National Taxpayer's Union:Frontrunners Boost Fed Budget $7-$287 Billion Annually

[BucEyedPea]

So much for what are called "moderates." Ideological labels don't really apply on this subject if going by actual practice over rhetoric.
NTUF Press Release (http://www.ntu.org/main/press.php?PressID=991&org_name=NTUF)

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).

Too bad Rudy was such a hawk and had Podhoretz connected to him.
I'm beginning to think the major parties want to bankrupt this country...including the so-called "moderates."

[patteeu]

Let's elect a democrat to fix our out of control spending situation. :rolleyes:

[Hydrae]

Interesting break down. Too bad the vast majority of the country won't know about it and will continue to drink the kool-aid from their candidate of choice.

[chiefforlife]

Let's elect a democrat to fix our out of control spending situation. :rolleyes:

Normally, I would agree with that except for the fact it has been the Republicans that brought us to this point. :spock:

[patteeu]

Normally, I would agree with that except for the fact it has been the Republicans that brought us to this point. :spock:

Imagine the point that democrats would have brought us to if they'd been in charge the past 8 years. At almost every major spending opportunity along the way, democrats have been upset with Bush/Republican spending programs/proposals because they didn't spend enough, see Prescription Drugs, NCLB, SCHIP, etc. Even in the relatively bipartisan negotiations over the current tax rebate proposal, democrats proposed a larger package than Bush/Republicans. And when the NTU evaluates the candidate's new spending proposals, who grades out with the biggest net spending increases? Again, the democrats. There is no evidence at all that democrats would show more spending restraint than Republicans and considerable evidence to the contrary.

[chiefforlife]

Imagine the point that democrats would have brought us to if they'd been in charge the past 8 years. At almost every major spending opportunity along the way, democrats have been upset with Bush/Republican spending programs/proposals because they didn't spend enough, see Prescription Drugs, NCLB, SCHIP, etc. Even in the relatively bipartisan negotiations over the current tax rebate proposal, democrats proposed a larger package than Bush/Republicans. And when the NTU evaluates the candidate's new spending proposals, who grades out with the biggest net spending increases? Again, the democrats. There is no evidence at all that democrats would show more spending restraint than Republicans and considerable evidence to the contrary.


Yes, but you discount the war. I would have rather paid for all those programs for Americans rather than spend it on Iraq.
Had we had democratic leadership then, I doubt we would have waged all out war on Iraq. Republicans, including Mccain are no longer conservative. Im not even sure I can believe any of them as far as what they will do.
I do like the fact that Mccain has stood his ground against partisan politics in the past. Im pleased that he is most likely the nomination. He still has a long way to go to gain my confidence.

[Cochise]

Yes, but you discount the war. I would have rather paid for all those programs for Americans rather than spend it on Iraq.

Iraq is not a very big part of the federal budget. That's how huge the federal budget is. Last time I read something, it was about 3-4% annually I think?

Democrats by the end of the campaign are going to be proposing to expand spending a lot more than that. Heck just the health care issue is 1/7th of the U.S. economy.

[patteeu]

Yes, but you discount the war. I would have rather paid for all those programs for Americans rather than spend it on Iraq.
Had we had democratic leadership then, I doubt we would have waged all out war on Iraq. Republicans, including Mccain are no longer conservative. Im not even sure I can believe any of them as far as what they will do.
I do like the fact that Mccain has stood his ground against partisan politics in the past. Im pleased that he is most likely the nomination. He still has a long way to go to gain my confidence.

At least Republicans view the war as an extraordinary expense that, when over, will stop costing us money. The democrat attitude, that you seem to be buying into, is that since we are currently spending money on the war, let's end the war so we can spend it (and plenty more) somewhere else. That's the kind of irresponsible spending instinct that electing democrats will bring to our government. Even more irresponsible than the Republicans have been over the past 8 years.

[Cochise]

The democrat attitude, that you seem to be buying into, is that since we are currently spending money on the war, let's end the war so we can spend it (and plenty more) somewhere else.

And on government handouts that will run to infinity, not end as the war eventually will.

