A new analysis is out, showing that the fiscal policies put forth under former President Donald Trump would add substantially more to the national debt than those proposed by Vice President Kamala Harris. Comparing the two leaders’ philosophies on tax cuts, spending priorities, and their long-term impacts on U.S. debt, the think tank says the differences are stark.
The Trump administration has thus far released the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, reducing corporate and individual tax rates much more than they have risen over his tenure. Dubbed growth stimulants, estimates from the Congressional Budget Office instead project nearly $1.9 trillion in additional deficits over the decade. The tax cuts were not counterbalanced by corresponding reductions in federal spending, which led to a quick buildup of national debt. Then there was further deepening of the deficit with military spending and emergency relief measures for the COVID-19 pandemic.
On the other hand, Vice President Harris has been a strong advocate, coupled with President Biden for policies that raise corporate and well-off taxpayer burdens to pay for expanded social programs and improvement of infrastructure. This will address income inequality and will propose a more balanced approach toward federally balancing the budget as there would accrue more revenues from those best positioned to pay, thus less strain on the debt forward.
The research suggests that though Harris’s policies would involve a lot of government spending, they are encapsulated with revenue-raising mechanisms in place to offset the price tag. That is in contrast to Trump’s tax cuts, which were deficit-financed and had no corresponding reductions in spending or revenue hikes.
As the economists themselves point out, however, projections for debt are inherently uncertain, depending on growth rates, inflation, or other future legislative moves. In any event, however, the findings of this research make it clear that Trump’s fiscal policies are going to affect the national debt much more so in the long term than Harris’.
In contrast, as the U.S. continues to press on with increasing concerns about its fiscal future, the differences between these two pairs of measures perhaps best reflect the kind of balance that combines growth-oriented tax measures with responsible budget management
