The Trillion-Dollar Question Missing From The Presidential Debate

Congress voted this week for a $1.9 trillion tax and spending deal, over a quarter of which was added to our $23 trillion national debt. Thanks to this and other fiscally irresponsible legislation signed into law by President Donald Trump, the federal government will run an annual budget deficit of over $1 trillion this year and every year that comes after it. Yet of over 500 questions asked throughout six presidential debates, not a single one has raised the issue.

At least one candidate thinks that’s a problem. Earlier this week, Mayor Pete Buttigieg told the Washington Post’s editorial board why he thinks it’s time Democrats start talking about debt and deficits:

“As we speak, we have a Republican presidency cheering a scenario where we’ve got a trillion-dollar deficit,” said Buttigieg. “But I find that our party doesn’t talk about it much. And in some corners of our party, it’s not fashionable to care about it. I think that we need to, first of all, because just generationally, I think that I may be here when some of these fiscal time bombs go off. I also think that we need to recognize that we’re approaching a point where you can’t ignore spending we need to do on infrastructure and safety net and health and education being crowded by debt service.”

Buttigieg is exactly right. Today, the federal government spends more money servicing our national debt than it spends on public investments in infrastructure, education, and scientific research combined. It should therefore come as no surprise that some polls show rising deficits are becoming one of voters’ top concerns heading into 2020. Democrats could be making a strong case to these voters about why their party is best suited to tackle the challenge: over the past 40 years, Democratic presidents and Congresses both have had a stronger record of responsible fiscal stewardship than their Republican counterparts.

Instead of seizing this opportunity, the presidential campaigns have largely avoided the discussion. Although most Democratic candidates for president — including Buttigieg — have offered some proposals to raise additional revenue throughout the course of the campaign, they commit nearly all of the savings to new spending. Several have proposed to expand benefits in programs such as Social Security and Medicare, but none have laid out a plan to close the massive financial shortfalls those programs currently face with the retirement of the Baby Boomers. 

When candidates keep the price tag of their promises reasonable, this lack of specificity isn’t necessarily a cause for concern. Former Vice President Joe Biden, for example, has proposed an agenda that would cost roughly $3 trillion over the next decade — less than the total cost of legislation enacted during the first three years of the Trump administration. By setting realistic goals, Biden can both tell voters now how he plans to pay for the entirety of his proposals and leave additional revenue options on the table for tackling pre-existing deficits once in office.

Compare that to the approach of Sen. Bernie Sanders: he has proposed an agenda that experts estimate could cost anywhere between $30 and $50 trillion over the next ten years. But even as Sanders admits a willingness to raise almost every tax imaginable, he still falls short of paying for even half of his proposals. If Sanders can’t come up with a credible way to pay for new commitments, how could he (or others with similarly lofty ambitions) possibly hope to finance the promises our government has already made? Sanders’ agenda would bury the young Americans powering his campaign under even more crushing debt.

Congressional Democrats face a similar dilemma to that of their presidential contenders. Democrats won a majority in the House of Representatives last year in part by campaigning against a reckless $2 trillion tax cut enacted by Trump and his Republican allies in Congress. But this week, the House – with overwhelming support from the Democratic caucus – voted to cut taxes for the wealthy and well-connected by several hundred billion dollars more, charging nearly the entire cost to our national credit card.

It doesn’t have to be this way. The Trump-Republican Party has demonstrated to the American people that they have neither the desire nor the ability to responsibly manage our nation’s finances. Democrats should use this weakness to their advantage by offering voters a progressive agenda that invests in our country without leaving the bill for future generations.