Recent studies from the nonpartisan Penn Wharton Budget Model have provided insights into the potential economic impacts of the proposed policies of former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris. The analysis reveals significant disparities in the projected effects on federal deficits over the next decade.
Trump’s economic plan aims to extend the 2017 tax cuts permanently, which would contribute to a staggering $4 trillion increase in deficits over the next 10 years. Additionally, his proposal to eliminate taxes on Social Security benefits and further reduce corporate taxes would add a combined total of over $7 trillion to the deficits. The reliance on tariffs to fund his agenda raises concerns about the potential for long-term domestic growth and the resurgence of inflation.
In contrast, Harris’ economic agenda includes expanding tax credits such as the Child Tax Credit and the Earned Income Tax Credit, resulting in a $2.1 trillion rise in deficits. Her plan to provide a $25,000 subsidy for first-time homebuyers would further add $140 billion over a decade. However, the analysis suggests that raising the corporate tax rate to 28% could offset some of the spending by $1.1 trillion.
While Harris supports revenue raisers from President Biden’s budget proposal, which total $5 trillion for 2025, the majority of her revenue streams require congressional approval. On the other hand, Trump’s approach involves implementing tariffs on imports, including a 10% tariff on all imports and a 60% tariff on Chinese imports. These tariffs are projected to generate $2.5 trillion in revenue, bypassing the need for congressional approval.
Campaign Messaging and Economic Policies
Both the Trump and Harris campaigns are engaged in a fierce battle to sway voters with contrasting economic narratives. The Harris campaign portrays Trump’s economic agenda as an inflationary and deficit-inducing threat that benefits the wealthy at the expense of the middle class. In response, the Trump campaign defends his track record as a successful businessman who revitalized the economy and criticizes Harris for promoting “Communist price controls.”
With Biden’s exit from the race, the Harris campaign faces immense pressure to establish a robust economic platform that resonates with voters. The enduring appeal of the pre-pandemic economy under the Trump administration adds complexity to the economic debate, underscoring the significance of addressing voters’ concerns about the cost of living.
The comparison of Trump and Harris’ economic proposals highlights profound differences in their approaches to fiscal policy and revenue generation. While Trump emphasizes tariff-based funding and deregulation to stimulate economic growth, Harris prioritizes tax credit expansions and corporate tax hikes to finance her spending priorities. The divergent paths chosen by the two candidates underscore the stakes of the upcoming election and the contrasting visions for the nation’s economic future.
Leave a Reply