Marco Rubio's budget math is ridiculous
"Rubio has proposed a tax cut that will
reduce federal revenue by $6.8 trillion over 10 years. Numbers that large don't mean anything to people, so for comparison's sake let's say that if we entirely eliminated American military spending over that period we still couldn't quite pay for it.
"But of course Rubio doesn't want to eliminate military spending —
he wants to spend more. He also promises to
avoid any cuts to Social Security and Medicare for people currently at or near retirement. For good measure, he is also proposing a
balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution. You could eliminate the entire non-defense discretionary budget and you'd still need $100 billion to $200 billion more per year in cuts to make this work.
"This is, of course, totally unworkable. And the process that led Rubio to this point is telling and troubling.
"Rubio entered the Senate at a time when an intellectual movement known as "reform" was hot in conservative circles, which argued that Republicans should concentrate less on supply-side tax cuts and more on tax policy focused on the working class. This originally took the form of a
$2.4 trillion tax cut plan crafted by Utah Sen. Mike Lee that
Rubio signed on to but then kept transforming into a
larger and more regressive tax cut, as Rubio came under pressure from the supply-side wing of the party and it became clear that the constituency for "reform" conservatism was limited to a handful of media figures. Eager to prove that his dalliance with the reformocons was over, he actually ended up proposing to entirely eliminate taxes on investment income, meaning that billionaire captains of industry could end up paying nothing at all.
"The upshot is a plan that is costly and regressive, yet paired with other commitments around entitlements, military spending, and constitutional amendments that make it completely impossible.
"Trump's tax plan is even costlier than Rubio's by most measures. But in his defense, he barely ever talks about it and hasn't compounded the cost problem with a balanced-budget amendment or a firm commitment to enormous quantities of new military spending."
More >>