Study: Presidential Frontrunners Would Boost Federal Budget by Range of $7 Billion to $287 Billion

National Taxpayers Union ^ | 1/29/08 | Demian Brady, Natasha Altamirano, Peter J. Sepp

[murphE]

Study: Presidential Frontrunners Would Boost Federal Budget by Range of $7 Billion to $287 Billion Annually

by
Demian Brady, Natasha Altamirano, Peter J. Sepp

Jan 29, 2008

(Alexandria, VA) -- Presidential contenders have been busy portraying their political differences from others inside and outside of their parties, but when it comes to fiscal policy, ideological labels don't necessarily apply. That's just one finding of a comprehensive study from the National Taxpayers Union Foundation (NTUF), which provides cost estimates -- based on hard data -- for more than 450 of the major candidates’ proposals that would affect the federal budget.

"Our analyses hopefully will help taxpayers distinguish political posturing from concrete proposals -- many of which would significantly change the size and make-up of the federal budget," NTUF Senior Policy Analyst Demian Brady said. "As the public-policy debate on the campaign trail nears its 'Super Tuesday' peak next week, we're providing Americans with the chance to systematically examine how future budget plans may affect their own future finances."

NTUF assumed the most conservative cost estimates of federal outlays based on a variety of sources, including the candidates' own projections; summaries from the Congressional Budget Office, Congressional Research Service, and the White House Office of Management and Budget; and results from equivalent legislation from NTUF's BillTally cost accounting system. Among the general findings of the eight reports, analyzing six Republicans and two Democrats:

• The eight candidates proposed a combined total of 189 items that would increase federal spending, 24 items that would decrease it, and 238 items whose budgetary impacts are unknown -- in addition to dozens of sub-items further detailing program components. The four respective frontrunners in the two parties (John McCain, Mitt Romney, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama), proposed overall fiscal policy agendas whose net effect would raise annual federal outlays between $6.9 billion and $287.0 billion.

• The top-tier GOP candidates often portrayed as "conservative" (Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee) actually called for significantly larger spending hikes ($19.5 billion and $54.2 billion, respectively), than the so-called "moderate conservative" (John McCain, $6.9 billion).

• Among Democrats, Barack Obama, often described as ideologically more "moderate" than Hillary Clinton, actually has the larger agenda of the two ($287.0 billion vs. $218.2 billion).

• Defense-related spending items received the highest proposed spending increases among Republican candidates. Huckabee and Romney, for example, offered $67.2 billion and $40.6 billion, respectively. Among Democrats, Clinton's biggest boost goes toward health care ($113.6 billion) and Obama's for economy, transportation, and infrastructure ($105.0 billion).

• Two of the eight candidates proposed sufficient spending cuts that more than offset their new spending plans: Rudy Giuliani (-$1.4 billion) and Ron Paul (-$150.1 billion).

NTUF is the nonpartisan research arm of the 362,000-member National Taxpayers Union, a citizen group founded in 1969. Note: Due to time constraints, NTUF staff were unable to complete a report for Democratic candidate John Edwards. For the full reports, graphs of the data, and audio analysis from NTUF staff, visit www.ntu.org.

[murphE]

"Two of the eight candidates proposed sufficient spending cuts that more than offset their new spending plans: Rudy Giuliani (-$1.4 billion) and Ron Paul (-$150.1 billion)."

[murphE]

Let Freedom ping!

[RSmithOpt]

No one seems to even address the thought of :

Cut taxes, cut the size of government meddling, let the the markets fuel the economic growth, and take the resulting net gains in the revenues to pay down the debt.

[murphE]

No one? Are you sure?

[RSmithOpt]

Oopps, my bad. Ron Paul...Duncan Hunter, and Fred....but those conservatives get/got into the way of feeding the masses BS and feeding the green-eyed monster (government) its dies of mine and yours money.

[RSmithOpt]

dies=diet

[CharlesWayneCT]

Romney isn’t too bad, he’s second on the list with $16.9 billion in new spending, to McCain’s $6.9 billion.

The report makes a snarky comment about Romney being more conservative than McCain but spending more money — but I don’t think we’ve ever accused McCain of not being a conservative on government spending — it’s about the only thing where he IS really solid.

Huckabee is over $50 billion, and both major Democrats are over $200 billion.

[CharlesWayneCT]

CORRECTION, forgot to include Ron Paul.

Romney isn’t too bad, he’s THIRD on the list with $16.9 billion in new spending, to McCain’s $6.9 billion. and Ron’s -$150 billion.

I left out Giuliani because he dropped out of the race.

The report makes a snarky comment about Romney being more conservative than McCain but spending more money — but I don’t think we’ve ever accused McCain of not being a conservative on government spending — it’s about the only thing where he IS really solid.

Huckabee is over $50 billion, and both major Democrats are over $200 billion.

[CJ Wolf]

Let Freedom Ping!

[Ultra Sonic 007]

How come all this stuff is being moved to the RLC Liberty Caucus forum? This should be in Editorial.

[CJ Wolf]

got me. I don’t edit this site.

[jmc813]

I really, really wish McCain were a bit more sane. I’m starting to prefer him over Romney. Yick.

[jmc813]

How come all this stuff is being moved to the RLC Liberty Caucus forum?

Weekday morning.

[murphE]

Actually, it didn't get moved, I put it here. I figured it would end up here anyway.

It's kind of like we have our own forum now. ; D

[murphE]

I really, really wish McCain were a bit more sane. I’m starting to prefer him over Romney. Yick.

I'm starting to like Romney the least as well out of the two, but really bad and slightly less bad is not choice I will make. I think Hitlary or Oboma would crush either of them in the general anyway.

[Nephi]

You guys just can’t get enough of

McCain/Feingold?
McCain/Kennedy?
McCain/Lieberman?
Gang of 14 blocking conservative judges?
Opposition to tax cuts?
Closing Guantanamo?
Calling water boarding torture?

[murphE]

You got me wrong- I’m not voting for either of them.

[Kellis91789]

I don’t think they are counting the effects on spending of the various candidates’ stances on illegal immigration.

How much money in Federal block grants and Medicaid and Foodstamps would be saved under Romney’s proposal to cut off funds to sanctuary cities ? How much will be saved in SS/M liabilities if amnesty and SS/M enrollment is not given to low-income illegal aliens ?

How much additional spending will there be in those programs under McCain’s, or Hillary’s or Obama’s open borders and amnesty policies ?

[jmc813]

It’s like that South Park episode where a giant douche is running against a turd sandwich in the local election.

[ex-snook]

Only our children will notice.