Can the national debt be cut? How Republican candidates' plans compare.

Here's a comparative look at the candidates based on the group's numbers.

Ron Paul

Jae C. Hong/AP
Republican presidential candidate, Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, gestures during a Republican presidential debate Wednesday, Feb. 22, in Mesa, Ariz.

Overview. The Texas congressman, known for his libertarian views, proposes the most sweeping government downsizing of any of the Republican candidates. His philosophy is to cut taxes, transfer more power to the states, and give more choice to individuals. His plans would do the most to control the national debt, the CRFB finds, but they still might not leave the debt substantially smaller than it is today.

The results. National debt would stand at 67 percent of GDP by 2021 under the "low-debt scenario" for Representative Paul's economic plan. Economists would see such an outcome as a meaningful improvement in America's fiscal condition, compared with current trends. But that doesn't mean they would endorse Paul's chosen mix of tax and spending policies.

In the "intermediate-debt scenario," which the CRFB views as its more realistic assessment, national debt would rise to 76 percent of GDP by 2021.

Why his plan gets there. Paul's reductions to federal revenue would span from personal to corporate income taxes (and include eliminating the estate tax). But under the two scenarios shown here, his spending cuts would be even larger. That would steer deficits downward compared with their trend.

He would parallel other GOP candidates by block-granting Medicaid and some other entitlement programs to the states, as well as freezing their growth. He also calls for big cuts in both defense and nondefense spending.

One wild card, with Paul, is his proposal to end the Federal Reserve. He has acknowledged that, if elected, he would be unlikely to achieve this goal quickly. He argues that his proposed changes to monetary policy would curb inflation and strengthen the economy. Some economists say the absence of a central bank could destabilize the economy, with negative implications not just for jobs but also for federal deficits.

4 of 4

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.