Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget: Publications, Events and More

Maya MacGuineas in Lake County News | 'FactChecking Debate No. 2: Nonsense in Nashville'

Articles — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 11:37:00 -0400

New America in the News:
The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget has found that both Obama and McCain are proposing combinations of tax and spending policies that would increase the federal deficit. It found that in 2013, Obama’s proposals would produce a net deficit increase of $286 billion, while McCain's major policies would produce a net deficit increase of between $167 billion and $259 billion. In talking to CNN, CRFB President Maya MacGuineas estimated that McCain's deficit increase would fall midway between the extremes of that range, at $211 billion. LINK

Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget in The Washington Times | 'Nix the Promises'

Articles — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 09:17:00 -0400

New America in the News:

"Unfortunately, winning is more important than governing."

That's the conclusion of Leon Panetta, co-chairman of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, who sent a message Wednesday to both presidential candidates - Barack Obama and John McCain -- that they can forget their costly campaign promises to the American people.

The former California congressman and White House chief of staff under President Clinton added up approximately $400 billion worth of new initiatives promised by the two candidates (the majority, more than $300 billion in spending, is proposed by Mr. Obama), which Mr. Panetta said just isn't going to happen given the country's economic woes.

Mr. Panetta also warned that the massive federal deficit will likely get worse in the short term, and balancing the books will hinge on whether the next president and Congress exercise "discipline." LINK

Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget in Roll Call | 'McCain, Obama Again Dodged Priority Questions'

Articles — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 08:18:00 -0400

New America in the News:

Prior to the crisis, McCain was promising to balance the federal budget by 2013, but the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimated that, at best, he'd rack up a deficit of $147 billion.

The committee estimated McCain's proposed tax cuts to cost $417 billion to $485 billion that year - based on his campaign's own estimates - but another group, the Brookings Institution-Urban Institute Tax Policy Center, said they could cost $700 billion, based on McCain's statements in stump speeches...

...At a post-debate panel sponsored by the New America Foundation on Wednesday, former Rep. Bill Frenzel (R-Minn.), a budget expert now with Brookings, said that all pre-crisis estimates have become "obsolete" - meaning, the new reality is much worse.

"Last night," he said, the candidates "were specifically asked about how their priorities might change and what sacrifices they were asking for. It's in the nature of political candidates to be cunningly evasive and they offered no clues to the answers to these questions."

He noted that Congress undoubtedly would add a new economic stimulus package to this fiscal year's spending agenda and "after last night, I have a sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach" about the nation's fiscal situation.

Another panelist, former Comptroller General David Walker, now president of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, said that current deficits and the $10 trillion national debt were far from the full burden facing the next generation.

Entitlement promises - chiefly Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefits - amount to $55 trillion, constituting "massive taxation without representation."

"The low tax, high spending policies of the current generation is putting a burden on the next generation that is not only fiscally irresponsible, but morally reprehensible," Walker said, and added that, "I was disappointed in both of the presidential candidates" for not addressing the problem. LINK (subscription required)

Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget in USA Today | 'Fact Check: What Was Said, What's True'

Communications — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 12:55:00 -0400

New America in the News:

The claims: McCain said Obama "is proposing $860 billion of new spending." Obama responded by saying, "You'll hear Sen. McCain say, 'Well, he's proposing a whole bunch of new spending,' but actually I'm cutting more than I'm spending so that it will be a net spending cut."

The facts: A study by the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget found that McCain's tax and spending proposals would add $288 billion to $354 billion to the federal budget deficit by 2013. Obama's proposals would add about $387 billion to the deficit by 2013, the study says. LINK

Committee for a Responsbile Federal Budget in The New York Times | 'Check Point: The Second Presidential Debate'

Communications — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 12:35:00 -0400

New America in the News:

Most Liberal | 9:15 p.m.Senator John McCain suggested that Senator Barack Obama had the “most liberal big spending record in the United States Senate.” A moment later, Mr. McCain said that his Democratic rival has proposed “$860 billion in new spending.”

This is the same assertion that Mr. McCain has been making in recent weeks on the campaign trail. Where does he get that figure? The McCain campaign said it is based on adding up all of the programs that Mr. Obama has proposed, more than 40 initiatives throughout the course of the campaign.

But it does not factor in any of the money that an Obama administration would save through cutbacks in other programs.

