Papers

Campaign pundits continue to wonder whether Howard Dean's candidacy for President will get the final boost it needs to prevail in this month's key Democratic primaries with former officeseeker Al Gore's recent endorsement.

Yet, Gore's indirect presence in the race also reminds taxpayers of his duels with George W. Bush over fiscal policy in the 2000 Presidential contest. While Gore labeled Bush's tax reduction and Social Security reform plans as "risky schemes," Bush accused his opponent's budget platform of suffering from "fuzzy math." Today, as eight Democrats vie for their party's top nomination, many deficit-conscious Americans may be wondering if such terms are applicable to the 2004 race.

Each of the Democrat contenders for the White House disparaged recent projections of huge budget shortfalls (nearing $500 billion for Fiscal Year 2004) for their own rhetorical purposes. For example, front-runner Howard Dean states he will commit to "set the nation on the path to a balanced budget."[1] For his part, Dick Gephardt recalled that "two short years ago, we were having arguments about what to do with the surplus" and announced that "the President's economic policy has failed."[2]

Joseph Lieberman has accused White House officials of "hiding behind the war and homeland security to excuse their own fiscal irresponsibility,"[3] while John Kerry claims "this Administration has turned fiscal responsibility on its ear."[4] Wesley Clark has declared he "would restore the basic principle of responsibility to the budget process: all tax and spending proposals must be paid for without increasing the deficit."[5]

Despite their different approaches, to a person, the eight Democrat Presidential candidates call for spending increases that would substantially swell the deficit. On average, the candidates' proposals would pile an additional $479 billion onto the federal deficit beyond planned spending (a 21.5 percent increase in the budget).[6]

This Policy Paper systematically examines the fiscal implications of the eight contenders' agendas, using neutral techniques to assign a running cost tally to each budget proposal publicly offered by the candidates.

Highlights include:

• Out of over 200 cost-associated proposals offered by the candidates, just two would reduce federal spending.
• All candidates offer platforms that call for more spending than would be offset by repealing the Bush tax cut.[7]
• Five of the eight candidates' health care spending proposals would cost over $100 billion in the first year alone.

Table 1 depicts the summarized cost data that National Taxpayers Union Foundation calculated for each candidate's platform.

The study relies heavily upon National Taxpayers Union Foundation's BillTally project, a computerized accounting system that has, since 1991, tabulated the cost or savings of every piece of legislation introduced in Congress with a net annual impact of $1 million or more.

Each Appendix following the text of this report includes the various elements of a Presidential candidate's platform, divided into 12 policy areas that could conceivably impact annual federal spending. This section summarizes every candidate's platform and presents figures revealing a reality that strongly contradicts the campaign rhetoric.

Wesley Clark

The costs associated with General Clark's platform are largely a result of an economic stimulus plan that doles out $60 billion to job creation programs and state and local governments over a two-year span, as well as a $55 billion plan to upgrade the electrical grid. The economic/employment policy presented by Clark also funds a new incarnation of AmeriCorps, at a cost of $200 million. Clark's $78.11 billion health care plan, among the least expensive proposed by the candidates, devotes a significant share of tax dollars to non-coverage-related health care improvements.

In addition to Clark's economic, infrastructure, and health care plans, his $5 billion international aid plan is among the largest of any candidate. A $2.17 billion proposed commitment to the military and veterans affairs ranks him third in that category. Clark manages to submit cost-associated policy proposals in all but one of the 12 policy areas considered in this study, a feat matched only by Howard Dean.

Howard Dean

Howard Dean's proposed $223 billion platform places him sixth-highest in terms of overall proposed costs. Despite this middling number, no candidate outspends Dean in an unmatched four different policy categories. Dean heads the field in proposed spending for agriculture/rural, campaigns and elections, civil rights, and international aid. Additionally, Dean offers the second most expensive scheme to address military funding and $105 billion in new health care commitments.

