The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, which accepts her economic plan on its face, found that under it debt would rise from $14 trillion to more than $23 trillion over the next decade — with her plans adding $200 billion.
You, like me, might find this estimate implausibly low. But even in the fantastical world of contemporary progressive economics, $200 billion is a lot more than a “penny.”
The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a bipartisan policy group, says Clinton’s plans would increase the debt by a relatively small amount, $200 billion over a decade "above current law levels." The Clinton campaign says a new business tax plan would generate an additional $275 billion to cancel out that debt increase. However the numbers shake out, the debt would still grow by $9 trillion over 10 years because of interest payments related to the U.S. debt.
"Interest on the debt will become the fastest growing part of federal spending. In 2017, the next president will inherit a government projected to spend over $300 billion on interest payments that year alone, an amount that grows to more than $800 billion by 2025 — more than the current combined federal spending on the Defense Department, education, transportation, and medical research," wrote Bob Bixby and Maya MacGuineas for the Brookings Institution.
he Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget reports, “Unfortunately, both candidates’ plans to increase the debt come on top of current law projections that already estimate that debt will grow by $9 trillion over the next decade.”
“As a result, under Clinton’s plans debt would grow from nearly 77 percent of GDP today to over 86 percent by 2026; under Trump’s plans, debt would grow to 105 percent of GDP by 2026.”
Mrs. Clinton went on to say she will find “ways to get more money into it,” but flatly ruled out any benefit cuts, saying she would instead increase benefits. Budget analysts panned both candidates’ answers. “Both candidates suggested ‘easy fixes’ to #SocialSecurity. They’re not enough,” the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget said on Twitter. The CFRB said Mrs. Clinton’s plan to raise the tax cap would help, but won’t be enough. And the group said the economic growth Mr. Trump is counting on to make up deficits resulting from his tax cuts will only replace a third of the lost revenue.
Nonpartisan analysts who have examined the promises made by Hillary Clinton on the campaign trail have calculated that Hillary will add to both the national deficit and the national debt. For example, the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, which rates Clinton’s plan as being much closer to deficit neutral than Trump’s, still projects that Clinton’s plans would add about $200 billion to the national debt.
The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget has analyzed both of the candidates’ spending and revenue proposals, finding that neither pays for everything they’ve put forth. It’s true that Clinton comes a lot closer to paying for her spending proposals than Trump does in covering his tax cuts, according to the CRFB analysis, but she would add well more than a penny to the debt under what she has detailed thus far. CRFB estimates, updated as of Sept. 21, found that Clinton’s plans “would increase the debt by $200 billion over a decade above current law levels.” Trump’s proposals “would increase the debt by $5.3 trillion.”
As for the politics: One problem is that, as of now, Clinton's claim doesn't seem to be entirely true. Her plans are mostly paid for through new taxes on the wealthy. But as of September, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget still thought that over a decade, her proposals would add an additional $200 billion to the debt, which will grow to about 86 percent of GDP.
The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget did not calculate the cost of such a military buildup, which would likely be hundreds of billions of dollars, but estimated it would ring up an additional $150 billion in deficit spending over the next decades if Congress repealed $450 billion in planned defense cuts.
The federal debt-GDP ratio was 74% last year and will be a bit higher this year. Overall it’s twice what it was pre-Great Recession. The CBO baseline forecast puts that debt figure at 86% — and rising — in 2026. Add maybe 20 percentage points or so if Donald Trump is elected, according to analysis by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.
This claim is misleading at best. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget predicts that under Clinton’s policies, the debt would increase by $9 trillion over a decade. To be sure, Trump’s policies would increase the debt by as much as $14 trillion, according to the committee’s analysis — far more than Clinton’s – but Clinton’s statement wrongly implies she would not increase the debt at all.
Mr. Trump, Secretary Clinton -- no, we need to move on to our final segment. And that is the national debt. Which has not been discussed until tonight. Our national debt, as a share of the company, our GDP, is now seventy seven percent. That is the highest since just after World War II. But the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal budget says Secretary Clinton, debt would rise to eighty six percent of GDP over the next ten years. Mr. Trump, under your plan, question is, they say it would rise to one hundred and five percent of GDP over the next ten years. Question is - why are both of you ignoring this problem? Mr. Trump, you go first.
A recent report by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a bipartisan think tank that promotes fiscal responsibility, found that the latest proposed policies from Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump and Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton would increase the deficit by about $5.3 trillion and $200 billion, respectively, over the next 10 years. That's a pretty big difference. As CNBC pointed out, Trump's tax plan increases the deficit 26 times more than Clinton's, enough so that the CRFB found it would total 105% of U.S. GDP.
“The next president will enter office with the national debt at post-World War II record high levels,” says the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. “Debt held by the public currently totals over $14 trillion - nearly 77 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) - and is projected to grow as a share of the economy to almost 86 percent by 2026 and about 150 percent by 2050. This large and growing national debt threatens to slow economic growth and is ultimately unsustainable. Yet neither presidential candidate has a plan to address it.”
Just promising not to add to the debt any faster "would make sense if we had a healthy fiscal starting point," said Maya MacGuineas, the president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a nonprofit group that advocates lower deficits. "But what we have is an incredibly expanded debt level right now compared to what we've had in the past." MacGuineas' group was name-checked specifically by moderator Elaine Quijano during the vice presidential debate.
