A recent study conducted by the nonpartisan Penn Wharton Budget Model has found that former President Donald Trump's economic proposals would significantly increase federal deficits over the next decade, nearly five times more than Vice President Kamala Harris' plans.

According to the study, Trump's economic agenda would result in federal deficits of $5.8 trillion over the next ten years. This is in stark contrast to Harris, whose proposals would add $1.2 trillion to deficits during the same time period.

The Penn Wharton Budget Model report delves into the details of each candidate's economic plans. Trump's proposal to permanently extend the 2017 tax cuts would add a staggering $4 trillion to deficits over the next decade. Furthermore, his pledge to eliminate taxes on Social Security benefits would come with a $1.2 trillion price tag. Additionally, Trump's aim to reduce corporate taxes would result in nearly $6 billion in added deficits.

On the other hand, the analysis of Harris' proposals reveals that her plan to expand the Child Tax Credit and the Earned Income Tax Credit, among other tax credits, would raise deficits by $2.1 trillion in the coming ten years. Furthermore, her proposal to provide a $25,000 subsidy for qualifying first-time homebuyers would add $140 billion to deficits over a decade.

However, it should be noted that Harris' plan also includes raising the corporate tax rate to 28% from the current 21%, which could partially offset the costs of her spending by $1.1 trillion. She has also expressed support for the revenue raisers contained in President Joe Biden's budget proposal.

While Trump aims to fund his agenda through 10% tariffs on all imports and imposing 60% tariffs on Chinese imports, the study raises concerns about the revenue generated and warns about potential inflationary effects. Moody's Chief Economist Mark Zandi estimated that Trump's tariffs could bring in $2.5 trillion in revenue. Economists also caution that such a hardline tariff policy may reignite inflation, just as consumer price increases begin to stabilize.

The Trump and Harris campaigns are fiercely competing to present the other as an economic threat, both trying to appeal to voters concerned about the rising cost of living. Harris campaign spokesperson James Singer criticized Trump's economic agenda as an "inflation and deficit bomb." Conversely, Trump campaign spokesperson Karoline Leavitt defended the former president's economic achievements, highlighting his business acumen and dismissing Harris as a "radical San Francisco liberal."

With the election fast approaching, the Harris campaign has been quick to unveil its economic agenda, hoping to address concerns about the economy. This move comes as the Trump administration faces scrutiny over the state of the economy during the pandemic.

As voters weigh the economic plans offered by the candidates, the study sheds light on the stark differences between Trump and Harris when it comes to fiscal responsibility and deficit management. The economic future of the country hangs in the balance, with voters set to make their decision based on which proposal they believe is better suited to address their concerns and aspirations.