Study: Presidential Frontrunners Would Boost Federal Budget

For Immediate Release Jan 29, 2008
For Further Information, Contact:
Peter J. Sepp, Natasha Altamirano, Demian Brady, (703) 683-5700
Study: Presidential Frontrunners Would Boost Federal Budget by Range of $7 Billion to $287 Billion Annually

(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).

SamCogar wrote:Oh my ....................

1. Mitt Romney 9 1
2. Mike Huckabee 8 2
2. Rudy Giuliani 8 2
3. John McCain 5 5
3. Ron Paul 5 5
4. Hillary Clinton 4 6
5. Barack Obama 3 7
6. John Edwards 2 8

Spending Cuts
Ron Paul - -$150.1 billion
Rudy Giuliani - -$1.4 billion

Significantly Larger Spending Increases
Barack Obama - $287.0 billion
Hillary Clinton - $218.2 billion
Mike Huckabee - $54.2 billion
Mitt Romney - $19.5 billion
John McCain - $6.9 billion

Specific Spending Increases
Romney - defense - $40.6 billion
Huckabee - defense - $67.2 billion
Obama – economic - $105.0 billion
Clinton - health care - $113.6 billion

SamCogar wrote:Steph, did you note the difference between the Significant and Specific Spending Increases ........ attributed to Romney and Huckabee?

The Specifics are greater than the totals of the Significant Largers, ..... so the question is ..... "What are they cutting?".

.

Stephanie wrote:I thought the Huckster wanted to spend billions on road projects? He spoke about it last night. Where's he going to take that money from?

National Taxpayers Union Foundation
Republican Presidential Primary Spending Analysis – Mike Huckabee
Total Annual Spending: $54.193 billion
Economy, Transportation, and Infrastructure: -$12.214 billion (savings)A. FairTax:
“I am running to completely eliminate all federal income and payroll taxes. And I do
mean all – personal federal, corporate federal, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative
minimum, Social Security, Medicare, self-employment. … [W]e will have the FairTax, a
simple tax based on wealth.”
http://www.mikehuckabee.com/?FuseAction=Issues.View&Issue_id=5
Cost: -$12.214 billion (savings) (-$61.069 billion over five years).
Source: BillTally estimate for H.R. 25 (110th Congress): A bill to promote
freedom, fairness, and economic opportunity by repealing the income tax and
other taxes, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, and enacting a national sales
tax to be administered primarily by the states.
Note: Estimate is based on several factors, including administrative savings from
eliminating the Internal Revenue Service and savings from the repeal of
refundable income tax credits (which have outlay effects).

Stephanie wrote:You know I thought so too, Aaron! I got the feeling that if the cameras weren't rolling he might have.

The other thing I noticed was how "nice" McCain & Paul were to each other. After they had been introduced they had each other's ear etc. It also appeared to me McCain was the only one Paul had any use for. McCain have more in common on a personal level than the other two, I think. They both served in the military, both had personal relationships with President Reagan, both have lengthy careers as "maverick" Republicans.