A number of costly policy proposals account for Dean's showing across so many categories. The campaigns and elections plan proposed by Governor Dean includes a "five-to-one" public match for the first $100 of every donation to a federal candidate, more than triple the cost of the next most expensive proposal. A suggested $30 billion contribution towards the global HIV/AIDS effort makes Dean's international aid total more costly than any other candidate by a billion dollars a year. A plan allowing federal employees to name same-sex partners as beneficiaries is, by itself, more expensive than the total proposed spending in the civil rights category of any other candidate. Other major cost-bearing proposals by Dean include $11 billion per year in early childhood education, $6 billion per year for higher education, and a $100 billion job creation fund.

John Edwards

The platform offered by Senator Edwards is, with the exception of Joseph Lieberman, the least costly of the Democratic proposals. That comparatively low cost is, however, deceiving. Edwards ranks among the top three for proposed spending in half of the 12 policy categories. Additionally, Edwards has no federal spending-related proposals in four of the study's 12 policy areas: housing, infrastructure, international aid, and military/veterans. Thus, the Senator is among the three "most expensive" candidates in three-fourths of the categories in which Edwards offers a proposal. A $59 billion health care plan, the lowest level of increase among the candidates, helps to lessen Edwards' overall proposed spending total.

Edwards' homeland security plan is, by nearly $2 billion, the most expensive of the Democratic proposals. The Senator's plan for the economy would earmark over $95 billion for programs such as a dollar-for-dollar matching savings account for working-class households and $40 billion in state aid. Plans granting one year of tuition-free education and doubling investments in teacher training increase the cost of the Edwards platform by an additional $6 billion.

Richard Gephardt

The $369 billion in new spending proposed by Representative Gephardt makes his agenda the costliest of the major contenders. Five of the 12 policy areas depicted in the study for Gephardt are void of cost-associated proposals, and another -- civil rights -- calls for less than $15 million in new spending. The six remaining policy areas feature a $20 billion homeland security trust fund, $5 billion in increased student financial aid, and $42 billion for a pre-school plan.

Further inflating Gephardt's total is the costliest economic plan of any candidate and a sizeable health care program, combining for $234.88 billion in potential spending. Gephardt proposes to supplement his initial $68.87 billion health care plan with an additional $167 billion dedicated to health insurance incentives. Specifically, Gephardt calls for a $109 billion "refundable" (i.e., in excess of actual tax liability) credit to employers who do not currently offer health insurance to their employees and a $58 billion commitment to assist state and local governments in addressing their health insurance burdens.

John Kerry

John Kerry leads the pack of Democratic Presidential candidates in the military/veterans policy category. The Senator's pledge to support veterans' health programs carries a cost of over $41 billion. The bulk of Kerry's spending, however, comes in the form of a $55.9 billion education agenda, an $89.88 billion health care platform, and $31.04 billion in infrastructure improvements.

Included in Kerry's education plan -- the second priciest of the Democratic proposals -- is a $2.25 billion offer of more affordable child care, an expanded Head Start program, and $25 billion in school renovations. The Kerry health care plan allows Americans to buy into the same arrangement offered to Members of Congress -- at a taxpayer cost of $89.5 billion per year. Senator Kerry's infrastructure program entails $31 billion in restored highway funding and $35 million in funding for a high-speed rail programs.

Dennis Kucinich

Representative Kucinich weighs in with the second-costliest policy platform among all the Democratic candidates. Kucinich's $1.06 trillion plan would increase the federal budget by nearly 50 percent.[8] Enacted in full, the Kucinich agenda would increase the federal deficit by over 15 percent in the first year of his Presidency alone.[9]

Among Kucinich's major proposals are a $20 billion-per-year infusion to the Department of Housing and Urban Development, a $48 billion commitment to tuition-free higher education, a $60 billion universal pre-kindergarten program, and $87 billion for a set of refundable payroll tax credits. A proposed $52.57 billion reduction in Pentagon spending falls far short in offsetting a $500 billion "New Deal"-style public works program intended to update infrastructure, including water and sewer systems and government buildings.

Kucinich's infrastructure plan alone outspends the entire platforms of all but two other candidates and his health care blueprint is as expensive as every policy proposed by candidates Lieberman, Edwards, and Clark combined.

