By the time you finish reading this sentence, the federal government will have spent almost $500,000 of taxpayer money.
Republicans are the party of limited government, which is why it’s not surprising that more than half of their presidential candidates have released specific plans to cut taxes. But there’s more to limited government than the amount of money government takes from its people. It’s necessary to ask candidates, “Where are your spending cuts?”
None of the Republican candidates would argue that a higher federal debt is a good thing. Yet, without addressing the spending side of the federal budget, tax cuts ultimately mean more debt. Even after accounting for economic growth spurred by lower taxes, every GOP candidate’s tax plan that’s currently available would raise the federal budget deficit, except for Rand Paul’s, according to the Tax Foundation.
Donald Trump’s tax plan would raise the budget deficit by $10 trillion over ten years. Bobby Jindal’s would increase the deficit by $9 trillion. Marco Rubio’s plan would increase GDP growth by 15 percent over 10 years, but still raise the budget deficit by $2.4 trillion over the same timeframe. Jeb Bush’s plan would have a $1.6 trillion deficit increase, Rick Santorum’s would have a $1 trillion increase, and Ted Cruz’s would have a meager $768 billion increase. Paul’s plan would cut taxes by $1.8 trillion over 10 years, but the economic growth would lead to a $737 billion deficit reduction.
Candidates may argue that large tax cuts will force Congress to find accompanying spending cuts to avoid an explosion of debt. But research shows this “starve the beast” approach of bringing down federal spending doesn’t work. To the contrary, research says low revenue levels may actually lead to increases in federal spending. Starving the beast doesn’t kill the beast; it only makes it stronger.
With that research in mind, spending plans are arguably more important than tax plans at limiting the size of government. But every four years, candidates roll out tax plans, and voters pick their candidates with little information about how they would actually bring down government spending.
Partially, this is because specific spending cuts often aren’t politically popular. Voters want to fix the federal budget, but voters become skeptical once candidates start naming specific government services to cut.
Still, candidates can surely make a list of wasteful spending that is politically beneficial to cut. The Center Against Government Waste releases an annual report of “prime cuts” that details spending cuts few would oppose. Congressman Steve Russell, R-Okla,. releases an annual Waste Watch report, carrying on a tradition started by former Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla.
Cruz’s campaign deserves praise for releasing a plan that identifies specific spending cuts. Cruz would get rid of the IRS, Department of Education, Department of Energy, Department of Commerce and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. He also lists 25 agencies and commissions he would eliminate, including sugar subsidies, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the National Endowment for the Arts. Along with the other details outlined, Cruz says these changes would save more than $500 billion over 10 years. Combined with his tax plan, Cruz’s budget would still increase the deficit by about $250 billion over 10 years. But that’s peanuts compared to the $10 trillion increase proposed by Trump.
Identifying specific spending cuts can be a liability for a candidate, but making the case for specific cuts and explaining why they’re necessary can also earn candidates the respect of many voters.
Federal debt held by the public has doubled under President Obama. Without a plan to cut spending, the next Republican president is in danger of making matters worse.
Jason Russell is a commentary writer for the Washington Examiner.