[patteeu]

And on government handouts that will run to infinity, not end as the war eventually will.

Exactly.

[chiefforlife]

You guys make good points! My Republican roots are starting to take hold. I even thought from what Ive seen of tonights debate that Romney did fairly well.
I got home late and have only seen highlights of it but...

[banyon]

Barack Obama's Record (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/fiscal/)


PAYGO: Obama voted in 2005, 2006, and 2007 to reinstate pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) federal budget rules.
No-Bid Contracts: Obama has introduced and helped pass bipartisan legislation to limit the abuse of no-bid federal contracts.
Against Raising the Federal Debt Limit: In 2006, Obama voted against misguided Republican efforts to raise the statutory debt limit at the same time the Republicans were pushing through massive debt-financed tax cuts for the wealthy.

[patteeu]

Barack Obama's Record (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/fiscal/)


PAYGO: Obama voted in 2005, 2006, and 2007 to reinstate pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) federal budget rules.
No-Bid Contracts: Obama has introduced and helped pass bipartisan legislation to limit the abuse of no-bid federal contracts.
Against Raising the Federal Debt Limit: In 2006, Obama voted against misguided Republican efforts to raise the statutory debt limit at the same time the Republicans were pushing through massive debt-financed tax cuts for the wealthy.

According to Ezra Klein's liveblog of the 2008 YearlyKos Presidential Forum (http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=08&year=2007&base_name=yearlykos_presidential_forum_l), "Obama says he's not going to sacrifice his domestic priorities for deficit reduction. Universal health care, renewable energy, and all he rest won't be sacrificed on the altar of PAYGO."

[Ugly Duck]

Iraq is not a very big part of the federal budget.

Iraq has been ZERO part of the federal budget until the Dem "majority" came along (if you count Lieberman as a Dem).

"The Bush administration, with Congress's cooperation, has insisted on paying for the Iraq war through supplemental spending bills. The funding is not included in the president's annual budgets or, in most cases, in the congressional budget resolutions, and it is considered separately from the regular appropriations bills. The money is not counted in the budget deficit estimates that the administration routinely releases. Nor is it counted against any budget caps that Congress has set for itself to abide by throughout the year."

http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=33902

[banyon]

According to Ezra Klein's liveblog of the 2008 YearlyKos Presidential Forum (http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=08&year=2007&base_name=yearlykos_presidential_forum_l), "Obama says he's not going to sacrifice his domestic priorities for deficit reduction. Universal health care, renewable energy, and all he rest won't be sacrificed on the altar of PAYGO."

Maybe I'm being hopeful, but that could easily mean that he fully intends to do PAYGO, but that those programs won't be the ones cut (i.e., other programs will be sacrificed on the altar of PAYGO).

[patteeu]

Iraq has been ZERO part of the federal budget until the Dem "majority" came along (if you count Lieberman as a Dem).

"The Bush administration, with Congress's cooperation, has insisted on paying for the Iraq war through supplemental spending bills. The funding is not included in the president's annual budgets or, in most cases, in the congressional budget resolutions, and it is considered separately from the regular appropriations bills. The money is not counted in the budget deficit estimates that the administration routinely releases. Nor is it counted against any budget caps that Congress has set for itself to abide by throughout the year."

http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=33902


That's not the point he was making. He's talking about relative size not bookkeeping.

[patteeu]

Maybe I'm being hopeful, but that could easily mean that he fully intends to do PAYGO, but that those programs won't be the ones cut (i.e., other programs will be sacrificed on the altar of PAYGO).

That sounds like a reasonable interpretation. I just don't see either of the two democrats doing much cutting other than possibly the military and I'm skeptical about them doing that since I think they'll recognize that it would be irresponsible at this point in our history. More likely, IMO, he'd stay within the bounds of PAYGO with major tax hikes.

[banyon]

That sounds like a reasonable interpretation. I just don't see either of the two democrats doing much cutting other than possibly the military and I'm skeptical about them doing that since I think they'll recognize that it would be irresponsible at this point in our history. More likely, IMO, he'd stay within the bounds of PAYGO with major tax hikes.

That'd still be preferable to the current situation, IMO.