is it reasonable or supportable to think that Harris's budget would have led to a lower deficit than Trump's?
It is not generally supportable to claim that Harris’s budget would have led to a lower deficit than Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill”, at least based on current nonpartisan projections.
Here’s why:
Independent Analyses
The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB), which scores both Republican and Democratic proposals, estimates:
Trump's plan (OBBBA): ~$3.3 trillion added to the deficit over 10 years.
Harris’s plan: ~$3.95 trillion added to the deficit over the same period (after subtracting offsetting savings).
CRFB is nonpartisan and uses consistent methodology for both candidates’ proposals.
🧮 What's Driving the Numbers?
Trump’s Bill:
Big tax cuts.
Modest new spending (compared to Harris).
Few offsetting cuts.
Harris’s Proposals:
More spending (e.g., health care expansion, climate programs).
Larger tax increases on wealthy and corporations.
Net result: higher spending than revenue = larger deficit.
Could It Theoretically Be Lower?
Only under highly optimistic assumptions, such as:
Stronger economic growth than projected from Harris’s investments.
Full implementation and enforcement of tax increases with no revenue leakage.
Additional policy changes not in the published platform.
However, those assumptions aren’t reflected in the best-available projections from CRFB, CBO, or the Tax Foundation.
Conclusion
No, it is not reasonable to believe Harris’s budget would have led to a lower deficit than Trump’s bill—unless you reject mainstream budget analyses or assume radical changes in economic performance. Based on neutral estimates, Trump’s plan adds less to the deficit than Harris’s.
