Budget experts say part of the problem in this election season is that both candidates are spending too much time making campaign promises without showing a detailed plan on how to pay for them. Asked to grade the major candidates, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget said neither Hillary Clinton's nor Donald Trump's policies address what it sees as the nation's most important economic issues.
Coats’ office said his Mandatory BRACC legislation has been endorsed by Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget and head of the Campaign to Fix the Debt. MacGuineas said in a statement that Coats’ bill “would force action to solve a tough problem instead of kicking the can down the road yet again. With little pavement left, we need more leaders like Senator Coats with the courage and political will to step up now before it is too late. I encourage other policymakers to take this proposal seriously or put forward their own plans to address the long-term debt.”
In a blog post last year, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget stated that the CMMI's efforts to find alternative payment models that lower costs without sacrificing quality are needed to keep health costs in check. “With fast-rising healthcare costs a key detriment both to the economy and our nation's fiscal future, CMMI's ability to experiment and innovate is desperately needed, particularly as evidence grows that delivery system reform changes are playing a role in the recent cost slowdown,” they wrote.
Trump says he’d repeal Obamacare on Day 1, something the House would be all to happy to oblige. But what then? The bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Budget estimates that ditching Obamacare's coverage requirements would save $1.1 trillion – but cost $1.6 trillion in lost taxes and Medicare savings. They also estimate 21 million people would lose their coverage, and that Trump’s plan would only cover about 5 percent of them.
The Tax Policy Center and the Committee For A Responsible Budget estimate that President Trump would add $10 trillion to the national debt.
Republican nominee Donald Trump falls $11.5 trillion short of having enough money to make his ledger sheet balance in the next 10 years — primarily because of more than $9 trillion in tax cuts, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget calculated. Under Clinton’s proposals, the national debt would rise from the current $19 trillion to $29.6 trillion, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget said.
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.