Similarly, Trump would need Congress to pass his massive tax cuts. Even if a Republican-leaning Senate and House were to approve Trump’s budget – far from given – it would take years for the nation’s precarious finances to scare off investors. These would expand the federal debt by $5.3 trillion, according to the non-partisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.
Maya MacGuineas is the president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. The group is non-partisan, meaning it stays away from party politics. MacGuineas says whoever wins the presidency will have a difficult time keeping campaign promises. “Donald Trump, for instance, has promised not to fix entitlement programs -- Medicare and Social Security. Hillary Clinton has promised not to raise taxes on any family making below $250,000. Well that sounds nice, but if you want to spend as much as she wants to, you can’t fix this problem from just taxing the rich alone.”
Proposals from Democratic nominee Clinton include a $275 billion infrastructure plan that she intends to pay for through corporate tax-law changes. She’s also suggested tax increases for the wealthy. The plans would inflate the debt by $200 billion over a decade, according to analysis from the non-partisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. Trump, the Republican candidate, has made pledges including cutting taxes and spending as much as $500 billion on infrastructure. The proposals would boost the debt by $5.3 trillion, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates.
Neither Hillary Clinton nor Donald Trump has articulated a plan that will actually grow the economy. Clinton will jack up taxes and spending on everything, a sure-fire way to keep the economy puttering along. Trump will add $5 trillion-plus dollars to the national debt, which will also dampen growth. According to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, under Clinton's scenario, national debt held by the public will grow from 77 percent of GDP to 86 percent over the next decade. Under Trump's, it will increase to 105 percent. Robust economic growth is unlikely, to say the least, under such plans.
Trump talks a lot about the evils of budget deficits and debt, but independent analysts have found that his plans would put the United States much deeper in the red than Clinton’s, although neither candidate supports the kind of cuts to Medicare and Social Security that would significantly reduce America's debt. The fiscal hawks at the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget did find that Clinton’s plans would reduce projected increases in the debt by $500 billion over 20 years, because her high-end tax hikes would pay for her new spending. They found that Trump’s plans would add $16 trillion to those projections, because his tax cuts and military spending are not paid for.
On tax, Trump would slash rates for high earners and businesses and kill the inheritance tax. He argues this would unleash "tremendous" investment and growth to the benefit of all. Not so, says the non-partisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget and other sources of reputable economic analysis. The Committee calculates Trump's plan would slash tax revenues but fail to cut government spending. Thus federal debt would increase to US$5.7 trillion by 2026, an increase equal to one-fifth of annual national income.
In contrast, Clinton's plans would increase taxes on high earners and reduce them on middle and lower classes. The committee calculates her new taxes would raise almost as much money as she is committing in new spending, leaving federal debt only $200 billion higher.
A gaggle of centrist groups exists — No Labels, Third Way, the Bipartisan Policy Center, the Centrist Project, Ripon Society, conservative Reform Network, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, New America, Represent.us, Democrats for Education Reform. These groups have lots of good reform policy ideas on everything from entitlements, health care and immigration to campaign finance and elections.
—"I don't add a penny to the national debt."-- Hillary Clinton
THE FACTS: Not true, according to the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. It estimates her increased spending in areas such as infrastructure, more financial aid for college and early childhood education, would increase the national debt by $200 billion over 10 years. That is far less than their estimate for Trump, who they predict would add $5.3 trillion over 10 years. But it's plenty more than a penny.
According to an analysis by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, “Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are both advocating policies that would drive the federal budget off a cliff.”
The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates Clinton’s plan would increase spending by $1.65 trillion over a decade, mostly for college education, paid family leave, infrastructure and health-related expenditures. Her plan would raise the national debt by $200 billion.
Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have slogged their way through a brutal campaign season, and are now just days away from finding out which of them will become the next president. But if they each take a few minutes to read a new paper from the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center and the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, they might decide they don’t really want the job after all.
“We usually think of lame ducks as politicians who have lost influence to their successors, but the next president could enter office with his or her influence already lost to his or her predecessors,” write C. Eugene Steuerle and Caleb Quakenbush of the Urban Institute, and Maya MacGuineas and Tyler Evilsizer of CRFB.
Investors fear a Trump victory would be a disaster not only for the US economy but that his often vague policy prescriptions – described by the conservative Economist magazine as a “shambles” – pose a clear and present danger to the wider world economy. In domestic terms, his proposal to massively cut taxes, with most of the benefits flowing to the highest income earners, would cost the US Budget up to $US3.9 trillion over the next decade. Combined with spending increases in areas such as Defence, the US Budget deficit would balloon from 77 per cent of GDP to 105 per cent of GDP by 2026, according to the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.
As Election Day nears, markets are on edge, as there is increasing uncertainty about Tuesday’s results...Furthermore, both candidates are proposing policies that continue increasing the government’s debt beyond $20 trillion, according to the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.
During the primary season, Trump proposed tax cuts so large that almost every fiscal watchdog sounded alarms. The nomination secured, Trump revised his plan, shrinking those tax cuts. Still, even the revised proposal would increase the national debt by $5.3 trillion over the next 10 years, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, bringing the debt to an exceedingly dicey 105 percent of Gross Domestic Product.
