adios
01-20-2004, 12:18 PM
Check this article out regarding the impact the Dem candidates will have on the budget deficit if they get their proposals enacted. No doubt Al Sharpton and Dennis Kucinich are the biggest clowns making proposals to increase the budget deficit by over 1 TRILLION $. Methinks the Democrats speak with forked tongue when railing against the Bush deficits.
Deficit Denial
By PETE SEPP and DREW JOHNSON
The eight 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.
GO FIGURE
New federal spending proposed by the Democratic candidates for president.
Annual Increase 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 eight 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 calls for spending increases which would substantially swell the deficit -- on average, an additional $479.23 billion beyond the present projection (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%.
Pity the American taxpayer.
Mr. Sepp is vice president for communications and Mr. Johnson is a policy analyst for the National Taxpayers Union Foundation. The entire study is available at www.ntu.org. (http://www.ntu.org.)
Updated January 19, 2004
Deficit Denial
By PETE SEPP and DREW JOHNSON
The eight 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.
GO FIGURE
New federal spending proposed by the Democratic candidates for president.
Annual Increase 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 eight 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 calls for spending increases which would substantially swell the deficit -- on average, an additional $479.23 billion beyond the present projection (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%.
Pity the American taxpayer.
Mr. Sepp is vice president for communications and Mr. Johnson is a policy analyst for the National Taxpayers Union Foundation. The entire study is available at www.ntu.org. (http://www.ntu.org.)
Updated January 19, 2004