Late last month, the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget has called Mr. McCain’s $860 billion assertion “a misleading figure taken out of context.” LINK

Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget in Associated Press | 'Fact Check: Obama, McCain Twist Records'

Communications — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 11:29:00 -0400

New America in the News:

OBAMA: "Actually I'm cutting more than I'm spending so that it will be a net spending cut."

THE FACTS: The bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates Obama would increase spending by $425 billion over four years and reduce spending by $144 billion for a net increase in the deficit of $281 billion. Obama has said he'll cut pork-barrel programs and the costs of the war in Iraq to pay for his programs -- as well as raise taxes on the wealthy -- but the specifics of his new spending plans outweigh the few spending cuts he's identified. LINK

Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget on CBS News | 'Debunking The Candidates' Debate Claims'

Articles — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 11:05:00 -0400

New America in the News:
"I'm cutting more than I am spending, so that it will be a net spending cut," Obama said.

The fact is, Obama's promises will increase the deficit. The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget says Obama hikes the deficit by $281 billion in four years. McCain is also a big spender - $215 billion in the red. LINK to video

Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget event in Dow Jones SmartMoney | 'Economists: Another Stimulus Bill Likely'

Articles — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 10:37:00 -0400

New America in the News:

A number of economists at an event sponsored by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a group of federal budget hawks, said a second stimulus is in the offing.

"I think we'll get a stimulus package, whether it's spending or tax cuts," said Tim Adams, a former Treasury undersecretary for international affairs. "I think there is certainly a need for spending on infrastructure."

Dean Baker, co-director of the left-leaning Center for Economic and Policy Research, called for a "green stimulus."

"Let's give the money to state and local governments for households and businesses to retrofit their buildings so they are energy efficient," Baker said.

Even if a bill isn't enacted in the lame-duck sessions, the next president will face pressure to enact stimulus spending if economic conditions continue to erode. Alice Rivlin, a deputy director of the White House Office of Management and Budget under President Bill Clinton and a former Federal Reserve governor, said the next president more likely than not will have to push for stimulus spending.

"This president will be facing a much more difficult situation than [Clinton administration officials] faced in 1993," Rivlin said. "We thought we needed a stimulus package and it turned out not be necessary. This president is going to need a strong stimulus package." LINK

Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget on Fox News | 'Fox Special Report with Brit Hume: Political Headlines'

Communications — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 13:07:00 -0400

New America in the News:

BRIT HUME: ..The chairman of the House Financial Services Committee is suggesting that Republican criticism of Democrats over the nation's housing crisis is a racially motivated attack on the poor.

Democratic congressman Barney Frank of Massachusetts said Monday at a mortgage foreclosure symposium in Boston "They," Republicans, "get to take things out on poor people. Let's be honest. The fact that some of these poor people are black doesn't hurt them either from their standpoint.

This is an effort, I believe, to appeal to a certain kind of anger in people."

Frank also dismissed charges that the Democrats failed on their own or blocked Republican efforts to rein in mortgage companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. "If I could have stopped the Republican bill during the Bush years, I wish I would have started with the war in Iraq."

An analysis of the presidential candidates' tax and spending proposal shows Barack Obama would create larger deficit than John McCain by the end of the first term.

The bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget says by 2013 Obama would outspend McCain by at least $27 billion and by as much as $119 billion.

LINK to video

What Comes Next?

Communications — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 06:30:00 -0400

A New America Event
10/08/2008 - 9:00am

On Wednesday, October 8^th, experts from private industry, think tanks and government came together on two panels to discuss the recent financial crisis and its effect on future policy. The first panel discussed the economic conditions surrounding the bailout and possible government responses, and featured Mark Zandi of Moody's Economy.com, Martin Baily of the Brookings Insititution, Rob Dugger of the Tudor Investment Corporation, Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, and Tim Adams of The Lindsey Group. The second panel covered the likely policy ramifications of the crisis and how the next administration should respond, and included Leon Panetta, former Head of the Office of Management and Budget and Former Chief of Staff for President Clinton, Bill Frenzel, former Minnesota representative and ranking minority member on the House Budget Committee, Rudolph Penner, Senior Fellow at The Urban Institute, Alice Rivlin, former director of the Congressional Budget Office, and David Walker, President and CEO of the Peterson Foundation.

