Well, according to the National Taxpayers Union, Gore is following Max's advice and spending the surplus. So Max, has Gore joined the EPI on spending or are the NTU numbers distorted? - Nathan
First part of article:
Risky Schemes and Squandered Opportunities: A Comparison of Al Gore's and George W. Bush's Spending Proposals NTU Foundation Issue Brief 127
By Tom E. McClusky
August 18, 2000
Both major political conventions may be behind us and Election Day may be mercifully closing in, but a long campaign trail paved with costly political promises confronts Vice President Al Gore and Governor George W. Bush. How would the price tags of their presidential agendas affect the current projected surplus, and with them the fortunes of the American economy?
Following an extensive examination of the two Presidential candidates' speeches, press releases, agendas, issue briefs, and fact sheets by National Taxpayers Union Foundation (NTUF), in this time of a projected ten-year surplus of $2.173 trillion1 both candidates are campaigning on who can spend the surplus quicker -- and one of them has pulled far ahead. As seen in Table 1, Governor Bush, while addressing issues not usually associated with Republicans such as education, health care, and low-income housing, would like to increase annual spending by over $42 billion a year, or $425 billion over ten years. The Democratic candidate, Al Gore, approaches traditional Republican issues like national defense and crime, and ends up with a total five times larger than his opponent -- an increase in spending of over $233 billion a year (see Table 2). As Figure 1 illustrates, Vice President Gore's total agenda over ten years would equal $2.334 trillion, swallowing all of the surplus - - actually creating a deficit of $161 billion.