Opinion: Trump-Harris debate ignores the nation’s biggest problem — debt

Did you notice what was missing from the Donald Trump-Kamala Harris debate Tuesday night?
It wasn’t the consumption of household pets. Not the accusation that the other candidate is a Marxist. Not the claim that one candidate left with the worst unemployment rate since the Great Depression. Not accusations about Project 2025. Not the love letters to North Korea’s dictator, Kim Jong Un. Not even the promise to end all wars in a single day. All of those were covered.
No, it was the $35 trillion elephant trying to hide in the corner of the room. As my old scoutmaster would say to the candidates, “If it had been a snake, it would have bitten you.”
And yet, the ballooning national debt, the one the Penn Wharton Budget Model last year predicted would reach unsustainable levels and crash the economy in about 20 years, sat completely ignored through the entire evening.
You also may have noticed two of its friends — the Social Security and Medicare trust funds — cowering in the corner, as well. Both of these popular programs face forced cuts in the next decade or so, if nothing is done to reform them. Rest assured, no one will ignore them then.
Shame on the moderators for not pressing this issue in what may be the only presidential debate this campaign season. Compared with all the topics volleyed about on the pickleball court of election rhetoric Tuesday night, none will be seen as more important, in retrospect, if politicians fail to confront the uncomfortable realities of economic doom.
Once investors lose faith in the nation’s ability to pay its debts, the Wharton brief said, “no amount of future tax increases or spending cuts could avoid the government defaulting on its debt whether explicitly or implicitly.” It added, “Unlike technical defaults where payments are merely delayed, this default would be much larger and would reverberate across the U.S. and world economies.”
I’m not sure I want to be around to watch the presidential debate in the year that snake decides to bite.
Politicians love to bask in the sunshine, even if they’re doing so on the deck of a boat that is heading toward a large waterfall. So, it may not be surprising to see both Trump and Harris campaigning on promises that would add to the nation’s spending woes.
Earlier this week, Reuters reviewed estimates based on these promises by four budget forecasters — the aforementioned Penn Wharton Budget Model, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, the Tax Foundation and Oxford Economics.
Harris wants to expand the child tax credit, provide a $6,000 tax credit for newborn babies, provide a $25,000 credit for first-time homebuyers and cancel taxes on wages from tips. The forecasters differ on their estimates on these, saying it could add up to $1.4 trillion to deficits over a decade, or actually reduce them by up to $400 billion.
This is because of Harris’ proposed tax hikes. She would keep the Trump tax cuts in place for people earning less than $400,000, plus add the trillions in tax hikes on corporations (raising the corporate rate to 28%) and on the wealthiest Americans that President Joe Biden has proposed.
These would largely offset her new spending, but it’s more than worth noting that these calculations are separate from the Congressional Budget Office’s assumptions that the debt will jump by $22 trillion by 2034, even if no one promises anything.
Trump would keep the entirety of his 2017 tax cuts, which are set to expire in 2025. That could keep Washington from collecting another $4 trillion. He also would exempt tips from taxes and cut corporate income taxes from 21% to 15%. He would also exempt Social Security income from taxes.
Reuters said some of the forecasters estimate Trump’s promises would add $6.6 trillion to deficits over 10 years. But not all of them included the $3.8 trillion he would gain from his promised increases in tariffs. The Tax Policy Center said these would be offset by the increased cost of imported goods.
The problem with these figures is that the promises are beginning to come faster than experts can keep up. Harris’ $50,000 for startup businesses, for instance, is too new and too undefined to include.
Reuters quoted Shai Akabas, economic policy director for the Bipartisan Policy Center, saying it’s normal that “candidates are going to put their popular policy priorities ahead of fiscal responsibility on both sides.”
Is there any good news?
Well, as we watch the red ink fall from the sky like Dr. Seuss’s oobleck, we may be grateful for one thing. No president could enact any of these promises without a compliant Congress.
So, with a nod to the nation’s inspired founders, here’s hoping for more gridlock on Capitol Hill. Maybe it can keep those snakes at bay for a few more years.