More

HuffPost Social Reading

Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum Tax Plans Would Explode Budget Deficit: Study

Newt Gingrich Rick Santorum

ANDREW TAYLOR   02/23/12 06:05 PM ET  AP

WASHINGTON — Massive tax cuts proposed by GOP presidential candidates Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum would cause the national debt to explode while Mitt Romney's budget plan could generate red ink in line with current projections, according to a new study released Thursday.

The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a Washington-based budget watchdog group, estimates that the wrenching budget cuts proposed by Ron Paul would lessen the flow of red ink compared with current policies but still leave the government running a sizable deficit.

The GOP candidates' budget plans provide a sharp contrast with President Barack Obama, who released his latest fiscal blueprint just last week that includes proposals to raise taxes on the wealthy.

Like Obama, the GOP candidates have the luxury of suspending political reality and assuming lawmakers would quickly enact their ideas into law.

That translates into a tax code in which taxes on investments and capital gains are sharply reduced or eliminated. Each GOP candidate would eliminate inheritance taxes on large estates. And tax rates on individuals would be cut as well – all in the face of deficits that economists say would eventually cripple the economy.

The results, according to the study, would be higher deficits, except in the case of Paul, whose spending cuts dwarf anything being considered by his three rivals.

According to the study, Gingrich's plan would add $7 trillion to the nation's debt over the coming nine years – almost doubling the deficits that would be recorded if the government basically ran on autopilot. Santorum's plan would add $4.5 trillion over the period, or about $500 billion to the deficit every year on average.

By contrast, Romney's proposal would add $250 billion to the deficit over nine years, though that estimate was generated before he unveiled a new tax proposal this week that could add considerably to the deficit.

And Paul, whose budget plans include eliminating five Cabinet departments, immediately ending operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and sharply cutting federal programs like Medicaid and food stamps, would reduce the deficit by $2.2 trillion. He is the only candidate whose spending cuts exceed the amount of revenue lost by cutting taxes.

By the end of fiscal 2016, little more than a month before Election Day, Gingrich's plan would produce a deficit of 7.8 percent of the economy, or almost $1.5 trillion. Santorum's blueprint would produce a deficit in the $1.2 trillion range, or 6.5 percent of gross domestic product. And Romney's plan – given the benefit of the doubt since his new tax plan is so vague – would generate a 2016 deficit of between $700-800 billion or so. Paul's plan would leave a 2016 deficit of almost $500 billion.

Obama's budget claims a $649 billion deficit by 2016, relying on tax increases to do it.

The group didn't publish specific deficit figures for 2016 but provided estimates of them as a percentage of GDP to The Associated Press, which calculated them based on the economic estimates of the Congressional Budget Office.

The four GOP candidates vying to replace Obama each promise sweeping tax cuts, even as the deficit under current policies would never fall below $600 billion over the coming decade.

Gingrich, for example, would give taxpayers the option of a 15 percent flat tax rate, while Santorum promises to reduce the current five-bracket system to two, with rates of 28 percent and 10 percent. Each idea would mean trillions of dollars less in revenue for the government.

Romney's latest tax plan would cut the top income tax rate from 35 percent to 28 percent and the other rates by 20 percent each, paid for by broadening the tax base and eliminating numerous deductions. But the plan lacks sufficient specifics to be "scored" with any precision.

The candidates' ambitious budget plans contrast with GOP leaders in Congress, who have focused on retaining the full menu of Bush-era tax cuts rather than attempting to cut taxes further – and have opened the door to higher tax revenues as part of a comprehensive deficit-cutting deal.

Last week, Obama proposed tax increases of almost $2 trillion over the coming decade – chiefly by ending Bush-era cuts on individual income exceeding $200,000 and year and family income exceeding $250,000.

The budget group's advisers include many Democratic deficit hawks and Republicans unafraid to advocate for higher taxes. The group acknowledged plenty of wiggle room in the study since many of the candidates' proposals are vague or haven't been reviewed by official sources, like the Congressional Budget Office.

The Tax Policy Center, a respected joint project of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, provided the basis for many of the estimates of the candidates' tax proposals.

