Electing a Spender in Chief

Presidential candidates often run claiming to be the most qualified to be commander-in-chief. But in the current economic environment, it's more important that they be able to manage the fiscal army and in their current proposals, Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.) and Sen. Barack Obama (D., Ill.) both seem lacking in marshalling the economy.

The two presumptive candidates have proposed to increase government spending by trillions of dollars, which would sharply increase the national deficit. The new name for the presidency: Spender in Chief.

A study by the Tax Policy Center, an offshoot of the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, analyzed the recent budget implications of each candidates' proposals. The news from the report is bad:

"Senator Obama's plan would add $3.3 trillion to the national debt (including additional interest costs) while Senator McCain's plan would add $4.5 trillion. This does not include the cost of expanding health insurance coverage and assumes that Senator McCain's proposals phase in and phase out on schedule. It also assumes that all of the candidates' optimistic revenue offsets materialize."

The analysis fails to include health-care proposals, which would likely set both candidates back even further due to generous tax credits, and assumes a 10-year effect on the budget. The study is preliminary, so I wouldn't be shocked if the campaigns tried to push back on the analysis. Nevertheless, the big numbers adding to the deficit remain worrisome.

These numbers directly contradict statements made by the candidates this week. Obama said on Monday: "Now, contrary to what John McCain may say, every single proposal that I've made in this campaign is paid for -- because I believe in pay-as-you-go."

McCain said on Tuesday: "All of these challenges, and more, will face the next president, and I will not leave them for some unluckier generation of leaders to deal with."