A new analysis of the tax and spending plans offered by Vice President Harris and former President Trump finds that both would add trillions of dollars to the national debt over the next decade on top of projected budget deficits.
The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) analyzed the various tax and spending proposals put forward by Trump and Harris on the campaign trail and on Monday released updated figures accounting for the latest policies the candidates have called for.
CRFB found that Harris’ plan would add about $3.95 trillion in additional debt over the 10-year period from 2026-2035 based on their central estimate, with a high-end estimate of $8.3 trillion and a high-end estimate of $300 million to account for uncertainty in how her policies would be implemented. By contrast, Trump’s plan would add $7.75 trillion to the debt in that period based on CRFB’s central estimate, with a high estimate of $15.55 trillion and a low estimate of $1.65 trillion.
“The debt is projected to reach record levels as a share of the economy if we do nothing, and rather than do nothing, both of these candidates – if their agendas were enacted in full – would actually make the fiscal situation much worse,” Marc Goldwein, SVP and senior policy director at CRFB, told FOX Business.
FEDERAL DEFICIT NEARING $2 TRILLION AND GETTING WORSE, EXPERTS WARN
“Our analysis is not a projection of what will happen, it’s an estimate of what candidates are proposing to happen, and that starting point is really important because it can set the terms of debate especially if there ends up being unified government, but even if not,” Goldwein said. “The facts on the ground are that debt is headed to record levels, interest costs are eating the rest of the budget alive, interest rates remain high, inflationary pressures risk coming back. And so policymakers, I hope, will feel some pressure to actually get the debt under control.”
CRFB’s analysis projects that the debt-to-GDP ratio, which compares the debt held by the public to the size of the U.S. economy, is set to rise from 99% of GDP this year to 125% at the end of 2035 based on the Congressional Budget Office’s baseline under current law – passing the record of 106% set in 1946 in the next three years.
Based on the central estimate of Harris’ plan, the debt would rise to 134% of GDP in fiscal year 2035, while Trump’s would push debt to 143% of GDP in that period.
US NATIONAL DEBT HITS A NEW RECORD: $35 TRILLION
Neither Trump nor Harris has offered substantial plans to address the rapid growth in spending on Social Security and Medicare, two of the main drivers of the rising debt along with interest expenses. Goldwein explained, “Neither candidate is really talking about any significant changes to Social Security or Medicare or Medicaid, for that matter. So no candidate has any plan that you would expect would slow the underlying debt, even over the very long run.”
He added that Trump’s proposal to eliminate taxes on Social Security benefits, which apply to a portion of the benefits received by higher income retirees, would worsen the entitlement program’s financial outlook by taking that tax revenue off the table.
“That’s a revenue source where the cost will grow over time and it will weaken the finances of Social Security and Medicare over time. It is akin to expanding Social Security benefits for higher earners in a way that’s quite costly over time,” Goldwein said.
ECONOMIST OFFERS BIPARTISAN PLAN TO AVOID FINANCIAL CRISIS BY STABILIZING AMERICA’S SURGING NATIONAL DEBT
Brian Riedl, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute focusing on budget, tax and economic policy, told FOX Business that the Trump and Harris fiscal plans have focused on trying to appeal to voters at the expense of addressing the debt.
“It’s panderfest 2024, both candidates are essentially playing Santa Claus hoping to buy off voters with expensive new benefits completely without regard to cost,” Riedl said. “No matter which candidate wins, we’re going to be looking at 10-year deficits between $25 trillion and $30 trillion even assuming peace, prosperity and low interest rates. It’s completely unsustainable.”
Riedl said it’s a “mathematically impossible gimmick” to use higher taxes on wealthy Americans to offset increased spending and noted: “Even when Democrats held the trifecta in 2021 and 2022, they did not even bring the vast majority of their upper-income tax hikes to the floor for a vote because they’re gimmicks. These promises of unlimited taxing the rich are really not serious proposals Democrats have any intention of actually bringing to the floor.”
He also said that Trump’s plan relies heavily on tariffs as a tax revenue source, but it’s unclear if they’ll be implemented or used as a negotiating tactic. If the tariffs are implemented, they would raise between $2 trillion and $4.3 trillion in tax revenue over a decade according to CRFB’s analysis.
“A lot of congressional Republicans believe that the tariff talks is more a negotiating strategy than an actual proposal to implement, then Trump is looking at about $10 trillion in new costs on top of a $22 trillion baseline deficit, this would accelerate a debt crisis,” Riedl said.
Read the full article here