The group offers three different scenarios for each candidate, which incorporated different assumptions that depend on how vague or specific a candidate's proposals are. The group chiefly trumpeted an "intermediate" scenario that represented the group's best estimate of the candidate's budget plans.

By contrast, the Gingrich campaign Thursday produced an estimate by a friendly economist that predicts his budget would balance by the end of his first term and that economic growth under his supply-side tax cuts would average 4.4 percent a year over the coming decade, far higher than predicted by the budget group.

Also on HuffPost:

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
WASHINGTON — Massive tax cuts proposed by GOP presidential candidates Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum would cause the national debt to explode while Mitt Romney's budget plan could generate red ...
WASHINGTON — Massive tax cuts proposed by GOP presidential candidates Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum would cause the national debt to explode while Mitt Romney's budget plan could generate red ...
Filed by Luke Johnson  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 1,354
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (29 total)
  1 of 1  
COMMUNITY PUNDITS
photo
outlandish 03:33 AM on 02/24/2012
Deficits only matter if you’re a Democrat struggling under massive ones created to starve the beast by Republicans.
 

Seriously what do you expect from people all falling over themselves to grab the mantle of Reagan?
After all it’s the Reaganomics model for destroying the functionality of government and it is always sold as fixing the problems it itself  Read More...
03:34 PM on 03/02/2012
shocking....no, not really.
photo
EllyB
left of center
12:54 PM on 02/24/2012
What the author fails to recognize is that the Gingrich deficit would be the "intelligent" deficit and teh Santorum deficit would be "holier than thou," so either way it's a win win for baggers who just want their white guy, whoever that may be (wink, wink, nod, nod).
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
LibertyDeathWatch
Freedom is barely breathing
11:32 AM on 02/24/2012
Ron Paul is the man with the plan.

Cut spending by $1T the first year in office.

Ron Paul seems to be the only guy in Washington that has firm understanding of economics.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Binea
Only a fool denies she is a fool, I am no fool
11:48 AM on 02/24/2012
YEP.He will do it without hurting the poor too. No Safety nets will be hurt,but will be shored up for those dependednt on them.For people under 40,at least with SS there will be a Choice to "Opt out".
He mentioned a 10 % opt out plan,that John stossel did a show on.Basically,you can opt out of SS and other social safety net programs,but would have to promise never to use those programs and would still have to pay 10 percent of your income,to help those who choose NOT to opt out.
I haven't heard him mention it lately.Maybe he has changed his plans on that.
But,I think it would be a perfect compromise,While we are getting the FED audited forced to be transparent and hopefully ended eventually
photo
rick in minnesota
My sentiments, exactly.
11:29 AM on 02/24/2012
Where do the candidates get their economic "plans"? How much research is invested in them compared to the President's economic proposal? Candidates have few resources to generate meaningful economic proposals. For example, Gingrich's $2 gas pledge. There are far better economic plans sprayed on highway overpasses!

We can all but ignore what any of the republican candidates offer in the way of economic policy. They don' t have the information nor resources to form a meaningful plan for the nation. Only special interests, outside of government, have the resources to assemble plausible plans and any of those would be loaded in favor of the originators.
photo
blarneydude
I can handle the truth. Now let's talk about you.
11:04 AM on 02/24/2012
You know what else is gonna explode the deficit? The cost of:

1. Government only allowing the right people to have sex;
2. Government declaring fetuses people;
3. Government only allowing the right people to get married;
4. Government letting the rich pollute everything and leaving the nation with the bill;
5. Government keeping a glass on your door and a periscope on your window to make sure only approved hanky-panky is going on;
6. Government making sure gays are carefully monitored to keep them from causing too much trouble.

That's the start of the list if Tea wins this election. Kiss your pocketbook goodbye.

Obama isn't perfect. But in what may be the most important election in history, he's the least-worst one running.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
LibertyDeathWatch
Freedom is barely breathing
11:36 AM on 02/24/2012
Ron Paul's positions:

1. You're wrong, he's never advocated any such thing.
2. Abortion should be out of Federal jurisdiction and let the states decide even though he is personally opposed to all abortions.
3. The government should not be involved in marriage at all at any level.
4. Private property rights protect the environment more than a huge, unaccountable regulatory agency.
5. He has no interest in monitoring or regulating anyone's behavior.
6. Ditto to 5.
photo
blarneydude
I can handle the truth. Now let's talk about you.
12:50 PM on 02/24/2012
I've seen considerable evidence that Paul only sounds libertarian when it furthers his extremely conservative social views.

