WaPo - "The Democrats’ Adult Campaign" - Discussion of *yawn* Tax Policy

[TomCADem]

In March, the Nonpartisan Tax Policy Center has finished publishing a series of analyses of the candidate's respective tax plans, which can be found here:

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/research-commentary?topic_filter=261

The analysis does not specifically try to measure the impact on GDP of the respective tax plans, as well as the related spending plans offered by the candidates. But, as this WaPo story discusses, at least Hillary and Bernie's plans are based on reality based assumptions compared to the plans offered by Republicans:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-democrats-adult-campaign/2016/03/05/b0854d42-e257-11e5-9c36-e1902f6b6571_story.html

Take, for example, the fundamental question of how a government should tax and spend. Ms. Clinton in particular has offered a raft of serious, progressive proposals that are grounded in reality, even though the electorate has sometimes seemed more interested in ideological pizzazz. The independent Tax Policy Center, which has been examining each candidate’s fiscal plans, reported last week that Ms. Clinton’s would raise about $1.1 trillion in new revenue over a decade, almost entirely from very high earners. She would spend a significant portion of this money — on a tax cut for the middle class, making college debt-free and other programs. Though it is still unclear exactly how much of Ms. Clinton’s new revenue would be put to righting the country’s long-term budget outlook, hers is the most fiscally responsible plan on the table.

Mr. Sanders also claims to pay for all the new spending he proposes. But he would increase taxes — mostly on the wealthy, but on everyone to some extent — by a whopping $15.3 trillion over 10 years. The revenue would go to making college and health care free, among other goals. But the tax hikes would be so large and the spending requirements of his new programs so uncertain that the analysts warn that the plan carries economic risks that they cannot measure. There is little precedent for increasing the size of government so much and so fast.

The Republicans lately have not been much interested in discussing such matters. But they all have made proposals — and none of them passes the laugh test, as the Tax Policy Center analyses show.

Unsurprisingly, Donald Trump’s plan would do the most damage, reducing federal revenue by $9.5?trillion over 10 years. Ted Cruz takes the silver medal for irresponsibility, reducing revenue by $8.6?trillion, and Marco Rubio claims the bronze with a mere $6.8 trillion reduction. Each plan would require “unprecedented spending cuts” to work — on the order of slashing the entire defense budget or greater.

[SunSeeker]

1. K & R

[TomCADem]

2. Important and Also Cures Insomnia!

You can almost see why the media chooses to cover Republicans acting childish.

[muriel_volestrangler]

3. And the awful thing is that, thanks to the Republican's stranglehold on the House,

the realistic Democratic plans have no chance of getting enacted. If the Democrats do well in 2020 at state levels, then the Republican gerrymandering might be rolled back, and in 2022 a sane House might be elected, but it's almost impossible to get a Democratic budget passed before that.

If something went wrong and a Republican got in as president with a Senate majority in 2016, they could ruin the USA's government.

Vote Democrat. Whoever the nominee is, and in the House and Senate too. The future of the USA depends on it.

[pampango]

4. Good read for anyone who thinks Trump is 'to the left' of any Democrat on tax policy.

I've seen that opinion posted a few times.