Joseph Lieberman

Of the eight Democratic Presidential candidates, Senator Lieberman has, by about $30 billion, the least cost impact on American taxpayers. However, Lieberman's tendency to frame much of his platform around funding increases and program expansions -- without any specifics as to the amount of increase or breadth of expansion -- prevents accurate cost estimates and thus artificially lowers the Senator's estimated policy costs. In the area of infrastructure, for example, six of the eight candidates support a well-defined program, while Lieberman calls for adequate investment "in the technologies that will secure America's critical infrastructure, such as the power grid, the financial system, air traffic control, and the telecommunications and Internet infrastructure from physical and cyber-attacks."[10] While this undertaking is likely to cost tens, if not hundreds, of billions of dollars, it is impossible to estimate a cost for such an ambiguous goal.

Of note among the policies included in Lieberman's platform is his $8 billion environmental program -- over 23 percent more costly than that of John Edwards, author of the next most expensive environmental program. A $117 billion health care proposal leaves only Kucinich, Sharpton, and Gephardt with more expensive health care designs. In addition to a $75 billion medical coverage plan, Lieberman calls for $27 billion in new health care research funding and creation of a new $15 billion agency -- the American Center for Cures -- dedicated to developing treatments for threatening diseases.

Lieberman also calls for a $300 tax rebate to the 34 million taxpayers who did not receive a refundable tax credit in 2001. The potential expense of this wealth redistribution disbursement, given in large part to those who pay little or no federal income taxes, tops out at $10.2 billion.

Al Sharpton

Reverend Sharpton plans to address the principal policy issues of concern to his campaign platform not through programs or funding modifications, but rather through a series of Constitutional Amendments. By expanding the powers enumerated by the Constitution, these amendments would grant the federal government increased authority to create additional programs and enact previously unlawful policies. Thus, areas of political oversight once unavailable to the government would fall under federal control, at taxpayer expense, following the passage of new amendments. Of course, ratification of a Constitutional Amendment is subject to a supermajority vote of both Houses of Congress and approval of the legislatures of 38 states.

Despite tendering very few proposals bearing a direct cost -- only two of the 12 policy areas within the study contain cost-associated suggestions -- Sharpton still manages the most expensive platform among the Democratic Presidential candidates. The large price tag associated with Sharpton's plan is mainly due to his proposal for a universal, single-payer health plan, which totals $1.32 trillion. Sharpton calls for a five-year, $250 billion infrastructure redevelopment plan, as well.

Conclusion

Despite all the hand-wringing about George W. Bush's recent tax cuts, the spending column trips up every one of these candidates. Each would increase spending by substantially more than the supposed increase in federal revenues resulting from overturning the Bush tax cut. The candidates' fiscal policies would necessarily result in greater tax hikes, a deeper deficit, or both. This study does not consider that the temptation to spend even more money can be much greater after entering the White House. Consider President Bush, who, after campaigning as a fiscal conservative, has seen federal spending increase by 23.7 percent since taking office.[11] Even the most parsimonious of the eight Democratic candidates for President eclipses that total by over 15 percent.[12]

The budget cannot possibly be balanced with such astronomical increases in government expenditures as those proposed by the Democratic Presidential candidates. Unless the candidates change their stance on spending, any talk of balanced budgets and decreasing deficits, or criticism of another candidate for their budgetary policy, is little more than a disguise to cover the budgetary hole they plan to dig deeper still -- and American taxpayers will bear the burden of climbing out.

About the Author

Drew Johnson is a Policy Analyst for the National Taxpayers Union Foundation (www.ntu.org). NTUF is the research arm of the National Taxpayers Union, a non-profit, non-partisan organization founded in 1969 to work for lower taxes, less wasteful spending, and accountable government at all levels.

Research assistance was provided by Jeff Dircksen, Director of Congressional Analysis, National Taxpayers Union Foundation and Demian Brady, Senior Policy Analyst, National Taxpayers Union Foundation.

Notes