Neither plan pleases deficit hawks like Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. "Both leave something to be desired," she declared. She called Trump's tax plan "a huge budget buster" and and indeed independent analysts I spoke to put the cost to the government at around $5 trillion over 10 years.
The Democratic candidate, MacGuineas notes, "uses all the new revenue she raises to pay for new spending initiatives," and by vowing not to raise taxes for anyone making less than $250,000 "perpetuates the notion that we can solve all our budgetary problems just by taxing the rich."
After Trump’s Detroit speech, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimated his new tax plan would cost $2.55 trillion extra over a decade...Clinton also wants to expand the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) by supporting states and limiting the out-of-pocket expenses of the insured. This proposal will cost $300 billion over 10 years, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, and may be the last chance to save the ACA.
However, Senator Bernie Sanders’ universal healthcare plan may have some issues, as some economists and policy experts have found that the numbers associated with the Medicare-for-all program may be misleading. Jared Bernstein, a former economic adviser to Vice President Joe Biden, has stated his concern and the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget has released a report stating that this proposal would bring a $3 trillion shortfall over the next 10 years.
While Trump’s new tax cuts are less severe than those he originally proposed, the plan is still likely to “add substantially to the debt,” according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB). They estimated his preliminary tax plan would cost roughly $9.25 trillion over the course of a decade. In the coming weeks, CRFB said it will release new estimates based on Trump’s new tax plan, which would also slash corporate taxes from 35 percent to 15 percent and wipe out estate taxes.
But previous proposals would limit the drop to between 67% and 75% of a couple's joint Social Security income, according to Ben Veghte, vice president for policy at the National Academy of Social Insurance and Marc Goldwein, senior policy director of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.
The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget said the high national debt is the result of rising entitlement spending and growing interest costs. Even some of the nation's top economists differ on the impact the debt has on you, but it is a topic you will hear more about as the campaign season winds toward November. The committee estimates Clinton's specific plan will grow the debt by $250 billion and Trump's broader plan will grow the debt by $11.5 trillion.
For those of you thinking about retirement, here’s a question worth asking: How old will you be when Social Security runs out?Helpfully, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget has just the tool for you. This week CRFB released a handy calculator that allows you to type in your birth year and learn your age when the well runs dry. If you’re lucky, by that time you’ll actually be able to take advantage of phased retirement.
But the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget predicts Social Security funding will run out in 2034. And, it has a calculator that asks you to plug in your birth year so you can see how old (or how young) you’ll be when the system supposedly runs dry.
An analysis in June from the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget found Trump's proposals in particular would increase the debt "massively."
Marc Goldwein, senior vice president at the watchdog Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, said Mr. Trump’s low-interest theory matches a call from the political left, which says if government borrows and pumps the money into productive investments, the economic boost will more than cover the eventual higher interest payments on the debt.
“That’s all fine and good in theory. The problem is when you turn a theory into practice,” Mr. Goldwein said. In this case, the U.S. already has a massive load and little prospect of paying it down. That means the new debt would be rolled over at some point, at interest rates higher than today’s low rates, skewing the economics. Besides, Mr. Goldwein said, there is scant evidence that infrastructure spending can pay for itself if done as Mr. Trump wants.