Despite Republican efforts to portray her as a tax-and-spend class-war mongering liberal, Massachusetts Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren has actually turned out to be a bigger fiscal hawk than her Republican opponent Scott Brown.
An analysis published on July 11th by the The Boston Globe found that Warren's deficit plan would cut 67% more of the debt than the plan offered by Brown.
A panel of nonpartisan policy analysts from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget examined both candidates’ proposal to solve the budget crisis. While neither candidates' plan works perfectly, the analysis concluded that Warren's plan did more to create a lower federal debt.
According to the Globe, "Warren’s ideas would trim $1.029 trillion from the nation’s projected debt and interest over the next decade. Brown’s ideas would reduce the debt and interest by $614.4 billion over the same period."
In brief, Warren's plan would reduce the deficit by letting the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy to expire, eliminate oil, gas, and some agriculture subsidies, raise estate taxes, and hasten the troop withdrawal from Afghanistan. Her plan supports federal stimulus spending and does not include any substantial entitlement reform.
Brown, on the other hand, would reduce the debt by repealing the Affordable Care Act, cutting the federal workforce and freezing federal pay, and cutting defense spending. He supports lowering tax rates.
In particular, the Globe analysis found weakness in Brown's plan to repeal health care as an answer to the deficit woes. Instead, finding that repealing the law would add $119 billion to deficits over the next 10 years, according to data from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.