Deficit Denial
Think Bush is a big spender? Wait till you see what the Dems propose.
BY PETE SEPP AND DREW JOHNSON
Sunday, January 25, 2004 12:01 a.m. EST
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110004601
The seven remaining Democrat presidential challengers have decried the size of the mounting Bush budget deficits. However, a closer look at their own platforms reveals an inconvenient fact: the budget shortfalls they're complaining about on the road to the White House would only deepen under their own policies.
New federal spending proposed by the Democratic candidates for president, in billions.
Sharpton $1,327.01
Kucinich $1,060.35
Gephardt $368.76
Kerry $265.11
Dean $222.90
Clark $220.66
Edwards $199.48
Lieberman $169.55
Source: NTUF calculations from BillTally and cost-accounting sources.
The National Taxpayers Union Foundation has systematically examined the fiscal policy implications of the contenders' agendas, using our BillTally budget software and relying on third-party sources (such as the Congressional Budget Office) to assign a cost to every proposal they've offered. We found that each candidate (including Dick Gephardt, who dropped out of the race after we released the study) calls for spending increases which would substantially swell the deficit--on average, an additional $479.23 billion beyond the present projection, which is effectively a 21.5% increase in federal spending.
Each of the Democrats has at one time called for full or partial repeal of the Bush tax cut, as if this were a panacea for federal budgetary woes and a license to introduce new proposals. Even by the most generous estimates, the projected federal revenue reduction in 2004 as a result of the 2003 tax cuts is $135 billion--yet, the thriftiest of the Democratic platforms calls for $170 billion in new spending. Howard Dean has labeled himself a "fiscal conservative," but his policies--including complete repeal of the Bush tax cuts--would increase the federal deficit by $88 billion in just the first year.
Where would the candidates cut? Someone hid the knives. Out of well over 200 proposals with a budgetary impact offered by the candidates, just two would reduce federal spending. Nor do these alarming figures account for the fact that the temptation to spend even more money can be much greater after entering the White House. Consider President Bush, who, after campaigning as a fiscal conservative, has seen federal spending increase by 23.7% over the past three years. Even the most parsimonious of the candidates eclipses that total by over 15%.
Think Bush is a big spender? Wait till you see what the Dems propose.
BY PETE SEPP AND DREW JOHNSON
Sunday, January 25, 2004 12:01 a.m. EST
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110004601
The seven remaining Democrat presidential challengers have decried the size of the mounting Bush budget deficits. However, a closer look at their own platforms reveals an inconvenient fact: the budget shortfalls they're complaining about on the road to the White House would only deepen under their own policies.
New federal spending proposed by the Democratic candidates for president, in billions.
Sharpton $1,327.01
Kucinich $1,060.35
Gephardt $368.76
Kerry $265.11
Dean $222.90
Clark $220.66
Edwards $199.48
Lieberman $169.55
Source: NTUF calculations from BillTally and cost-accounting sources.
The National Taxpayers Union Foundation has systematically examined the fiscal policy implications of the contenders' agendas, using our BillTally budget software and relying on third-party sources (such as the Congressional Budget Office) to assign a cost to every proposal they've offered. We found that each candidate (including Dick Gephardt, who dropped out of the race after we released the study) calls for spending increases which would substantially swell the deficit--on average, an additional $479.23 billion beyond the present projection, which is effectively a 21.5% increase in federal spending.
Each of the Democrats has at one time called for full or partial repeal of the Bush tax cut, as if this were a panacea for federal budgetary woes and a license to introduce new proposals. Even by the most generous estimates, the projected federal revenue reduction in 2004 as a result of the 2003 tax cuts is $135 billion--yet, the thriftiest of the Democratic platforms calls for $170 billion in new spending. Howard Dean has labeled himself a "fiscal conservative," but his policies--including complete repeal of the Bush tax cuts--would increase the federal deficit by $88 billion in just the first year.
Where would the candidates cut? Someone hid the knives. Out of well over 200 proposals with a budgetary impact offered by the candidates, just two would reduce federal spending. Nor do these alarming figures account for the fact that the temptation to spend even more money can be much greater after entering the White House. Consider President Bush, who, after campaigning as a fiscal conservative, has seen federal spending increase by 23.7% over the past three years. Even the most parsimonious of the candidates eclipses that total by over 15%.