Martin Bailey kicked off the first panel, explaining that we had arrived at this crisis because housing prices went out of line with market fundamentals, and people no longer had a clear understanding of the risks involved in buying a home or purchasing certain mortgage-backed securities. A variety of causes contributed to this "housing bubble:" the easy availability of credit, interest rate cuts by the Federal Reserve, and money flowing to the U.S. from around the world. Other systemic problems abounded: many of the companies issuing mortgages had no financial stake in the credit-worthiness of people to whom they sold mortgages, and rating and regulatory agencies failed to provide a controlling influence. The economy is already showing signs of recession, a pattern that would likely continue through at least 2009.

Bailey said he "reluctantly" supported the bailout. As an additional measure, Bailey recommended that the Treasury buy non-voting equity in banks to provide them with much-needed capital. In the long term, he said it was clear that a new "regulatory regime" for finance would be necessary, and that some system would have to be devised so that all economic parties could better understand the risk they undertook.

Dean Baker thought the bailout was necessary, but noted that the government, by buying up $700 billion worth of toxic mortgage securities, has made it more difficult to pursue other options. He believed that the Fed and Treasury have enough "duct tape" measures to prevent the crisis from becoming too severe, but called attention to other worrying economic indicators (e.g., industrial production, auto sales) that have received less attention recently because of the turmoil in Congress and on Wall Street. Baker suggested that another economic stimulus package might be necessary. He also proposed the imposition of a small tax on financial transactions as a mechanism against speculation and an additional government revenue-generator.

Mark Zandi believed that the financial panic of the past month virtually ensured that there would be a worldwide recession, and thought that the U.S. unemployment rate would probably rise to 7.5-8% before the crisis abated. Saying that "we will be worth less for a long time to come," Zandi speculated that the country's decreased wealth, and loss of consumer confidence that accompanied it, would negatively affect the GDP by at least one percentage point. Zandi predicted that the cumulative budget deficit would be at least a half-trillion dollars larger for the next president.

On the upside, he said that governmental interventions will be successful, citing especially the recent decision to buy commercial paper and coordinated rate cuts by the Fed and other national banks. Zandi believed the $700 billion rescue plan would work, and said the prices that arose through a reverse auction of "toxic" securities would serve as a signal indicating which banks needed additional capital. He also expressed hope that the nationalization of the housing market would "help insulate the mortgage from the vagaries of the financial system."

Rob Dugger said that the housing bubble was only part of the problem with the US economy. He declared that "the US has relied on savings from the rest of the world" for some time, and that housing was just the first part of the economy to be affected because it is the "most interest-rate sensitive market." Dugger said the underlying problem is an inability by the US to finance itself in any sector, and that a "debt-financed, consumption-led growth strategy" was no longer sustainable.

He called attention to the problems of energy and food prices, saying that most buildings were obsolete and profoundly energy inefficient, and rising food prices are hampering the ability of families to create a workable budget. Dugger lamented that spending was growing far faster than revenue, citing a 6-7% drop per year in discretionary spending. Dugger predicted that we would only see long-term economic recovery and stability when foreign confidence was restored in US assets, the population accepts a tax burden in line with its spending priorities, and government starts operating at a sustainable spending level.

Tim Adams also believed that the government would create another stimulus package, and would try to keep foreclosures at a minimum. Adams wondered if "there would be any mortgage infrastructure left" once the economy recovers. He worried that the global nature of the current financial crisis might tempt some nations or regions to "turn inward" to create a protectionist buffer from future financial shocks. Before the crisis is over, Adams believed that the world might see a few "failed states," and called attention to some formerly emerging markets which are now in shambles. Lastly, Adams saw a potential positive in the crisis, saying that "for thirty years we have been spending more than we earned," and that recent events may finally force us to re-examine these patterns and decide on a more limited set of important fiscal priorities.

After Adams finished, moderator Maya MacGuineas asked the panelists to expand upon their earlier points by discussing the US long-term financial outlook, and what other options government officials might have at their disposal. Most of the panelists noted that, despite a growing national debt, they were pleasantly surprised by the continual interest of investors in buying more US Treasury bonds. Martin Bailey warned that the US may be "running out of ideas" to jump-start the economy, pointing to a stimulus package as one of regulators' favorite tools. Dean Baker suggested that the government implement a "green stimulus" that would subsidize buildings to retrofit their facilities into greater energy efficiency. Mark Zandi thought that a tax incentive to buy a home in 2009 might help clear out excess home inventories and help jump-start the economy. On the question of the long-term health of the economy, panelists were mixed. Mark Zandi pointed to the fact much of the population has spend within its means and has a "basically sound balance sheet," and this population accounts for over three-quarters of consumer spending. Rob Dugger said that we have seen the most visible portion of the credit contraction already, and predicted that we would soon see a drying up of credit begin to ravage the "real" economy, which would reveal the fragility of household finances.

