Following this year’s presidential election, spare a thought for the US economic outlook. Irrespective as to whether Donald Trump or Kamala Harris wins that election, the country’s key economic problems are unlikely to be addressed. Worse yet, under either a prospective Trump or a Harris administration, our country’s economic problems could be exacerbated, but in different ways.

As Kenneth Rogoff and Carmen Reinhart reminded us in their magisterial book “This time it is different: Eight centuries of financial folly,” many a country’s economy has become unstuck by budget mismanagement. The economic historian Niall Ferguson goes further by reminding us that a common cause for the unravelling of previous empires was an excessive debt build up.

If ever a country has had poor budget management, it has to be our own. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) we are currently running a seven-percent-of-GDP budget deficit. We are doing so at a time when unemployment is close to an historic low. That is precisely when our budget should be in balance. According to the CBO, that puts our public debt well on track to exceed 100 percent of GDP by 2027, or a level exceeding that reached at the end of the Second World War.

Conspicuously absent in the current election campaign is any serious discussion of a policy to place our public debt on a more sustainable path. Rather, what we have is both candidates making budget promises that would further compromise our public finances.

Judging by her campaign promises, Kamala Harris would further compromise our public finances on the expenditure side. Among other things, she is promising ramped-up public spending on housing, healthcare, child and family welfare, infrastructure investment, and the environment. It is far from clear how she proposes to fund her spending initiatives in general, and the granting of Medicare for all, in particular.

Judging by his campaign promises, Donald Trump would add to the deficit by making unfunded tax cuts. Among his proposals are ending taxes on social security benefits, at an estimated cost of $1.8 trillion over a 10-year period, and making permanent the 2017 corporate and individual tax cuts, at an estimated cost of $2.5 trillion over the next decade. In addition, he is proposing further cuts in the corporate tax rate and the exemption of tips from taxes.

If the budget outlook looks grim, so too does the prospect for maintaining an open international trading system. Both candidates are promoting some version of an America First trade policy and a particularly tough line on Chinese trade. Under a Trump administration, it is difficult to see how we will avoid an international trade war. He is proposing a 60 percent tariff on all Chinese imports and a 10 percent across-the-board tariff on imports from all other countries. That is bound to invite retaliation from our trade partners that could lead us down the economically destructive road to the beggar-thy-neighbor policies of the 1930s.

There are other ways that each of the candidates could do damage to the economy. Kamala Harris might do so by excessively regulating the economy and thereby stifling investment. For his part, Donald Trump might do so by deporting millions of immigrants who have been a significant source of US economic growth over the past few years.

We have to hope that the candidates are making their promises for electoral purposes but do not intend to implement these proposals if elected to office. If that is not the case, we should brace ourselves for an economically rough four years.

The post Choose Your Economic Poison appeared first on American Enterprise Institute – AEI.