WASHINGTON – Infrastructure plans proposed by Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump could cost anywhere from $300 billion to $600 billion, according to a recent report by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.
The report, "Promises and Price Tags: A Preliminary Update," said that while both proposals lack the details needed to make anything beyond a preliminary cost estimate, they would both add to the national debt.
Clinton's infrastructure spending, which she has said would be paid for as part of her business tax reform, is expected to add $300 billion to the debt, according to the report.
If further details of the business tax reform plan were to be released, it could generate an additional $275 billion of revenue and result in modest deficit reduction, CRFB said.
Clinton's plan would increase federal infrastructure funding by $275 billion over five years. It would allocate $25 billion to direct public investment as well as $25 billion to a new national infrastructure bank that would be leveraged to support an additional $225 billion in direct loans, loan guarantees, and other forms of credit enhancement.
The national infrastructure bank would also administer Build America Bonds, which would be renewed and expanded under the Democratic nominee's plan.
Should Trump double the cost of Clinton's infrastructure plan as he has previously said he would, it would cost between $500 and $600 billion, according to the report. CRFB said the Republican nominee's infrastructure policy is "assumed to be insignificant" in its current form due to lack of detail, but said once released, it could have a "significant fiscal impact."
Trump has proposed borrowing several hundred billion dollars to spend on infrastructure, but does not specifically mention municipal bonds, the main infrastructure financing tool, or their tax-exempt standing in his current plan.
The report also said that Trump's plan would add "significantly more" to the national debt. Clinton's plan, marked by increased spending and revenue, would add $200 billion to the debt over the next decade, while Trump's plan, marked by a decrease in both non-interest spending and revenue, would add $5.3 trillion to the debt, the group said.
The report, issued Sept. 22, follows a June report by CRFB that estimated at the time that Clinton's plan would increase the debt by $250 billion over the next decade, while Trump's would increase the debt by $11.5 trillion.
The $50 billion difference in Clinton's cost estimate was due to the Democrat's recently proposed $250 billion of ten-year spending increases, $250 billion of revenue decreases, and $550 billion of offsetting revenue increases, the report's authors said.
The cost would also be more than offset with the business tax reform plan Clinton has called for but not yet released, they added.
Trump's $5.3 trillion current estimate from $11.5 trillion in June was attributed to a less costly tax plan and new spending cuts.
Still, CRFB warned that the $14 trillion current national debt, projected to grow by nearly 86% by 2026, will only continue to worsen under the plans.
"This large and growing national debt threatens to slow economic growth and is ultimately unsustainable," the report read. "Yet neither presidential candidate has a plan to address it."
CRFB said it based its estimates of Trump's plan largely on those published by The Tax Foundation in September, while its estimates for Clinton were based largely on figures published by The Tax Policy Center in March. The figures in its report were "rough and rounded," it said, and will be updated as the campaigns move forward.
CRFB, based in Washington, is a nonpartisan group that includes former members of the House and Senate Budget Committees, the Congressional Budget Office, and the Federal Reserve Board among others. It regularly publishes reports on issues with significant fiscal policy impact.
