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.

Newt Gingrich

Evan Vucci/AP
Republican presidential candidate, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich speaks during a campaign stop at the Bing Crosby Theatre, Thursday, Feb. 23, in Spokane, Wash.

Overview. If you want your next president to be a deficit cutter – and many Americans do – former House Speaker Gingrich might be your last choice. He derides the word "austerity" and focuses unabashedly on reviving economic growth through tax cuts and other conservative policies. Unlike other candidates, he proposes tax cuts that outweigh his spending cuts under each of the three scenarios calculated by the CRFB.

The results. National debt would rise to 97 percent of GDP by 2021 under the "low-debt scenario." That's a big rise compared with status quo policies in which public debt rises to 85 percent of GDP. The jump is even worse under the "intermediate-debt scenario," with debt reaching 114 percent of GDP.

Why his plan gets there. The impact of Gingrich tax cuts on federal revenues would be large. And it would vary depending on how his proposal for a voluntary flat income tax of 15 percent plays out as an alternative to the traditional income tax. Mr. Gingrich also would eliminate estate taxes and capital-gains taxes and would lower corporate rates.

His spending policies, as tallied by the CRFB, would cut federal spending overall, but not by an amount equal to his tax cuts. He would reduce Medicaid spending by block-granting the program to states. He would eliminate most education spending.

Some of Gingrich's plans involve new spending. His goal of establishing a moon base and a mission to Mars would push federal spending up by perhaps $270 billion. His plan to offer private accounts for Social Security would also add to future deficits.

3 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.