Every Democratic Candidate's Policies Would Deepen Deficit, Not Cut It
Thread Starter
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
From: Los Angeles, CA
Every Democratic Candidate's Policies Would Deepen Deficit, Not Cut It
Study: EVERY Democrat Presidential Candidate's Platform Would Raise, Not Lower, Federal Budget Deficits
(Alexandria, VA) -- Long on rhetoric, short on restraint: that's the conclusion of a detailed review of each Democratic Presidential candidate's fiscal policy agenda released today by the non-partisan National Taxpayers Union Foundation (NTUF). Despite expressing concern over red ink in the federal budget, every one of the eight hopefuls would worsen the deficit by billions or even trillions of dollars.
"All the Presidential challengers have to varying degrees disparaged the current size of federal deficits," said study author and NTUF Policy Analyst Drew Johnson. "Yet, our examination of the candidates' spending promises reveals an inconvenient fact: the deficit potholes they're complaining about on the road to the White House would only deepen under their own policies."
The NTUF study systematically examined the fiscal policy implications of the eight contenders' agendas, using campaign and third-party sources (like the Congressional Budget Office) to assign a cost to each budget proposal offered by the candidates. For actual legislation that the candidates have endorsed, the study also relies on NTUF's BillTally project, a computerized accounting system that has, since 1991, tabulated the cost or savings of every piece of legislation introduced in Congress with a net annual impact of $1 million or more. Highlights of the study include:
* If the policy agenda of any one of the eight candidates were enacted in full, annual federal spending would rise by at least $169.6 billion (Lieberman) and as much as $1.33 trillion (Sharpton). This would translate to a yearly budget hike of between 7.6% and 59.5%.
* All candidates offer platforms that call for more spending than would be offset by repealing the Bush tax cuts (using even generous estimates of the tax cuts' impact).
* The eight candidates have proposed over 200 ideas to increase federal spending, and only two that would cut federal spending. Those two proposals have been offered by Dennis Kucinich (thus, the seven other candidates haven't made a single proposal to cut any spending).
* Although they may attempt to stress their policy differences, Howard Dean and Wesley Clark would both increase annual federal outlays by roughly the same amount ($222.9 billion vs. $220.7 billion, respectively).
* Among those candidates considered to be "competitive," **** Gephardt posts the largest annual spending increase ($368.8 billion), far ahead of John Kerry ($265.11 billion).
Johnson noted that the study "does not even consider that the temptation to spend more money can increase after entering the White House." George W. Bush, for example, who campaigned as a fiscal conservative in 2000, has presided over a jump in federal spending of 23.7% since taking office. Yet, Johnson still found that even the most parsimonious of the Democrat Presidential candidates would have outpaced the spending run-up under Bush by 15%.
"During the 2000 Presidential election, the candidates traded charges of 'fuzzy math' and 'risky schemes' over each other's fiscal policy proposals," Johnson concluded. "Given the results of this study, many deficit-conscious Americans may be wondering if such terms are applicable to the 2004 race too."
NTUF is the research and educational arm of the National Taxpayers Union, a non-profit citizen group founded in 1969. Note: NTUF Policy Paper 148, The Return of Fuzzy Math and Risky Schemes: How Presidential Hopefuls Would Deepen Deficits, is available online at www.ntu.org. Also available are detailed reports, separated into policy categories, on each candidate's platform costs.
(Alexandria, VA) -- Long on rhetoric, short on restraint: that's the conclusion of a detailed review of each Democratic Presidential candidate's fiscal policy agenda released today by the non-partisan National Taxpayers Union Foundation (NTUF). Despite expressing concern over red ink in the federal budget, every one of the eight hopefuls would worsen the deficit by billions or even trillions of dollars.
"All the Presidential challengers have to varying degrees disparaged the current size of federal deficits," said study author and NTUF Policy Analyst Drew Johnson. "Yet, our examination of the candidates' spending promises reveals an inconvenient fact: the deficit potholes they're complaining about on the road to the White House would only deepen under their own policies."
The NTUF study systematically examined the fiscal policy implications of the eight contenders' agendas, using campaign and third-party sources (like the Congressional Budget Office) to assign a cost to each budget proposal offered by the candidates. For actual legislation that the candidates have endorsed, the study also relies on NTUF's BillTally project, a computerized accounting system that has, since 1991, tabulated the cost or savings of every piece of legislation introduced in Congress with a net annual impact of $1 million or more. Highlights of the study include:
* If the policy agenda of any one of the eight candidates were enacted in full, annual federal spending would rise by at least $169.6 billion (Lieberman) and as much as $1.33 trillion (Sharpton). This would translate to a yearly budget hike of between 7.6% and 59.5%.
* All candidates offer platforms that call for more spending than would be offset by repealing the Bush tax cuts (using even generous estimates of the tax cuts' impact).
* The eight candidates have proposed over 200 ideas to increase federal spending, and only two that would cut federal spending. Those two proposals have been offered by Dennis Kucinich (thus, the seven other candidates haven't made a single proposal to cut any spending).
* Although they may attempt to stress their policy differences, Howard Dean and Wesley Clark would both increase annual federal outlays by roughly the same amount ($222.9 billion vs. $220.7 billion, respectively).
