USA TODAY International Edition
GOP hopefuls spout iffy economics
On TPP, candidates grow away from party’s pro- trade roots
Tax cuts plans cost trillions
If Republicans are the party of fiscal responsibility, as opposed to those big- spending Democrats, you wouldn’t know it from the GOP candidates’ reckless tax- cut proposals. Donald Trump’s plan would reduce federal revenue by a staggering $ 10 trillion over 10 years, Marco Rubio’s by $ 2.4 trillion and Jeb Bush’s by $ 1.6 trillion, according to analyses by the non- partisan Tax Foundation.
One of the scariest moments in Tuesday’s GOP presidential debate came when Ted Cruz suggested his proposal was more responsible because it would cost only about three- quarters of a trillion dollars over 10 years.
Even worse, these numbers depend on the economic growth the candidates claim their plans will create. Studies and real- world experiments show that big tax cuts don’t reliably spur growth, but they surely wreck budgets.
Candidates always claim they’ll offset revenue losses with spending cuts, yet that promise rarely gets fully detailed, much less fulfilled.
Ironically, the candidates are proposing these plans when the federal deficit is falling, a trend their proposals would reverse.
The candidates are right: The tax code is a mess that needs to be overhauled and simplified. Tax reform will do more harm than good, however, if it explodes deficits and tacks trillions of dollars more onto the national debt.
Listening to some of the Republican candidates bash the newly unveiled Trans- Pacific Partnership, one can’t help but conclude that this is not President Reagan’s GOP anymore.
Reagan was unambiguous in his support for trade as a generator of economic growth and global democratization. Most of the presidential aspirants who took to the stage for another debate Tuesday sounded more like a bunch of labor bosses. They claim they are pro- trade in principle, but somehow can’t bring themselves to support the largest, most important trade pact in at least two decades.
As is the case in most endeav- ors involving hyperbole and simplistic answers, Donald Trump was the leader of this anti- trade pack. He excoriated the TransPacific agreement by claiming that China has gained an unfair trade advantage in recent years — an interesting argument considering that China is frozen out of this deal, which was conceived in part as a check to its ambitions in Asia.
But Trump is not the only one beating the anti- trade drum. Sens. Rand Paul and Ted Cruz both voted against legislation that allowed the trade deal to be finalized. And Cruz, Carly Fiorina, Mike Huckabee and Bobby Jindal are among those who have explic- itly opposed the measure. ( Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio and Rick Santorum have signaled support.)
The opponents seem to rely mainly on the political argument that if President Obama negotiated it, it must be bad.
If they insist on letting partisanship drive the party away from Reagan and the GOP’s pro- trade roots, maybe they should consider this: Hillary Clinton is against the trade pact, too. Rather than turn their backs on free trade, they should go after the Democratic front- runner for siding with Big Labor and against the American consumers, farmers and exporters who would benefit from the Trans- Pacific deal.
Cruz has his own ‘ oops’ moment
Someone should tell Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas that if he’s going to say he would eliminate five federal departments and agencies, he should be able to name them.
Cruz could only come up with four during Tuesday’s Republican debate, eliciting instant comparisons to former Texas governor Rick Perry’s infamous “oops” moment during a similar debate four years ago, when he could only name two of his targeted three.
But forgetting a name is not the silliest thing about eliminating departments and agencies. The silliest thing is that it wouldn’t save much money.
When people say they would eliminate a department, in most cases what they mean is that they would merely eliminate the jobs at the top that bind together a number of unrelated parts.
Cruz, for example, wants to get rid of the Commerce Department. So much so that he listed it twice. But the main parts of the department include the Patent and Trademark Office, the Census Bureau and the weather forecasting agencies. Few people seriously want to do away with these. Similarly, the Energy Department is principally composed of agencies that oversee and protect America’s nuclear arsenal.
Don’t be fooled when candidates call for getting rid of departments and agencies — even when they can remember which ones they want to eliminate.