That includes a $500 billion outlay on her new college education program and $300 billion each on paid family leave and infrastructure.
Advertisement
“We continue to estimate that Clinton would add modestly to the debt relative to current law, while Trump would add significantly to the debt”, the current report stated. He has proposed some spending cuts, but the committee calculated they wouldn’t come close to balancing the budget.
Trump’s plan, meanwhile, would decrease both spending and taxes, but it would lose so much revenue that his cuts to spending would still increase the debt by trillions. However, he has also pledged to increase spending on defense, veterans, childcare and Medicare, which would result in $2 trillion in additional spending.
Trump would spend at least $450 billion more than now planned for the coming decade to make the USA military so strong, in his words, that “nobody’s gonna mess with us”.
Since the national debt is now around $19.5 trillion, according to the federal Office of Management and Budget, Trump’s plans would increase it by more than a fourth, while Clinton’s would increase it by just 1 percent, under the analysis.
Since CFRB’s last report on the cost estimate of the two candidates’ plans, Trump, has hacked the cost of his plan in half – in June, it had been projected to cost $11.5 trillion – mostly through adjustments to his tax plan.
The committee criticized both candidates for taking “large parts of the budget and tax code off the table” by either explicitly or implicitly ruling out net savings from changes to defense spending and entitlements such as Social Security. But Clinton’s plan would also boost revenue-to the tune of about $1.5 trillion-by significantly increasing taxes on very high income earners and businesses. The real estate magnate contends that his proposals would lead to an annual economic growth rate of as much as 3.5 percent to 5 percent in the coming years – projections that many mainstream economists dismiss as unrealistic.
Under Clinton, the national debt would rise to above 86% of GDP, the report said, while under Trump, it would top 105%.
The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget didn’t attempt to factor in Trump’s “dynamic scoring” in assessing the long-term impact of his plans.
Advertisement
The difference is that Clinton would pair her plans for higher spending with additional taxes to cover the costs. The most recent update reflects both candidates’ amended plans as reported as of September 21, 2016.
