His health care plan, released online in March, had far more in common with the kind of boilerplate health care proposals the rest of the Republican party touts than his earlier praise for Canada suggested it might. It would likely cause 21 million people to lose their health insurance and cost about $270 billion over 10 years, according to the nonpartisan budget advocacy group Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB).
Congressional Republicans have begun the process of repealing the Affordable Care Act, which will not only force them to come up with a plan to replace the program, but as an analysis released by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget demonstrates, to fill a hole in the federal budget of as much as $350 billion through 2027...The CRFB’s $350 billion figure (potentially only $150 billion under a dynamic scoring model) is most properly seen not as a guaranteed shortfall so much as a baseline.
Repealing Obamacare will cost the federal government as much as $350 billion, according to a new estimate. The $350 billion cost estimate in an analysis released Wednesday by the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Budget would be spread over 10 years unless key provisions of the law are maintained or replaced. "Repealing the entire ACA would leave no funds available for 'replace' legislation, and in fact would require further deficit reduction to avoid adding to the debt," the report said.
A full repeal of Obamacare would cost $350 billion over the next decade, according to a new analysis from the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, reports CNN.
Despite constant criticism from Republicans that the healthcare law is too costly, a new analysis found that a wholesale repeal of the law would cost roughly $350bn over the next decade, according to a new analysis by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a bipartisan group that advocates for fiscal restraint.
The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (no left-wing group, it is co-chaired by Mitch Daniels and Leon Panetta) tells us what getting rid of the Affordable Care Act might entail: “According to our latest estimates, repealing the ACA in its entirety would cost roughly $350 billion through 2027 under conventional scoring and $150 billion using dynamic scoring.” The CRFB gets to that number because savings from eliminating coverage are dwarfed by removing savings elsewhere and by revenue loss. “Repealing the ACA’s coverage provisions would save $1.55 trillion through 2027, while repealing its tax increases would cost $800 billion, and repealing its Medicare (and related) cuts would cost another $1.10 trillion. Repeal would also lead to a small increase in economic growth, which could produce over $200 billion of additional net savings.”
The analysis explains the savings and costs that result in that net figure.
The Senate budget resolution...which would exempt ACA-related legislation from existing Senate parliamentary points of order against increasing short- or long-term deficits. “The inclusion of these exemptions suggests an expectation that the costs of replacement legislation may exceed the savings from repeal by more than $10 billion in some of the years within the 10-year budget window, and that the combination of repeal and replace legislation may increase the long-term deficit beyond the ten-year budget window,” the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget said in a blog posting on its website.
Stronger economic growth could reduce the price tag to $150 billion, but at the cost of leaving 23 million Americans who now have health insurance without it, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.
A full repeal of Obamacare would cost $350 billion over the next decade, according to a new analysis from the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. This makes its wholesale dismantling much more complicated.
The flip side of proposed tax cuts is that federal deficit spending, already on the rise again, could worsen if less revenue comes in. The $587 billion federal deficit amassed in fiscal 2016 could widen to $1 trillion annually by 2024, warns the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.
The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget has concluded that the president-elect’s proposals “would increase the debt by $5.3 trillion.” What’s more, the group also found that under Trump’s set of plans, “debt would rise to … 105 percent” of GDP within a decade.
By some estimates, Trump's long-term plans could see the active-duty force grow by almost another 140,000 personnel. Some observers have called such plans prohibitively expensive. The National Taxpayers Union Foundation, for instance, estimates — at minimum — those plans will require an annual defense spending boost of 3 percent. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget has pegged the cost at an additional $150 billion in coming years.
For 35 years, the nonpartisan, nonprofit Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget has been promoting fiscal sanity in the nation’s capital,..Its latest report, called “2016 Fiscal Follies and Reasons for Hope,” illustrates why the nation’> > > > s fiscal problem is so intractable, and how it might improve.
This summer, the Save Our Social Security Act was introduced by a coalition of five Republicans and one Democrat. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a non-partisan think tank, heralded the legislation as a common sense approach to reform.
It included measures both favored and abhorred by the right and the left—increasing the payroll tax threshold, increasing the retirement age, means-testing benefits for the wealthy and increasing benefits for the country’s most vulnerable.
Trump is willing to cut corporate taxes and income tax, which should bring relief of $4,500bn or 2% of GDP over the next ten years according to the non-partisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (September 2016).
The Washington-based Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget calculates that Trump’s economic plans would pile on $6 trillion in debt beyond that $9 trillion increase during the next decade. As a percentage of gross domestic product, that would rival the record debt load in the aftermath of World War II.
“On net, all the policies he has proposed move in the wrong direction on debt,” said Marc Goldwein, head of policy at the committee. “It’s not to say if we don’t act tomorrow, the economy will melt down,” Goldwein said. “It’s more like termites in your house. The house won’t collapse overnight, but its integrity will weaken.”