For example, he accused gay-marriage advocates of hypocrisy at best and ignorance at worst for saying states should be allowed to make their own marriage laws, when in the past they advocated binding federal laws. What he left out was that the issue had nothing to do with who made what laws, but with freedom to choose, which of course progressives would advocate if Federal statute secured same and 'states' rights' would lead to states clamping down on individual freedoms.

For more on his positions on same-sex marriage - to list only one issue:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Same-sex_marriage

That reads like a disingenuous attempt to kick the legs out from under same-sex unions...and Paul is on record that "marriage is between one man and one woman."

(My personal position on that, BTW? Fine. One man, one woman. And so:

1. Any marriage in which the man and woman are not shaggin' like rabbits must be annulled;
2. Same for any marriage with no children.

Otherwise? Marriage is a business arrangement and a life partnership between willing, consenting adults that should not be restricted by gender of the parties.

Off soapbox. Back to Paul.)

I don't trust his libertarian sensibilities to come to the fore when freedom depends on it. In the past, they haven't, as the above shows.
photo
blarneydude
I can handle the truth. Now let's talk about you.
12:51 PM on 02/24/2012
Continued:

And I sure don't agree with him on 4. The primary tenet of private land ownership: you can do anything - anything - on your land that you want. I disagree. Because it's not "your" land.

Just ask Woody Guthrie.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Obviator
10:59 AM on 02/24/2012
These people remain undeterred by facts. They are like little boys bragging on the playground trying to outdo each other. It's getting so silly. How can anyone take this hogwash seriously? I do like one thing Newt said...pious baloney.
10:45 AM on 02/24/2012
The Obama economy has produced THREE YEARS of 8+% unemployment, more Americans living in poverty and on food stamps than ever before and GDP growth at near stagnent levels of 1-2% growth and yet nealry ALL of team Obama's economic forecasts ASSUME 3-5% GDP growth to make their numbers work.

During the 2008 presidential campaign Charles Gibson asked candidate Obama if he was aware tax cuts in the past increased tax revenue while tax hikes in the past often decreased tax revenue. Obama replied he WAS aware of this but felt tax hikes would be FAIR!!

Tax cuts often result in tax revenue INCREASES yet liberals use a STATIC model ....... no ASSUMING 4% GDP growth for Republican plans........ liberals just add every tax cut right to the deficit bottom line. After FOUR YEARS and TRILLION of Stimulus dollars down the drain with little or NO results to show for it liberals STILL use a DYNAMIC model of 4% GDP growth to get Obama's spending plans to tread water. It is amazing!!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Steven Erickson
True Blue Patriot - liberty and justice for ALL
11:03 AM on 02/24/2012
Yes tax cuts con kick-start an economy. But the long-term effect is decreased, not increased, revenue. Check your numbers. Reagan decreased taxes too low and deficits and debt sky-rocketed. Clinton raised taxes and deficits temporarily went away ... until Bush2 cut taxes and deficits and debt went way up again.

Facts are not on your side, at least not in the post-1970s economies.
01:32 PM on 02/24/2012
Bush overspent as, according to the IRS, the Bush tax cuts INCREASED federal tax revenue by 2007 to a record $785 billion, the largest increase in federal tax revenue over a four year period in US history!!!

Bill CLinton himself said he would never have had budget surpluses in 911 had happened on his watch. The FIRST al-Qaida attack on the WTC occurred in 1993 just months after CLinton took office. The intent was CLEAR, they wanted to collapse the building and kill thousands of people ............... CLinton did NOTHING.

Several of the 911 hijacker were in the US taking flight lessons as early as 1995-1996 and thanks to Clinton's "downsizing" and a shortage of manpower, just 'be on the lookout' memo's were passed on.

Throughout the 90's al-Qaida continued to attack the US, our embassies in Tanznia and Kenya(?), the Air Force barracks in Khobar Towers and finally the USS COlE in Oct 2000 and CLinton still did NOTHING.