According to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, under Clinton's tax plan, the national debt will to grow to over $23 trillion and Trump's tax plan will cause the debt to grow beyond $28 trillion by 2026.
The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget suggests that even if Clinton managed to enact all her budgetary and tax proposals, she might add $20 billion dollars a year to the national debt over the next ten years. Trump, by contrast, would swell that debt by $500 billion annually if he pushed through his announced agenda, inflicting incalculable damage on the economy.
Neither candidate has a plan to reduce the national debt, according to the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, but Donald Trump would increase it far more than Hillary Clinton. An analysis released last month said Clinton's plans would boost the debt by $200 million over the next decade, keeping it on track with its current upward trajectory. Trump would increase it by $5.3 trillion in the same time period.
The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget issued an analysis of Trump's plans that included an estimated cost of $150 billion over the next 10 years.
According to the non-partisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, if either candidate’s budgetary and tax proposals were enacted in full, the debt would grow between 200 billion and 5 trillion more than current projections over the next ten years.
According to the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, both candidates will add to the national debt if they get everything they propose. Clinton's policies would add roughly $200 billion to the debt over the next 10 years, while Trump would add a lot more: $5.3 trillion.
Clinton hasn't proposed any particular measures to scale down debt, but her policies will likely not be conservative from a budgetary standpoint. However, as The Wall Street Journal explained, “The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, an organization that advocates for debt reduction, estimates that Mrs. Clinton’s spending and tax policies would essentially hold the national debt on the trajectory it faces under current law.”
Fact-check No. 14: Clinton claims her tax plan wouldn't add anything to the national debt.
Clinton: "What I have put forward doesn't add a penny to the debt."
Our grade: False
Explanation: Clinton claims her tax plan won’t "add a penny" to the national debt, but the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates that her economic plan will increase the debt by an additional $200 billion over a decade.
Regardless of which candidate is elected to the White House, the national debt, which is currently more than $14 trillion, is likely to grow by about $9 trillion over the next 10 years, according to the Committee for a Responsible Budget.
Donald Trump’s policy proposals as a candidate for president would have a deleterious effect on the federal budget. Until recently, the Trump campaign did not provide a sufficient degree of specificity in its policy proposals to make an analysis feasible. However, more recent proposals have included greater detail, while other organizations, most prominently the Tax Policy Center (TPC) and the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB), have provided excellent third-party estimates of the current candidates’ proposals.
The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a budget/debt watchdog group (sometimes considered a budget hawk group), estimate her policies would add roughly $200 billion to the debt over the next decade. That said, Trump’s plans would add far more by the committee’s estimates: More than $5 trillion in additional debt over the same timeframe. In a blog posted earlier today, the group noted other differences between the two this way: “While Clinton has put forth a serious effort to pay for her proposals, neither candidate would address the unsustainable trajectory of our nation’s debt — and Trump would substantially worsen it.”
The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) concluded in a paper in September that Clinton's plan would largely pay for her spending proposals but still raise the debt compared to current law. The CRFB said that the proposals would increase the national debt by $200 billion over 10 years. However, if revenue from Clinton's unspecified business tax reform is factored in, she would slightly lower deficits, the group found. Clinton would add significantly less to the debt than Trump's plan would, according to the CRFB. The organization found that Trump would increase the debt by $5.3 trillion over 10 years. Neither candidate has put forth plans to reduce the debt, which is projected to increase by $9 trillion over 10 years under current law, the CRFB said. Debt would increase from 77 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) to 86 percent of GDP over 10 years under Clinton's plan, and it would increase to 105 percent of GDP under Trump's plan, according to the group's analyses.
Analysts at the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, which advocates for deficit reduction, say it is fanciful to suggest the actuarial imbalance of the program can be addressed by simply getting rid of waste, fraud and abuse, as Mr. Trump has suggested.
The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget predicts that under Clinton’s policies, the debt would increase by $9 trillion over a decade.
The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimated that Clinton’s policies would add $200 billion to the debt over 10 years, when measured against the projected levels under current law. (Trump’s plans, the group found, would add $5.3 trillion to the debt.)
On Tuesday, the non-partisan Tax Policy Center said that Clinton’s plan, which would raise taxes, would lower the debt by $1.4 trillion over the next decade. But that’s from where the debt is expected to be based on current tax rates, not where it is today. What’s more, that’s only half the story. The Tax Policy Center’s analysis didn’t take into account Clinton’s spending proposals. Factor in her spending proposals and the debt is projected to grow from $14 billion currently to $23 billion in a decade, or roughly nine trillion pennies., according to an analysis by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Government.
Pundits may debate the winner of Wednesday’s debate but the loser would appear to be the government’s fiscal future, with neither Donald Trump nor Hillary Clinton willing to budge from the plans analysts have said would leave the country’s finances headed for a cliff. Budget watchdogs have said for years that a bipartisan deal both raising taxes and limiting entitlement benefits such as Social Security checks is there to be had, but both candidates rejected that agreement. “Both candidates suggested ‘easy fixes’ to #SocialSecurity. They’re not enough,” the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget said on Twitter.