Time for questions from the audience was short, but one questioner asked whether the US ought to create a "sovereign wealth fund" similar to the model set up by some other nations. Another asked whether the federal government should begin providing additional assistance to states. Panelists seemed unenthusiastic about the creation of a sovereign wealth fund. Most thought that any future stimulus package would need to provide some aid for the states.

Leon Panetta started the second panel by commenting that "balanced-budget hawks are an endangered species," and noted how past presidents from both parties, like Reagan and Clinton, both had to make difficult spending decisions to achieve a fiscally responsible budget. Panetta said that the next president would face a more difficult task than either of these past presidents: a $700+ billion deficit and an economy in recession. Panetta also cautioned that by involving itself so heavily in the private market, the government was opening the door to ever-growing new calls for a "bailout" in other areas. Panetta recommended that the next president limit his new initiatives severely, and called on the next administration to devise a 5-year strategy for returning to fiscal discipline. PAYGO rules would have to be enforced, and some type of entitlement reform would have to happen.

Bill Frenzel opened by saying that the next president's campaign promises would have to go "out the window," predicting a possible $1 trillion deficit in the next budget. He was pessimistic that a new administration would see through serious spending cuts to improve the US fiscal position. He feared that the next president and future congressional sessions would fail to adopt a strong, decisive plan to deal with the crisis, and would instead opt to “just move forward as usual."

Rudy Penner said "the world had changed" since the presidential campaigns started, and that next year would "be like a cold shower" to whoever enters the White House and tries to see through his campaign promises. Penner joked that "debt has been our most successful export," and wondered whether foreign investors would continue to buy US debt for much longer. He expressed hope that the current crisis could serve as a "golden opportunity" for various parts of government and the public to come together and re-define its fiscal priorities. Penner said that public education must be a part of this effort, because the public "won't accept higher taxes," as long as it holds the perception, as it currently does, that the tax system is unfairly preferential to the rich and inefficient.

Alice Rivlin drew attention to the previous night's presidential debate, saying that neither candidate did particularly well on fiscal issues, and that both men, if elected president, would have to prove their leadership capabilities on economic and budget issues. Her biggest economic concern in the short term was the need to re-start the flow of credit, and she believed that the Paulson bailout plan was a good step towards this goal, though it might take a while to succeed. Above all, she said, inaction would be extraordinarily costly. Rivlin also laid out two possible criteria for any new spending: that it be "clearly temporary," or that it go towards a project, like infrastructure rebuilding, which we needed to do anyway. Finally, Rivlin pointed to the long-run challenges of entitlement reform, and was hopeful that either candidate, if elected, would be able to create the political will to tackle these problems.

David Walker set a strong tone from the beginning, saying that we live in a "dysfunctional democracy" with a grave lack of leadership. Leaders in government were "reacting" to problems, rather than staying "ahead of the curve,' and some of the actions the government had taken were "perhaps unconstitutional." Walker said this state of affairs was "morally reprehensible," and would in effect be "taxation without representation" of coming generations. He called on the next president to create a budgetary panel that would make recommendations for statutory budget controls, Social Security reform, tax reform, and healthcare reform. Walker also thought the press had been lax in its duty to "hold government accountable" for fiscal irresponsibility.

The first question came from the moderator, Maya MacGuineas, who asked how the next president can best "do the right thing" to restore fiscal accountability. Leon Panetta answered that the next president "must be honest with the American people," and if he does so, "the American people are not stupid" and will realize the need for difficult spending and tax decisions. He said the president has to "hit the ground running" and try to push through reform during his first "honeymoon" days in office. Alice Rivlin said that while many observers have compared the next president's situation to Bill Clinton's in 1993, the next president will face far greater difficulties. If Obama were to win, she believed that his biggest resistance would come from members of his own party. Bill Frenzel answered that Obama's choice of competent cabinet members was crucial, and that he should institute a commission for budget reform whose recommendations are given an up-or-down vote. Rudy Penner expressed worry that the next president would "just muddle through" without creating a definite plan of action.

