Posted on 01/29/2020 3:46:37 AM PST by Kaslin
The Iowa Caucus, the real start of the 2020 presidential primaries, is next week. Who's favored to win? Sadly, as I write this, the smart money says it's the candidate who's promised Americans the most "free" stuff.
Six months ago, my staff and I tallied the candidates' promises. All wanted to give away trillions -- or more accurately, wanted government to tax you and spend your money on the candidates' schemes.
At that point, Senator Kamala Harris led. Fortunately, her promises did not bring her sustained support, and she dropped out.
Unfortunately, now the other candidates are making even more promises.
So, it's time for a new contest.
My new video ranks the current leading candidates by how much of your money they promise to spend. We divide the promises into four categories:
Education
Joe Biden would make community college free, cut student loans in half, increase Pell Grants and modernize schools.
Added to his previous campaign promises, he'd increase federal spending by $157 billion per year.
Elizabeth Warren would spend much more. She wants government to "provide universal child care for every baby in this country age 0 to 5, universal pre-K for every child, raise the wages of every childcare worker and preschool teacher in America, provide for universal tuition-free college, put $50 billion into historically black colleges and universities... and cancel student loan debt for 95% of the people."
She'd outspend Biden -- but not Bernie Sanders.
Sanders would forgive all student loans -- even for the rich. He also demands that government give everyone child care and pre-K.
Mayor Pete Buttigieg also promises free child care, more pay for teachers, more career education, free college and Pell Grants, plus the refinancing of student debt.
Good try, Pete, but Sanders "wins" in the education category, with nearly $300 billion in promises.
Climate
All the Democrats pretend they will do something useful about climate change. Biden would spend $170 billion per year, Buttigieg $150 billion to $200 billion and Warren $300 billion. Sanders "wins" this category, too, by promising more than $1 trillion.
Health Care
Even the "moderate," Biden, now wants to "build out Obamacare" and to cover people here illegally.
So does Buttigieg -- but he'd spend twice as much on it.
Warren complains the Buttigieg plan "costs so much less" than her plan. She'd spend $2 trillion a year.
Sanders is again the biggest spender. He'd spend $3 trillion of your money on his "Medicare for All" plan.
Welfare
In this category, Biden, to his credit, plans no new spending.
But Buttigieg has been cranking out lots of new promises, like $45 billion for "affordable housing" and $27 billion to expand Social Security payments beyond what people paid in.
Warren would also spend more on "affordable housing" and give kids more food stamps.
Sanders "wins" again. He promises to guarantee everyone a job, provide "housing for all" and give more people food stamps.
Miscellaneous
Then there's spending that doesn't neatly fit into major categories, like Biden's plans for new foreign aid for Central America, Sanders' high-speed internet, Buttigieg's expanding national service programs like the Peace Corps and Warren's plan to force government to buy only American-made products.
Finally, we found a spending category that Sanders doesn't win. With $130 billion in new plans, Biden wins the "miscellaneous" round.
And what about that incumbent Republican?
Donald Trump once talked about "cutting waste," but government spending rose more than half a trillion dollars during his first three years.
Now Trump wants $267 billion in new spending for things like infrastructure and "access to high-quality, affordable childcare."
At least Trump wants to spend less than the Democrats.
Biden and Buttigieg would double Trump's increase. Warren would quadruple it. She'd increase spending by almost $3 trillion.
But Bernie Sanders blows them all out of the water, with nearly $5 trillion in proposed new spending!
"I'm not denying we're going to spend a lot of money," he admits.
He'll probably win in Iowa next week. Whoever wins... taxpayers lose.
This is an excellent assessment of the situation. The parties have different spending ideology’s though. The democrats, until Obama, like to tax and spend and the republicans, since Reagan, cut taxes and spend. This is why under republicans the deficit has increased the most.
The question is what to do about it. I think that conservatives can reclaim the banner of fiscal responsibility by increasing taxes. Hear me out. Is it not fiscally responsible to pay for the service you are receiving? I, and many other people, would say yes.
If conservatives adopt this view of fiscal responsibility we first focus on one program. I believe Social Security should be that first program. We fix social security by removing the cap on the amount of income subject to the social security tax and capping the highest benefit amount allowed. This would provide enough funds for Social security to get through the baby boomer bump and then it would be once again adding revenue to the federal budget, as it did for most of its existence.
This has the added bonus of mostly effecting the very same elites that have been screwing the middle class all these years.
There is an old saying at the gym, "no pain, no gain."
What you say is perfectly prudent and we have to do it but it has no chance of being adopted. The first serious Republican candidate who recommends raising taxes better do so from a bomb shelter.
So long as we operate in a system in which there is no limit on our power to borrow and no immediate consequences for doing so, there will be no path for any politician to be prudent.
