{"id":135201,"date":"2019-10-20T21:50:40","date_gmt":"2019-10-20T21:50:40","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.bnreport.com\/2020-dems-want-to-spend-40-trillion-but-their-tax-hikes-would-raise-only-4-trillion\/"},"modified":"2019-10-20T21:50:40","modified_gmt":"2019-10-20T21:50:40","slug":"2020-dems-want-to-spend-40-trillion-but-their-tax-hikes-would-raise-only-4-trillion","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.bnreport.com\/en\/2020-dems-want-to-spend-40-trillion-but-their-tax-hikes-would-raise-only-4-trillion\/","title":{"rendered":"2020 Dems Want to Spend $40 Trillion, but Their Tax Hikes Would Raise Only $4 Trillion"},"content":{"rendered":"

Democratic presidential candidates spending programs such as Medicare for All and free college tuition would cost, on average, $40 trillion over 10 years, but their \u201ctax the rich\u201d plans will only raise about $4 trillion, according to a new study.<\/p>\n

The list of new spending ideas put forth by the top Democratic presidential seekers runs the gamut from the Green New Deal and more generous Social Security benefits to universal child-care and student debt cancellation.<\/p>\n

Total cost estimates for the list from each candidate average $40 trillion, according to Manhattan Institute senior fellow Brian Reidl, with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt) showing the highest, at $97 trillion.<\/p>\n

\u201cTo put these figures in context, the entire Gross Domestic Product over the next decade is projected by the Congressional Budget Office to be $262 trillion, and current federal spending is projected at $60 trillion,\u201d Reidl said in the study<\/a> published Oct. 17.<\/p>\n

Reidl pointed to statements among the candidates claiming their proposals can be funded simply by raising federal taxes on the wealthiest taxpayers, while holding taxes on middle-income families at current rates.<\/p>\n

As an example, Reidl cited Sanders as saying<\/a>, \u201cI believe that we should be asking the very wealthiest people in this country to start paying their fair share of taxes. That way, we will not only lower the deficit, but we will bring in enough revenue to invest in our economy and create the millions of new jobs we desperately need.\u201d<\/p>\n

And Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) has said,<\/a> \u201cMy vision for Medicare for All does not include a middle-class tax hike. Im not prepared to do that.\u201d<\/p>\n

The issue of how to fund new spending proposals was on center stage during the Oct. 15 Democratic presidential debate.<\/p>\n

When Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) was asked for a yes-or-no answer on whether her Medicare for All plan would require higher middle-class taxes, she said, \u201cI will not sign a bill into law that does not lower costs for middle-class families.\u201d<\/p>\n

Warrens evasive response drew a sharp rebuke from South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg, who said: \u201cWell, we heard it tonight\u2014a yes-or-no question that didnt get a yes-or-no answer. This is why people here in the Midwest are so frustrated with Washington in general and Capitol Hill in particular.<\/p>\n

\u201cNo plan has been laid out to explain how a multitrillion-dollar hole in this Medicare for All plan that Sen. Warren is putting forward is supposed to get filled in.\u201d<\/p>\n

Looking directly at Warren, Buttigieg declared, \u201cYour signature, senator, is to have a plan for everything, except this.\u201d<\/p>\n

Reidl also found that<\/p>\n