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.

Rick Santorum

Ross D. Franklin/AP
Republican presidential candidate, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum talks to the media after a Republican presidential debate Wednesday, Feb. 22, in Mesa, Ariz.

Overview. The former US senator from Pennsylvania would cut taxes significantly compared with current US policy, while not specifying enough spending cuts to match. His income-tax overhaul would leave just two brackets, with rates of 10 or 28 percent. He would cut corporate taxes, raise the child tax credit, and eliminate the estate tax. He has called for cutting $5 trillion from federal spending within five years, but the CRFB report says he hasn't said how he'd hit that target.

The results. National debt would rise to 74 percent of GDP by 2021 under the "low-debt scenario" (which takes Mr. Santorum's own outlook for granted). That's an improvement compared with status quo policies, in which public debt rises to 85 percent of GDP by 2021.

But national debt under Santorum would jump to 104 percent of GDP in the "intermediate-debt scenario" that may be more realistic. This doesn't count spending cuts until Santorum gets more specific about his plans.

Why his plan gets there. Santorum's tax cuts would be exceeded in scale by his spending cuts, but only if he actually hits his ambitious targets on the spending side. He has proposed cutting nondefense discretionary spending to 2008 levels, but that nets a gain of just $120 billion, the CRFB says. Santorum also would reduce Medicare spending by shifting the program to a premium-support model. He would block-grant various social-welfare programs to the states and cap their growth.

2 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.