Clinton’s campaign also pointed to an independent Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget study that damns with faint praise: “Though Secretary Clinton’s policies would not substantially add to current law debt levels, it would keep debt at post-war record-high and rapidly growing levels,” and that under her proposals, public debt would climb from 74 percent of GDP last year to 86 percent in 2026.
Trump's fiscal plans for increased spending and tax cuts — while they represent a fiscal disaster, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget and others — may be exactly the type of kick-in-the-rear a growing number of policymakers from the Fed to the International Momentary Fund are clamoring for.
Trump says her plan would break the federal budget, but the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget found that the immigration reform component of Clinton’s plan would save the federal budget $100 billion over 10 years.
He [Trump] also has said publicly that Medicare should be able to negotiate drug prices. But his estimate that doing so would save $300 billion a year is way off-base. For starters, that's far more than the government actually spends on prescription drugs. And more importantly, simply negotiating drug prices would only "save a negligible amount for the federal government," according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.
To claim that spending and taxes would go up in a Clinton administration, the ad relies on reports from the deficit-hawkish Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget and the ultra-conservative American Action Forum.
Maya MacGuiness, president Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, agreed with Hale that the BCA caps were useful in forcing some fiscal discipline, but said the amount allocated for defense should be set by national security conditions, not by some budget official.
Absent a long-term deal under the next president and Congress, it “makes sense” to revise budget caps to allow more discretionary spending for defense and non-defense, said Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget’s president, Maya MacGuineas. Congress’s partisan gridlock has prevented long-terms deals in favor of annual deals that ease budget caps. While MacGuineas decried the disruptive nature of such deals in favor of long-term planning, she said, “I think the disciplining notion of a cap is useful. I think it should be paralleled on the revenue side.”
The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget cast the CBO report as a wake-up call. “The complacency that lawmakers have shown about debt over the past few years must end so they can address the troublesome trajectory of deficits and debt,” the group said in a statement.
Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, agreed that budget caps "make sense," but that they need to be set at a level people can live with. She also said the caps must be backed up my lawmakers saying what cuts they will make to stay under them. "Think about how easy it is for a policymaker to come in and say all we have to do is put in spending caps and live by them. They haven't actually told you a single thing they're going to cut," she said. "They made it sound simple and basically free. We're just going to put a cap in and the budget will fix itself.
"Budgeting is about priorities, it's about trade-offs. I think it's important when you put in caps to say what kind of policy changes you would make to live within those caps, and then you want to keep them as a disciplining process," she said. "I think an arbitrary cap does more damage than not having one at all."
The details that standard bearer Donald Trump has put out reveal the flaws. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget analyzed the latest Trump tax plan, the one unveiled in Detroit and geared toward cutting taxes for corporations and the wealthy. The non-partisan group calculated the Trump plan would add $2.5 trillion in debt over the next decade — roughly 10 times higher than the calculated debt effect of Hillary Clinton's plans.