Posted on October 29th, 2010 in clean government, Colorado Politics, Fiscal Policy, liberty, National Politics, PPC | No Comments »
Despite the massive negative advertising campaigns and attempts to distract the voters with other issues, a major point that weighs on voters is what candidates want to do vis a vis federal government spending. Nowhere is this concern more salient than in the U.S. Senate race between Republican Ken Buck and appointed Democrat incumbent Michael Bennet (trying to hide his allegiance to President Obama’s agenda from Colorado voters).
You and I may not have time to analyze the details of how the respective candidates’ proposals will affect the already bloated federal budget and the debt my children already face, but the National Taxpayers Union (NTU) has done the work for us. Here’s the basic breakdown:
- Ken Buck’s total agenda would reduce net spending by $1.405 billion, a modest start in the right direction — though as the Heritage Foundation has shown, there is room to cut $343 billion from next year’s budget
- On the other hand, Michael Bennet’s total agenda would increase net spending by $7.345 billion, more of the same bad policy medicine we can’t afford
That’s a projected difference of $8.5 billion, frankly not a lot in the scheme of the mammoth federal budget but an indicator nonetheless of some key differences on a major issue. Thanks to NTU for at least clearing up matters a bit.