The next president is at risk of being a “lame duck” at the start of his or her administration unless significant reforms to spending and tax policies are made, a paper released Thursday argues. “If the next president tolerates the long-term consequences of significantly rising debt and accepts all commitments ordained from the past, he or she will be left with almost no ability to do anything new, much less respond to an unexpected economic, environmental, or defense challenge,” analysts from the Tax Policy Center and the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget argued.
The enormous U.S. debt is a hazard to the economy, according to the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. CRFB says neither candidate has a realistic plan to put taxes and spending on a sustainable path, although they say Trump’s approach is even worse than Clinton’s.
In May, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a non-partisan Washington, D.C., think tank that advocates for deficit reduction and counts both prominent Republicans and Democrats on its board, published an analysis of the Trump health-care plan. The analysis concluded that the Trump repeal-and-replace plan would cost $550 billion in a static scoring model, or $330 billion under a dynamic scoring model (which includes predicted effects of economic growth due to the changes).
As President Barack Obama enters his final months in the White House, he is clearly looking to burnish his legacy. But there is no sign he will be able to tackle one of the largest financial issues facing the country: shoring up Social Security. “We’ve had eight years of lost opportunity to make Social Security structurally sound,” says Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB), a nonpartisan nonprofit dedicated to educating the public on fiscal issues.
The next president will effectively be a "lame duck" because of the size of the debt and spending on entitlement programs, and will be unable to make his or her own decisions about taxes and spending, a group of outside budget experts warned Thursday. "Without changes to restore flexibility, the next president will find himself or herself presiding over budgets dictated almost entirely by previous presidents and Congresses," warned analysts at the Tax Policy Center and the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, two nonprofit think tanks.
An analysis by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget found that Trump’s plan would cause 21 million people to lose coverage and would add coverage for only around 1 million people.
Clinton proposes new spending — including to improve the Affordable Care Act — that would increase the national debt by $250 billion over the next decade, according to the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. Trump’s combination of huge tax cuts and increased spending, however, would balloon the debt by a crushing $10 trillion over the same period.
rump promised to add “tremendous jobs” to the economy, cutting taxes and fueling an economic growth of up to 6 percent annually. Clinton said she wouldn’t add a cent to the national debt, paying for her programs by socking it to the rich. Analysts haven’t taken too kindly to those answers. Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, said Trump’s projections are unlikely, given that the nation hasn’t seen anything approaching even a 4 percent growth rate since the booming '90s.
The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates a debt hit over 10 years of $5.3 trillion; that’s 26 times the slight increase caused by Hillary Clinton’s sane plans.
Already the independent and fiscally conservative Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget has said Trump's plans without many of his spending promises included will be equal to 105 per cent of GDP. Today's total national debt at around US$14 trillion ($18 trillion) is about 77 per cent of GDP in comparison.
Trump’s “Policy” Speech About Health Care Involved a Whole Five Minutes of Talking About Health Care
He started off promising to repeal Obamacare, obviously, and went on about it a few minutes. Here was the entirety of what he said about his own health care plan:
Our replacement plan includes health savings accounts, a nationwide insurance market where you can purchase across state lines, and letting states manage Medicaid dollars.
I'm not exaggerating. That was it. (The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget* has estimated that Trump's plan would increase the number of uninsured Americans by 21 million.
Both candidates have their heads in the sand on Social Security policy. Donald Trump’s plan is to keep the system on its current path to insolvency. Hillary Clinton’s plan expands benefits in targeted ways, such as to widowers and childcare providers, but otherwise she doesn’t change the program’s benefits or touch the age requirement.
Hillary has made statements that fact-checkers say are untrue. She has said that her policies “don’t add a penny to the national debt.” The bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget calculates that if all of her spending and taxing proposals were enacted they would add $200 billion to the debt over 10 years. The same committee calculates that Trump’s proposals would add $5.3 trillion over ten years. His dishonesty on the federal budget clearly “trumps” Hillary’s; it’s more than 25 times higher.
The non-partisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates that Clinton’s immigration plan would increase GDP by a third of a point while Trump’s plan would cut it that much, similar to the Moody’s estimate.
A Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget analysis points out that Trump will find it difficult to reduce or stabilize the national debt if he implements his plans for both increased spending and tax cuts. Even if Trump’s plans stimulate economic growth and increase tax revenue, it’s unlikely to be enough to solve the country’s debt problem. The study says that Clinton’s plans would also face challenges, though because she isn’t proposing drastic changes, the numbers would be easier to balance.
Because CBO did not perform a full AFS analysis in its 2016 Update, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget created its own AFS following CBO procedures. Under the Committee’s version of an AFS, both the annual deficits and the impacts on the accumulated debt are greater than under the official CBO projections: the debt would increase from 75 percent of GDP this year to 109 percent by 2031 and 205 percent by 2046...The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates that under the Trump proposals, the debt would grow to 105 percent of GDP in 2026. The Committee agrees that Clinton pays for her proposals by increases taxes on the rich, but the debt would still rise more or less in a fashion identical to the current CBO projections because her plan does not use any of the money to reduce the annual deficit. In other words, Trump would make the debt problem worse and Clinton does nothing to address the debt problem.