By mid-March, the debt limit is due to be reinstated. At that time, however, the Treasury is likely to take so-called extraordinary measures to ensure the government doesn’t default. Such measures are likely to be exhausted sometime in summer, notes the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.
In theory, it's possible that we get something like Scenario C. Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell last week poured cold water on the idea of a large infrastructure package, and Trump's "Penny Plan" to cut federal spending will reduce outlays by about $740 billion, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a bipartisan think tank. If fiscal policy wasn't stimulating the economy as much, monetary policy would probably remain loose to compensate.
The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget calculates that when taken together, Trump’s tax and spending promises – including his pledge to boost military spending and make cuts in non-defense discretionary programs- would drive up the debt to 105 percent of GDP within a decade.
The CRFB report doesn’t account for the $1 trillion of new infrastructure spending that Trump promised during the campaign. By including that, the debt figures would go higher. However, they also do not account for increased economic growth and lower government spending.
Trump promised job creation through income tax cuts, corporate tax cuts and enormous infrastructure spending. Trump offered only vague details on how he would pay his bills. The bipartisan Campaign to Fix the Debt said last month that Trump’s plans would result in U.S. debt of $5 trillion in 10 years. Crippling debt is not “Making America Great Again.”
Often in the past, budget directors began the job with résumés similar to Mulvaney’s only to inch away from their philosophies when presidents saw a need for compromise. Not Mulvaney. Fiscal discipline “seems like it’s in his DNA. It’s not something he’d walk away from,” said Maya MacGuineas, president of the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a budget watchdog group.
Trump has said he plans to cut spending by $1.2 trillion in the next decade. But, as noted above, he plans to cut revenue by even more. If nothing else is done to address the shortfall, the national debt will grow by roughly $5.3 trillion (105 percent) by 2026, according to an estimate by the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.
In his campaign, Trump advocated for a boost in infrastructure spending, more money for the military and a tax overhaul that budget groups worry will lead to large budget deficits. Maya MacGuineas, president of the bipartisan anti-deficit Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, praised Mulvaney for his OCO stance, but was unsure how it would fit into the Trump White House.
“Mulvaney has proven himself to be very concerned about not adding to the debt, and principled in not tolerating budget gimmicks to do end runs around budget constraints,” she said in an e-mail. “There is a real risk he will not show the same resistance to debt-financed tax cuts, but it will definitely be good to have a deficit hawk at the table who hopefully advocates for bringing the debt down, not up.”
President-elect Donald Trump has nominated conservative Republican Congressman Mick Mulvaney to be his budget director. Mulvaney has made it very clear he thinks America's $19 trillion debt is too high and needs to come down. Budget hawks are thrilled. "He's not going to back down," says Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. "That is the advocate we need at this point because debt is so high as a share of economy."
The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget warned that Trump's campaign proposals would add more than $5 trillion to the debt in the next decade.
Uncle Sam is about to get hit with higher interest payments. Much higher. And those higher costs will force the government to raise taxes, cut spending or borrow more to make up the shortfall.
That warning comes from a new report by the Committee for a Responsible Budget, following last week's move by the Federal Reserve to begin raising interest rates, a major turning point that signals a historical reversal of a long-term decline in the cost of borrowing.
"As debt continues to grow and interest rates return toward more normal levels, interest spending is slated to be the fastest growing part of the budget," the budget watchdog group warned in its report.
The views of Mulvaney, a staunch fiscal conservative, show that he would want to take the budget in a different direction than Trump did during the campaign. Mulvaney has taken on a "crusade against debt that doesn't have party stripes," said Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.
I wrote that Hillary's plan, according to the independent Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, would add $200 billion to the national debt and that Trump's would add "much more." Some readers rightly called me on it. The committee projected Trump's plan would add $5 trillion more. That's a lot more than "much more." I should have written that. It was a clear case of sloppy journalism.
The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget claims Trump’s plan would slash federal revenue by $14.5 trillion over the coming two decades, offset by only $2.5 trillion in spending cuts. Trump would also add $3.8 billion in interest payments to cover the additional borrowing necessary to make up for lost tax revenue.
Trump has said that stronger growth would mean his tax proposal would not contribute to the national debt, and he has vowed not to cut expensive but popular entitlement programs such as Medicare and Social Security. But experts have been skeptical of those claims, and Mulvaney would be responsible for reconciling the numbers. One analysis by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimated Trump’s tax plan would cost more than $5.3 trillion over the next decade.
Trump takes office at a time when Keynesian stimulus is no longer the most urgent need. The slack is mostly gone. The president-elect’s aim of roughly doubling annual growth “is nearly impossible to achieve over a sustained period, absent transformative factors outside the government’s control,” the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, an anti-deficit group, wrote in a Dec. 9 blog post. Tax cuts and government spending increases will backfire if all they do is rev up demand temporarily, and Trump’s plan to expel undocumented aliens would shrink the workforce, depressing growth.