Throughout the 90's Saddam ignored dozens of UN resolutions and got away with it. SO emboldened was Saddam by CLinton's inaction he EJECTED the weapons inspectors from Iraq and just a few years later a UNANIMOUS UN vote for Saddam to DISARM OR ELSE becasue the ENTIRE WORLD still believed he had WMD's.
photo
blarneydude
I can handle the truth. Now let's talk about you.
11:10 AM on 02/24/2012
Static is what the Republican Plan for No Government has given us.

What you don't seem to realize is that the country for the last three decades has been running on the Republican model: give the rich everything they ask for and stiff everyone else. THAT IS THE SOLE REASON for the mess we're in now.

What has nothing to show for it in three decades is "trickle-down" aka "voodoo" economics. You do NOT increase the nation's well-being by giving everything to the rich, because almost all of it goes in their pockets.

Not only are major tax hikes on the wealthy and corporations needed - to pay for LESSENING the tax burden on everyone else, which is how you kickstart an economy (let people BUY STUFF) - but a major initiative to bring jobs back to America, and stop losing them to offshore sweatshops, is critical.

You know who DOESN'T want that?

The GOTea. That's who doesn't want that. Because the LAST thing their rich paymasters want is people who work for them making more money.
01:19 PM on 02/24/2012
B dude

Is it your contention HIGHER TAXES on Corporations will result in lower taxes on "everyone else" and THAT will kick start the economy??
The US has a 35% Corporate tax rate, one of the highest in the world, and yet AMAZINGLY, it is your contention even higher taxes will "BRING (????) jobs back to America, and stop losing them to offshore sweatshops, is critical."

In a GLOBAL economy, where Corporations can pick and choose where to set up shop, your contention is they will flock to America, which ALREADY has some of the highest Corporate tax rates in the world, then tack on state taxes, to do business here??

Like Obama's plan California raised tax rates higher and higher so politicians could find a way to pay for ever more vote buying promises. California now has billion dollar budget deficits, billions in long term debt, billions more in unfunded pension liabilities, billions in unfunded entitlements, 12% unemployment and NO TAX BASE to raise money. California has chased their tax base, both Corporate and THE RICH, to surrounding low tax states.
Texas and several other states have OPENLY courted California businesses and people with lower taxes .

So WHY would higher taxes work any better on an international level than they did for California on a state level. Your post is the same plan that California implented and all it did was dig CA into a deep hole just as Obama has done to the country!!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Steven Erickson
True Blue Patriot - liberty and justice for ALL
10:27 AM on 02/24/2012
These budget-busting proposals fall in line with other recent GOP presidents. Our current debt, as a percentage of GDP is 98.7% (2011 numbers, usgovernmentspending.com). Republicans are responsible for most of it.

1975 Debt/GDP was at 33.1%, left over from WW2, paid down from a peak of 122% in 1946, through the fiscally responsible policies of 3 Democrat and 2 Republican presidents over a span of 29 years. And then the debt responsibility is as follows, where positive numbers INCREASE debt and negative numbers DECREASE debt.

Ford: +1.7% (first post WW2 president to increase debt/GDP)
Carter: -3.0%
Reagan: +20.5%
Bush1: +13.0%
Clinton: -8.8%
Bush2: +28.3%
Obama: +14% (2009 through 2011)

The net scorecard?
Republican presidents have increased our Debt/GDP percentage by 63.5 points.
Democratic presidents have increased it by only 2.2 points, and that is including the massive hit to the economy that Obama inherited.

So thank Reagan, Bush1, and Bush2 for almost 2/3 of our national debt with their irresponsible borrow and spend policies, their unnecessary wars, and their giveaways to the rich.

And it looks like the current crop of Repub candidates wants to implement more of the same.
10:24 AM on 02/24/2012
"And Ron Paul, whose budget plans include eliminating five Cabinet departments, immediately ending operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and sharply cutting federal programs like Medicaid and food stamps, would reduce the deficit by $2.2 trillion. He is the only candidate whose spending cuts exceed the amount of revenue lost by cutting taxes." "Paul's plan would leave a 2016 deficit of almost $500 billion."

