Staff Reports
Representative Ro Khanna (D–California) went on social media this week and told the country what it needs: “America’s next New Deal.” His slogan packs a lot — higher taxes on billionaires, Medicare for All, and a government program to rebuild industry in every community — all pitched as the cure for the economic disruption AI might bring. It’s bold. It’s big. It’s also a very old answer dressed in new buzzwords.
Khanna’s “America’s next New Deal” — what he actually said
Khanna summed it up plainly: “America’s next New Deal: tax the billionaires, Medicare for All, rebuild industry for every community.” That is the specific move he put forward this week as the solution to AI-driven changes in the workplace and economy. The phrase matters. Invoking the New Deal signals a push for sweeping federal power, massive spending, and central planning — not just AI rules, but a wholesale re‑writing of the role of Washington in the economy.
Why copying FDR’s playbook for AI is the wrong answer
There’s a reason voters should cringe when politicians say “New Deal” and mean “more government.” Big, blunt government programs crush incentives, create winners who lobby for permanent favors, and saddle taxpayers with long-term bills. Medicare for All and a wealth tax sound good in a slogan, but they would centralize control over health care and investment decisions at a time when we need innovation and flexibility — not another top-down plan that picks winners and tells entrepreneurs where to build.
A conservative alternative: markets, skills, and accountable policy
If AI is the disruptor Khanna says it is, the right response is not higher taxes and a command economy. It’s competitive markets, clear rules that favor innovation and privacy, and federal support for retraining, apprenticeships, and trade‑school expansion. Let’s incentivize onshoring, speed up permitting for factories, and offer targeted grants for regions hit hardest — not a blanket industrial policy that hands power to bureaucrats and campaign donors. That approach protects liberty and spreads opportunity without turning cities into pet projects for Washington.
Bottom line — the political test ahead
Khanna is staking out a national profile and forcing a debate allies and opponents will have to answer before 2028. Conservatives should call this what it is: a nostalgic bid for centralized power dressed up as protection from technology. Voters want practical solutions to AI’s challenges — not another New Deal redux. If Khanna wants to sell big government as the safety net, he should at least explain why more bureaucracy will magically produce more jobs and fewer broken promises. Until then, the better pitch is clear: freedom, competition, and real job training — with fewer lectures from D.C.