Raising taxes slows the economy and reduces federal revenue. So you are both ridiculous. We need to LOWER marginal rates again.
Except you are not telling the truth and that is NOT what happened under Reagan tax cuts. Revenue almost doubled from 1981 to 1990.
Any young freepers who might be out there decreasing taxes, tax rates, has always INCREASED government revenues in the past. Don't listen to these old coots.
Every one of these bad ideas is inevitable.
They WILL become reality as soon as Millenials comprise 50.001% of the voting bloc.
I’m as sure of that as I am that my skin is white and the sun will rise in the east tomorrow.
I wasn’t talking about revenue, I was talking about the deficit and debt. Under Reagan the debt increased by 186% adding $1.86 trillion to the debt. So the revenue increases under him did not offset spending increases.
Bush -the debt increases by 54% adding $1.544 trillion to the debt.
Clinton -the debt increased by 32% adding $1.396 trillion to the debt.
Bush II- the debt increased by 101% adding $5.849 trillion
Obama- the debt increased by 74% adding $8.588 trillion
Trump- projected increase by end of first term 5 trillion.
From just looking at the debt the democrats could rightfully argue that they are more fiscally responsible than most republicans since Reagan.
It’s funny you said that because I’m in the parking lot of powerhouse gym about to go in and lift!
As they say, only Nixon could go to China. I think Trump could be the only one to get a social security tax increase through. Especially if you sell it as a tax on the liberal elites that have been screwing over the middle class all these years.
For example, depends on where we stand on the Laffer curve. If marginal rates are already so low the amount of new tax revenue generated by lower rates does not compensate for the falloff in taxes collected. In addition, one has to calculate opportunity cost which can further change these numbers in favor of a tax cut.
I do not mean to say that we are now at a place in the Laffer curve where we should not cut taxes, I am simply saying that we cannot ultimately spend, or more accurately, borrow our way out of this massive debt. Nor can we grow our way out. We are just racking up another trillion dollar deficit. We must cut spending.
There is no political climate today to cut spending because there is no connection between out-of-control borrowing and untoward consequences. As long as this condition exists, we will be at an electoral disadvantage with the Democrats who are more willing to spend and borrow then we as Republicans are ready to borrow and perhaps compensate with greater income from lower marginal tax rates. We have limits and they do not.
Our electoral problem is further compensated because the Democrats can play the envy card and insist Republicans are merely selling out to billionaires. Sadly, envy is a very strong emotional pull.
Ok, the last tax cut INCREASED revenue so the tax rate is way to the right of the Laffer curve inflection point.
So repeat after me: ALL TAX CUTS ARE A GOOD THING.
Seems to me you WERE talking about cutting taxes as a bad thing.
I'm not sure why that surprises you. They're Democrats. By definition Democrats live in a fantasy world where money grow on trees. The evil rich don't pay their "fair share" (whatever that means) and should have the fruits of their labors relentless stolen to pay for things that societal parasites who vote for a living rather than work want. Where guns commit crime rather than criminals. Where the reason that blacks end up in prison disproportionately to whites is police prejudice rather than the fact that the black subculture in the USA encourages criminal behavior and a disproportionate number of crimes are committed by blacks rather than whites. A fantasy world where health care is a right rather than a commodity - ignoring of course that health care costs money and someone has to pay. The list of disconnects with Democrat thought processes and reality is a lot longer than this, but to be a Democrat anywhere means that you have to live with an alternative universe in your head.
Bookmark for later reading
[From just looking at the debt the democrats could rightfully argue that they are more fiscally responsible than most republicans since Reagan.]
Not if you look at the actual numbers rather than percentages (that you gave).
The Obama amount outstrips them all.
The thing is a runaway freight train now.
Virtually no Democrat understands that either. (big surprise)
No, what I am saying is that borrowing huge amounts of money to pay for services is a bad thing. I’m also saying that generally if you cut taxes and increase spending the deficit and debt will grow faster than if you raise taxes and increase spending.
As I showed in my previous post during the Reagan and Bush jr eras our debt climbed dramatically. During the Clinton and Obama eras it didn’t.
As I showed in my previous post during the Reagan and Bush jr eras our debt climbed dramatically. During the Clinton and Obama eras it didn’t.
I posted that. Obama added 8.5 trillion to the debt, more than any president from Reagan on. However percentages do matter and This shows he is third lowest percentage of debt added, behind Clinton and Bush I.
I think the total amount is the most significant.
President Trump is saddled with the debt of Boosh and Barky.
With all that, thanks for posting the numbers.
There is a lag for every President. There’s also the argument about how much control a president actually has on the economy. I look at it the way the Army looks at leadership. You are responsible for everything your unit does or fails to do, even if it isn’t directly under your control.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.