He's not going to RIP medicaid and food stamps away from those who NEED it but reform is what it's about. And the rest of it sounds good to me. EVERY other GOP candidates' plan leaves us in greater debt. Obama is the only one who says his can get us out of the TRILLIONS of dollars hole we are in BUT ONLY with everyone PAYING MORE TAXES....pretty soon we'll be paying 50% like they do in the UK. Who wants that? not me.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Earl King
I intend to live forever, or die trying
09:54 AM on 02/24/2012
Typical HP...page and article. Of course know assumes any of the candidates will actually cut the budget. But here is the dirty little secret nobody is telling you. Markets will eventually make us stop borrowing so heavely. It will happen and none of these plans will survive the test of even a few more years. Right now we have unfunded liabilites in entitlements of $50 Trillion dollars. NOT including the debt at $16 Trillion and going to $20 Trillion shortly. They all are lying to you....no matter how much you tax or do not tax....Rasing taxes on the rich...won't even cover the interest payments on the debt in 5 years. let alone cover the additional spending the president wants. They have lost thier minds in DC....and you contribute to it with these silly littel sideshows. They are all to blame and non of them are realistic.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Steven Erickson
True Blue Patriot - liberty and justice for ALL
10:45 AM on 02/24/2012
Just the bonuses to the richest 1%, in the form of the INCREASE of the share of income going to that fortunate few (as a result of favorable tax and economic policies implemented mostly by Repub admins) over the last 30 years (up from 10% in 1980 to about 22% of all income now) is just about equal to the ENTIRE national debt. Take that extra 12% of all income the ultra-rich currently, and undeservedly receive, and it almost completely wipes out our current deficit.

We have wasted too much of this nation's wealth tossing it willy-nilly at the rich. It is time to get it back.
01:55 PM on 02/24/2012
Steve

If Obama just flat out CONFISCATED every penny from the top fortune 400 he would raise about $1.6 Trillion. Obama has had FOUR consecutive trillion dollar plus SPENDING DEFICITS (no budget) so higher taxes, even 100%, is not going to stop Obama from his FAIRNESS CRUSADE of digging us an deeper hole.
09:46 AM on 02/24/2012
AND I BET THEY KNEW THIS ALL ALONG.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
returnofthejedi
Trolls have no chance!
09:44 AM on 02/24/2012
You know. Designing an Economy according to a perishable resource, all of a sudden does look like it was very wise! Just as unwise as designing a society depending on the injustice to fellow human beings. Both are doomed to fail. That day is on the horizon.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
returnofthejedi
Trolls have no chance!
09:45 AM on 02/24/2012
~~Does not like it was very wise~~~ Typo.
prudencehall
Dear Prudence...
09:41 AM on 02/24/2012
This has to be the saddest group of nominees the GOP has ever put forth!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
returnofthejedi
Trolls have no chance!
09:45 AM on 02/24/2012
The saddest group of human beings from a pretty sad bunch. Cut down that tree!
prudencehall
Dear Prudence...
10:12 AM on 02/24/2012
fanned!

Obama 2012
10:17 AM on 02/24/2012
Oh please stop, they are wonderful. I plan on voting for Newt Santorum or Rick Gingrich, whomever wins the nomination, and all the lies that have been written about them will not make me change my mind... only Sarah can make me change my mind, and she likes them both, she really likes them!
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
09:31 AM on 02/24/2012
Why would ANYBOODY trust a GOPer to fix our economy, when all they have done is work toward its ruin the last 100 years?
reasonable lib
Demagogues must be driven from govt
09:41 AM on 02/24/2012
Repubs shouldn't be blamed for all of the "ruin" of the last 100 years. 80 years (since the Great Depression) is closer to the truth.
09:31 AM on 02/24/2012
Ricky aqnd Newt both flunked arithmetic. They didn't even get to the new math. Remember though, all the extra money earned by corporations will trickle down to the middle class.

If it weren't so important, these clowns could start their own Vegas act.....
09:34 AM on 02/24/2012
No, they aren't worth Vegas - a traveling circus is more like it.
photo
capt hastings
exercise the little grey cells
10:09 AM on 02/24/2012
Mrs. Gingrich The First was Newt's high school geometry teacher (gross, right?).
Maybe he should have dated and married his economics teacher.