SmallGovTimes.com

By: Steve Adcock | Published on 02/04/08    

The National Taxpayer's Union recently published a variety of statistics that brings to light how far the national presidential front runners plan to go to expand the power and influence of the already-morbidly obese federal government.

Assuming the most conservative cost estimates:

“The eight candidates proposed a combined total of 189 items that would increase federal spending, 24 items that would decrease it, and 238 items whose budgetary impacts are unknown -- in addition to dozens of sub-items further detailing program components. The four respective frontrunners in the two parties (John McCain, Mitt Romney, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama), proposed overall fiscal policy agendas whose net effect would raise annual federal outlays between $6.9 billion and $287.0 billion.

“The top-tier GOP candidates often portrayed as "conservative" (Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee) actually called for significantly larger spending hikes ($19.5 billion and $54.2 billion, respectively), than the so-called "moderate conservative" (John McCain, $6.9 billion).

“Among Democrats, Barack Obama, often described as ideologically more "moderate" than Hillary Clinton, actually has the larger agenda of the two ($287.0 billion vs. $218.2 billion).

“Defense-related spending items received the highest proposed spending increases among Republican candidates. Huckabee and Romney, for example, offered $67.2 billion and $40.6 billion, respectively. Among Democrats, Clinton's biggest boost goes toward health care ($113.6 billion) and Obama's for economy, transportation, and infrastructure ($105.0 billion).

“Two of the eight candidates proposed sufficient spending cuts that more than offset their new spending plans: Rudy Giuliani (-$1.4 billion) and Ron Paul (-$150.1 billion).

Both Rudy Giuliani and Ron Paul, one of which has already dropped out of the race, propose spending cuts. Paul easily leads that pack with a whopping $150 billion in proposed downsizing in Washington D.C., a plan that is long overdue. Sadly, the two candidates that may cut the size of the government do not have much of a chance this time around, which speaks volumes to the current state of the Republican party and the mentality of the American people as a whole.

Washington downsizing is not a priority. The idea that throwing money at a problem and hoping that it magically goes away remains alive and well in America. Clearly, none of the front runners feel much personal responsibility related to spending the taxpayer's money wisely, and none of them deserve the opportunity to lead the free world.

The NTU statistics were taken from their web site, at:
http://www.ntu.org/main/press.php?PressID=991&org_name=NTUF

Original URL:
http://www.smallgovtimes.com/story/08feb04.frontrunners.billions/index.html