* Among those candidates considered to be "competitive," **** Gephardt posts the largest annual spending increase ($368.8 billion), far ahead of John Kerry ($265.11 billion).
Johnson noted that the study "does not even consider that the temptation to spend more money can increase after entering the White House." George W. Bush, for example, who campaigned as a fiscal conservative in 2000, has presided over a jump in federal spending of 23.7% since taking office. Yet, Johnson still found that even the most parsimonious of the Democrat Presidential candidates would have outpaced the spending run-up under Bush by 15%.
"During the 2000 Presidential election, the candidates traded charges of 'fuzzy math' and 'risky schemes' over each other's fiscal policy proposals," Johnson concluded. "Given the results of this study, many deficit-conscious Americans may be wondering if such terms are applicable to the 2004 race too."
NTUF is the research and educational arm of the National Taxpayers Union, a non-profit citizen group founded in 1969. Note: NTUF Policy Paper 148, The Return of Fuzzy Math and Risky Schemes: How Presidential Hopefuls Would Deepen Deficits, is available online at www.ntu.org. Also available are detailed reports, separated into policy categories, on each candidate's platform costs.
Oh, here's the link for policy paper: http://www.ntu.org/main/press.php?P...8&org_name=NTUF
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,867
Likes: 0
From: NH
Well that makes perfect sense to me. That’s what democrats in general are all about. Taking money from those that work and bust their butt to give it away to others who do not feel the need to earn their take on their own.
Though I don’t agree with all the spending President Bush is doing, particularly the Drug benefit program, there is no where for the deficit to go but UP, way UP under a democrat President.
Deficits are the result of tax increase and over spending. Never have tax cuts or keeping spending down caused deficits. The reason tax increases cause deficits is because when the “little” extra money comes in, (in the beginning) it always equals greater spending then what is taken in by punishing people who work their butt off.
Tax increases only lead to an extra income for the government in the beginning because once they take hold people are able to spend less, companies are kept back from spending more money on innovations and thus soon after there is less money coming into the federal government…
Democrats are for tax increases and extra spending, that is never a good idea…
Though I don’t agree with all the spending President Bush is doing, particularly the Drug benefit program, there is no where for the deficit to go but UP, way UP under a democrat President.
Deficits are the result of tax increase and over spending. Never have tax cuts or keeping spending down caused deficits. The reason tax increases cause deficits is because when the “little” extra money comes in, (in the beginning) it always equals greater spending then what is taken in by punishing people who work their butt off.
Tax increases only lead to an extra income for the government in the beginning because once they take hold people are able to spend less, companies are kept back from spending more money on innovations and thus soon after there is less money coming into the federal government…
Democrats are for tax increases and extra spending, that is never a good idea…
Certified Goat Breeder
Joined: Feb 1999
Posts: 6,182
Likes: 19
From: the moral high ground
"NTUF is the research and educational arm of the National Taxpayers Union, a non-profit citizen group founded in 1969. They have concluded their final Democratic Spending Study on Mars and are awaiting pick up....
...uh Hello? I said they are awaiting pick up."
...uh Hello? I said they are awaiting pick up."
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,316
Likes: 1
Originally posted by 01 XLT Sport
That’s what democrats in general are all about. Taking money from those that work and bust their butt to give it away to others who do not feel the need to earn their take on their own.
That’s what democrats in general are all about. Taking money from those that work and bust their butt to give it away to others who do not feel the need to earn their take on their own.
Certified Goat Breeder
Joined: Feb 1999
Posts: 6,182
Likes: 19
From: the moral high ground
Originally posted by J-150
Isn't that the basic premise of liberal/left-wing? To be a liberal you must stand by this belief. If you don't then you are right-of-center. Thats the basic definition.
Isn't that the basic premise of liberal/left-wing? To be a liberal you must stand by this belief. If you don't then you are right-of-center. Thats the basic definition.
Dress pants have a button on the left rear pocket. This button is to keep your wallet from falling out. So, your money is on your left. To "take money from those who work and bust their butts" you must be Left of Center to obtain the funds.
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,316
Likes: 1
what if I'm wearing Docker's?
without trying to make this a liberal vs conservative argument...
left of center is more socialist... taking money from the hard working to give to the lazy so they can watch TV all day.
right of center is more about letting homeless children starve in the street because their parents are lazy.
Now, most people find themselves somewhere in between.
without trying to make this a liberal vs conservative argument...
left of center is more socialist... taking money from the hard working to give to the lazy so they can watch TV all day.
right of center is more about letting homeless children starve in the street because their parents are lazy.
Now, most people find themselves somewhere in between.
Certified Goat Breeder
Joined: Feb 1999
Posts: 6,182
Likes: 19
From: the moral high ground
Those in between are called moderates or centrists.
Here is some interesting centrist thoughts:
http://www.centristcoalition.com/blog/
Keep in mind that I am not claiming to be a centrist myself
(unless it becomes popular)
Here is some interesting centrist thoughts:
http://www.centristcoalition.com/blog/
Keep in mind that I am not claiming to be a centrist myself
(unless it becomes popular)