (growth, interest rates), which both hosts agree are always wrong to some degree.
[04:10] Felix: "Let's just stipulate for the time being that we have no idea what the future holds."
The CBO's Method: Baselines and Hypotheticals
- Comparing Alternate Futures: The CBO compares two hypothetical futures: one with the new bill and one under "current law." The difference between the two is claimed as the bill’s effect on the deficit.
- [09:19] Barry: "You're not comparing, like, 2026 to 2025. You're comparing two different 2026 worlds."
- Current Law vs. Current Practice: Republican lawmakers often challenge the CBO’s "current law" baseline, advocating for a "current tax rates" baseline which makes tax cut extensions seem less costly.
- Time-Limited Legislation Traps: The 2017 Tax Cut and Jobs Act (TCJA) included tax cuts set to expire in 2025 to minimize their scored cost, creating artificial cliffs in budget projections.
- [12:35] Felix: "Current law, when it comes to taxes, is pretty much the law of land as passed in...the Tax Cut and Jobs Act of 2017."
Philosophical Puzzles: Goodman’s "Grue" and More
- Goodman's "New Riddle of Induction": The philosophical tension: What predicts the future? “Grue” is defined as “green until 2026 or blue thereafter.” Both “green” and “grue” fit all observations up to now, but they predict different futures.
- [23:50] Barry: "If this emerald was grue...I would expect it to be blue if I looked at it next year."
- [25:13] Barry: "Well, you can think of green as a made up property too..."
- Connecting Philosophy to Budget Baselines: The idea of choosing a baseline (e.g., current law, current practice) is analogous to picking "green" or "grue" — neither is the only "natural" choice.
- [27:18] Felix: "The econo wonks at the Congressional Budget Office basically have to struggle with this...What is the thing that just continues if we don't change it?"
Tactical Skepticism and Alternative Facts
- Weaponization of Skepticism: Philosophical skepticism, once confined to academic debate, now infiltrates political rhetoric as a tool to legitimize or challenge prevailing narratives ("alternative facts").
- [33:24] Felix: "It definitely reminds me of the whole concept of alternative facts."
- Selective Skepticism: Skeptical arguments are deployed tactically—not consistently—against unwelcome truths, e.g., in denying climate change, vaccine efficacy, or fiscal data.
- [38:13] Barry: "...it's a very selective kind of skepticism...you deploy this kind of really old style skeptical reasoning, but...only to the kind of things that you want to win against somebody."
The Limits of Argument & When to Call Out Tricks
- Dogmatist vs. Skeptic: Ordinary life can't be lived in a state of perpetual skepticism; some rules must be accepted.
- [40:04] Barry: "...we haven't come up with a good term for that. My advisor...called it a dogmatist. But a dogmatist, you know, that's not a good word."
- Recognizing Philosophical Tricks in Political Debate: When politicians swap baselines or move goalposts by invoking new standards (e.g., switching from "current law" to "current tax rates"), it's akin to introducing "grue" or "quus" in logic—an attempt to win an argument by manipulating definitions rather than substance.
- [39:19] Felix: "You can't just change the rules in the middle of the game."
Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments
-
On the Paradox of Defining Baselines:
[19:42] Felix: “How do we describe the facts?...the only question is, how do we describe the facts? And this is where I want to bring in your friend and mine, Mr. Nelson Goodman.” -
On Goodman's Riddle
[23:02] Barry: “So then Goodman constructed this new property...Gru...it’s green and having been observed prior to 2026, or blue after 2026.” -
Making Philosophy Concrete
[26:38] Barry: “There really are time dependent properties that are perfectly okay. Like...whether computers are Y2K ready or not.” -
On Political Gaming of Skepticism
[38:32] Barry: “Yeah, that’s exactly what it is. Right. You know, I mean, the right way to respond to this kind of stuff is, oh, you're doing the GRU thing. Okay...you can project anything.” -
Host’s Frustration with Rule Changes:
[39:19] Felix: “The rules have been set. We are playing the game now...You can't just change the rules in the middle of the game.” -
Practical Advice on Skeptical Moves:
[40:37] Barry: “When they feel like something is like there’s a trick about what people are saying...you know something is going wrong...if we’re playing that game, we can do the philosophy seminar thing, but ordinary life requires us to have already had a solution to that problem.”
Timestamps for Major Segments
- [00:01] – [05:08]: Introduction; why philosophy matters for budget debates; initial definitions of "deficit goes up."
- [05:09] – [11:31]: The CBO’s approach to budget scoring and comparing alternate futures.
- [12:35] – [18:49]: TCJA tax cliffs, Republicans' challenge to baselines, political incentives.
- [19:42] – [27:18]: Philosophy deep dive – Goodman's “grue,” baseline selection, real-world analogies (Y2K).
- [29:22] – [31:44]: Kripke’s Wittgenstein paradox ("quus" vs. "plus"), Quine’s "undetached rabbit parts."
- [33:24] – [38:16]: "Alternative facts", tactical and selective skepticism, skepticism’s influence on political debate.
- [39:19] – [42:39]: Calling out philosophical tricks in politics; dogmatist vs. skeptic; final reflections and practical advice.
Takeaways
- Budget discourse is inherently philosophical: The discussion exposes how supposedly empirical questions involve deep philosophical choices about definitions and baselines.
- CBO’s “current law” baseline is a convention, not a necessity; choosing otherwise can dramatically shift perceptions of fiscal responsibility.
- Philosophical skepticism, once academic, is now a tool in political warfare, enabling “alternative facts” and shifting definitions to suit partisan ends;
- Critical thinking requires recognizing when philosophical tricks are deployed for political gain—and being prepared to call them out by returning to agreed rules.
- Ordinary life, and governance, demand a practical dogmatism—not succumbing to endless skepticism, but reasoning from agreed facts.
Final Word
This episode serves not only as a masterful entry-level seminar on the philosophy of language and induction but as an urgent reminder that the way we argue about, report on, and legislate the budget is always already philosophical, and vulnerable to manipulation. As Felix wryly puts it, “You can’t just change the rules in the middle of the game.”