Study: Every Democrat Presidential Candidate's Platform Would Boost Budget Deficits

1/19/2004

From: Drew Johnson or Pete Sepp, 703-683-5700, both of the National Taxpayers Union Foundation

ALEXANDRIA, Va., Jan. 19 -- No matter who's left in the Presidential race after tonight's Iowa caucus, taxpayers will face sharply higher federal deficits if any of the remaining Democrat contenders' budget policies become law, according to a study from the National Taxpayers Union Foundation (NTUF). By supporting annual spending hikes of between 7.6 percent and 59.5 percent, every one of the eight hopefuls would worsen deficits by billions or even trillions of dollars.

NTUF systematically examined the contenders' agendas, using campaign and third-party sources (like the Congressional Budget Office) to assign a cost to every budget proposal the candidates offered. Among the findings:

-- If the policy agenda of any one of the eight candidates were enacted in full, annual federal spending would rise by at least $169.6 billion (Lieberman) and as much as $1.33 trillion (Sharpton).

-- Among candidates considered to be front-runners, Dick Gephardt posts the largest annual spending increase ($368.8 billion), far ahead of John Kerry ($265.11 billion) and John Edwards ($199.5 billion). Howard Dean and Wesley Clark would both increase annual federal outlays by roughly the same amount ($222.9 billion vs. $220.7 billion, respectively).

-- All candidates offer platforms that call for more spending than would be offset by repealing the Bush tax cuts (using even generous estimates of the tax cuts' impact).

-- The eight candidates have proposed over 200 ideas to increase federal spending, and only two that would cut federal spending.

-- George W. Bush, who campaigned as a fiscal conservative in 2000, has presided over a considerable jump in federal spending (23.7 percent) since taking office. Yet, even the most parsimonious of the Democrat Presidential candidates would have outpaced the spending run-up under Bush by 15 percent.

"During the 2000 election, the candidates traded charges of 'fuzzy math' and 'risky schemes' over each other's fiscal proposals," NTUF Policy Analyst and study author Drew Johnson concluded. "Given the results of this study, many deficit- conscious Americans may be wondering if such terms are applicable to the 2004 race too."

NTUF is the research and educational arm of the National Taxpayers Union, a non-partisan citizen group founded in 1969. Note: NTUF Policy Paper 148, The Return of Fuzzy Math and Risky Schemes, and detailed reports on each candidate, are available at http://www.ntu.org.