With less than a month to go before the US election, the costs of the presidential candidates’ platforms are being totted up – and it’s not pretty reading.

On Monday, the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) released its estimates of the impact of Donald Trump and Kamala Harris’ campaign plans on the US debt and deficits and the progressive Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) issued its analysis of the distributional effects of Trump’s tax proposals.

The starting point for any discussion of US government finances is the government’s debt that’s approaching $US26 trillion ($53 trillion), or 99 per cent of the US GDP.

If Trump and Harris were able to implement their respective policies, they would both add to the US government’s record debt and deficit levels.Credit: AP

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has projected that, on existing policy settings before the campaign’s new spending and revenue proposals, the debt-to-GDP ratio will rise to 125 per cent over the next decade. It also forecasts that US budget deficits over the next decade will total $US22 trillion ($32.5 trillion).

The CRFB has factored in its estimates of the costs of the major items in the rival candidates’ platforms. It says that its “central estimate” for Harris’ campaign promises is that they would add $US3.5 trillion to US deficits and debt relative to their current trajectory.

Meanwhile, Trump’s platform is something of a moving feast, given that he tends to add a new tax cut at every campaign stop, but the CRFB’s central estimate for his plans is that they would add $US7.5 trillion to deficits and debt.

Under Harris’ plans, the government’s net interest bill would rise by $US500 billion a year, while under Trump’s, it would rise by $US1 trillion a year.

Because both........

© Brisbane Times