The second questioner asked if the president-elect would have to work with Bush in any way to deal with the crisis, and if additional civic education about government fiscal policy might be necessary. Most panelists thought that Bush was too unpopular at this point to figure into the next administration in any major way, although most agreed that more civic education would be appropriate.

A third questioner asked if healthcare represented another "bubble" like housing. The panelists didn't seem to think that this comparison applied well to healthcare, as the continual rise in healthcare costs came largely from increased complexity of treatment options, a trend that was unlikely to reverse itself.

The last questioner wondered when the benefits of another stimulus or rescue package might be counteracted by damage done through erosion of US fiscal position as it goes deeper into deficit and debt. David Walker answered that "all stimuli aren't equal," and the merits of any stimulus package were mostly dependent upon the content of the stimulus itself. Leon Panetta was skeptical of any future stimulus package, declaring that "the benefits are more political than economic." Bill Frenzel said that the next president must restrain Congress from creating another "obscene" rescue package.

Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget in The Washington Times | ' Obama Leaves a Bigger Deficit'

Articles — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 10:33:00 -0400

New America in the News:

By 2013 Barack Obama would outspend John McCain by at least $27 billion and as much as $119 billion, according to a new analysis of their tax and spending proposals.

McCain would cut taxes more than Obama, but would make deeper spending cuts, too, leaving him less in the red, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, headed by a former top Clinton administration official and former Republican congressman.

The projected deficit for 2013 is already $147 billion, so both men would leave the country in poor fiscal shape.

The most surprising thing about the analysis is how close the candidates' proposals are by 2013: McCain's gradual reduction of troops in Iraq ends up saving nearly as much as Obama's faster pullout, and Obama's increased taxes on high-income families only saves $48 billion that year.

Broken down by broad category, the group said McCain's tax cuts — including renewing most of the Bush tax cuts -- would subtract between $417 billion and $485 billion from government revenues, his health care plan would subtract another $54 billion to $65 billion, but his other spending cuts and proposals figure to save $291 billion to $304 billion. Coupled with the $147 billion baseline deficit, he would leave the country between $314 and $406 in the red.

Obama, meanwhile, who has also promised to renew many Bush tax cuts, would subtract $360 billion in revenue, would cost another $65 billion for his health care plan, and would save just $139 billion with his new spending cuts. His plans would leave the country with a deficit of $433 billion in 2013. LINK

Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget in CQ Weekly | ‘The Deficit: Facing up to Reality’

Communications — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 16:26:00 -0400

New America in the News:
While Obama's tax proposals are less costly than McCain's, his ideas for additional spending are more expansive. In 2013, the last year of the next president's first term, Obama proposes to boost spending by about $93 billion on education, infrastructure, basic research, foreign aid and increasing the size of the military, according to a tally from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. This would come on top of the $65 billion that he would spend yearly to broaden health care coverage. LINK (subscription required)

Maya MacGuineas in Congressional Quarterly Today | ''Blue Dogs' Finding That a House Majority Isn't Enough to Win Budget Wars'

Articles — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 13:12:00 -0400

New America in the News:
"We've found out that [paygo] does help, but only for things that are easy," said Maya C. MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, who supports the rule and has praised the Blue Dogs. She said Congress' inability to adhere to the rule suggests it may be time to rethink the entire budget process. LINK (subscription required)

CRFB Expresses Dismay at Additions to Bailout Package

Communications — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 12:50:00 -0400

Washington, D.C. -- The Senate legislation designed to stabilize financial markets included a number of extraneous items, including $150 billion in new tax breaks. The tax breaks, which were added to this version of the bill to encourage its passage, include an AMT patch along with the renewal of several individual and business tax credits. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget urges Congress to consider these tax cuts separately from the bailout package, and to offset them with new revenue or lower spending in line with pay-as-you-go (PAYGO)… more

CRFB in the New York Times | 'G.O.P. Commercial Focuses on the Bailout'

Communications — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 10:54:00 -0400

New America in the News:
. . . In fact, the most recent, comprehensive analysis of the candidates' spending and taxation plans, by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a bipartisan group, found that the costs of Mr. Obama's plans were not necessarily that much higher than those of Mr. McCain's. If Mr. Obama's pre-crisis proposals were fully enacted, the group reported, they would add $286 billion to the annual deficit by the last budget of the next presidential term, that of 2013. If fully enacted, Mr. McCain's pre-crisis proposals would add a maximum of $246 billion to the annual deficit in 2013 and a minimum of $180 billion, according to the group. The [commercial] spot is somewhat accurate in saying Mr. Obama would impose ''new taxes''; he is proposing an increase for those making more than $250,000 a year, and a tax cut for all those making less than that. . . . Full story

Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget in CNN's American Morning | 'John McCain Weighs in About the Failed Bailout Plan'

Communications — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 15:04:00 -0400

New America in the News:
ALINA CHO, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Nearly $1 trillion in new spending? That's a lot of money. Is it true? Well, you really have to break down the statement. Let's take a look at a key word in McCain's statement. He said Obama proposed more than $860 billion in new spending. The key word being "new" not "spending with cuts in other areas," but new spending. The McCain campaign simply added up the cost of programs that Obama has talked about.

But the Obama campaign told us that some of those programs will be paid for with cuts in other areas. They called the McCain figure "totally ludicrous." Now we also checked with the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, and that nonpartisan group, they agreed saying McCain's statement was misleading and taken out of context.

And listen to this. The group actually found that in the end the candidates would have about the same impact on the federal budget. The projection by the year 2013, Obama would be adding $2866 billion to the deficit, McCain, $211 billion. So back to the original charge and the question - is McCain right in saying that Obama would propose $860 billion in new spending? Well, the truth squad says - no. They call the statement misleading. The figure is simply a tally of proposed programs and does not take into account savings or cuts in other areas.

And as always, we are taking a close look at the candidates' statements each and every day, we're watching them very closely checking up on them. And of course, we'll render a verdict true, false and the always-popular, mixed or misleading which we seem to see a lot of these days. Kiran, back to you. LINK to transcript

Maya MacGuineas in CNN Political Ticker | 'Fact Check: Is Obama proposing $860 billion+ in new spending?'

Communications — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 11:47:00 -0400

New America in the News:

...The most detailed analysis of McCain's and Obama's budget plans comes from the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. The group's president, Maya MacGuineas (pronounced "McGuiness"), called McCain's statement "a misleading figure taken out of context."

The committee has looked at how much spending Obama and McCain are proposing and how much they say they'll save. The candidates have been more specific about spending than saving, but the committee gave them leeway, assuming that the savings they promise could actually happen, MacGuineas said. The committee's figures include the candidates' tax plans as well, because both include spending changes as part of their tax plans, she said.

The committee found that both candidates' fiscal policies call for spending a lot more than they bring in. By 2013, Obama's policies would add $286 billion to that year's deficit, while McCain's policies would add $211 billion, MacGuineas said.

The committee has not totaled only "new spending" for either Obama or McCain. ... Full story

Financial Bailout Package:More Promises that Come at a Price for U.S. Taxpayers

Communications — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 07:11:00 -0400

With an agreement reached on a $700 billion financial bailout package, the Committee for Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) urges lawmakers to turn their attention to how to pay for it.

"Years of borrowing have already left the U.S. government in a weakened state," said Maya MacGuineas, CRFB president. "Lawmakers need to behave responsibly and figure out how to pay for this package rather than just sticking it on the nation's tab. One clear cut lesson to come out of all this is the dangers… more

Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget in NBC's First Read | 'Every Dime?'

Communications — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 10:52:00 -0400

New America in the News:
Earlier, Obama said that he will "make sure that we have a healthcare system that allows for everyone to have basic coverage. I think those are pretty important priorities. And I pay for every dime of them."

Take a look at these numbers from the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget on the spending plans for BOTH candidates.

-- $173 billion in 2009 for Iraq and Afghanistan (Congressional Budget Office)
-- $700 billion (projected) for Wall Street bailout
-- a net of $400 billion per year (roughly) for Obama tax and spending proposals (Cmte for a Responsible Federal Budget)
-- a net of $400 billion per year (roughly) for McCain tax and spending proposals (Cmte for a Responsible Federal Budget)

So for each presidential candidate, that comes to almost $1.3 trillion -- on top of everything else in the budget. LINK

CRFB provides House Budget Committee testimony on budget reforms and the bailout package

Communications — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 10:41:00 -0400

Testifying on budget process reform yesterday on behalf of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget before the House Budget Committee, CRFB President Maya MacGuineas presented an idea to use any and all future revenues recouped from the bailout package only for paying down the government debt. Mrs. MacGuineas also urged lawmakers to use this crisis as an opportunity to come together to deal with the nation's fiscal crisis. In a bipartisan meeting she hosted with 45 lawmakers, alternative plans for dealing with… more