There is almost certainly a basic level of prudent healthcare spending which is current-period deflationary simply because healthy people are more productive (q.e.d. 2020), although the moral triage may not be palatable. Basic education is also deflationary because any expectation of increased productivity encourages current investment. The only caveat is if public spending on education reduces private saving for education, which would add inflationary pressure in the current period. I would also posit that the specific case of primary or trade education spending on the lower economic tier is immediately deflationary for many other reasons. Maybe unemployment insurance or even basic income is also deflationary, or maybe it’s not, but if it isn’t, then maybe it’s not such a great idea. I don’t think this rubric rules out any category of spending, but it certainly does limit spending to the point of negative returns.

I would hope also that this methodology may de-politicize government spending by achieving a baseline result that is hard to argue against: zero taxes, high productivity, and no inflation. Any cuts would be foolish, and any additional tax or spending is forced charity.

Re: “helluva stretch to argue...”

I see this pattern a lot in politics. Merely stating that something is hard to argue against, is not at all a convincing argument for that thing. It is simply an intimidation tactic, or an attempt to shift the burden of proof to the contrapositive. All contrapositives are hard to argue for, even if the positive is hard to argue for. For instance, prove to me why it is a bad idea to invade France. I have absolutely no reason at all to invade France, and now I’ve given you the chance to fail at your argument and thereby start a ridiculous war. The “hard to argue” pattern is even more convincing because it’s objectively true despite having no rational power to convince on its own. It’s hard to argue that we will never have to invade France. It’s much harder to argue that we will ever have to invade France, but somehow the former statement is interpreted as support for the latter.