Taxpayers Tab: NTUF Senate Candidate Studies

As the nation focuses on November's midterm election, this special edition of the Taxpayer's Tab reports on NTUF's Senate candidate platform analyses. Look for the next issue of the Tab on November 9th!

There is a lot of rhetoric on the campaign trail, but what does it all mean for taxpayers? NTUF's line-by-line analysis of the spending proposed by 11 U.S. Senate candidates in five states provides some clues. NTUF scoured campaign websites, debate transcripts, and new sources, to gather information on any proposals that could impact the level of federal spending for candidates in California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, and Pennsylvania. The specific positions, plans, and program expansions were then matched with corresponding legislation and independent sources, such as the Congressional Budget Office. Provisions were also cross-referenced to NTUF's BillTally database -- a collection of thousands of Congressional bills from the previous 18 years. However, some of the proposed items could not be quantifiably scored but were still included in each report.

Below are summarizes for each of the races. Click on the dollar figures to view a comprehensive line-by-line analysis of each candidate's proposals.

California

• Barbara Boxer Net Spending Agenda: $15.847 billion
• Carly Fiorina Net Spending Agenda: -$154.796 billion (savings)
• California Study Summary
• "NTUF Analysis: California Senatorial Candidates Separated By $171 Billion in Spending"

Colorado

• Michael Bennet Net Spending Agenda: $7.345 billion
• Ken Buck Net Sending Agenda: -$1.405 billion (savings)
• Colorado Study Summary
• "Colorado's Bennet and Buck Focus of Latest NTUF Study"

Florida

• Charlie Crist Net Spending Agenda: $3.476 billion
• Kendrick Meek Net Spending Agenda: $97.987 billion
• Marco Rubio Net Spending Agenda: -$153.292 billion (savings)
• Florida Study Summary
• "Savers and Spenders Highlighted in NTUF FL Senatorial Study"

Illinois

• Alexi Giannoulias Net Spending Agenda: $76.278 billion
• Mark Kirk Net Spending Agenda: $734 million
• Illinois Study Summary
• "Both Illinois Senate Candidates Offer New Spending Proposals"

Pennsylvania

• Joe Sestak Net Spending Agenda: $100.062 billion
• Pat Toomey Net Sending Agenda: -$2.509 billion (savings)
• Pennsylvania Study Summary
• "$100 Billion Difference in PA Senate Race"

What Others Are Saying...

• "After November 2"
•        National Review Online (National) - October 27, 2010 - by Michael Tanner

• "National Taxpayers Union Foundation Rates Fiorina and Boxer's Campaign Pledges"
•        Flash Report (CA) - October 27, 2010 - by Meredith Turney

• "Boxer Would Boost, Fiorina Would Trim Budget, Line-by-Line Analysis of Campaign Platforms Shows"
•        NewsRag (CA) - October 25, 2010

• "Crist, Rubio differ on spending"
•        Gulf Cost Business Review (FL) - October 19, 2010

• "$76 Billion vs. $700 Million"
•        Illinois Policy Institute (also posted on Illinois Review and Chicago Daily Observer)(IL)
              October 26, 2010 - by Kristina Rasmussen

• "Over $100 Billion Separates Federal Budget Agendas of Pennsylvania Senate Candidates, Study Finds"
•        Pike County RC (PA) - October 25, 2010

• "Taxpayers Union: Sestak Would Increase Federal Spending by $100B"
•        Tony Phyrillas (also posted on The Centrist) (PA) - October 27, 2010

About NTUF

The National Taxpayers Union Foundation is a research and educational organization dedicated solely to helping citizens of all generations understand how tax policies, spending programs, and regulations at all levels affect them now and in the future. Through NTUF's timely information, analysis, and commentary, we're empowering citizens to actively engage in the fiscal policy debate and hold public officials accountable every day.

NTUF is a 501(c)(3) research and education organization. Donations are deductible for personal income tax purposes. Please make a donation today to help further NTUF's mission of research and education!

This information is for educational purposes only and is not intended to aid or hinder the passage of any legislation or as a comment on any Member's fitness to serve. Cosponsor information obtained from GovTrack.us.