It is usually challenging to do a thorough analysis of a presidential candidate's proposed policies because they often leave out critical details, particularly with regard to cost.
With Donald Trump, however, a candidate who frequently changes his stated positions on major issues and rarely bothers to engage in policy details, anticipating the economic or fiscal effect of his presidency is practically impossible.
"There is no equivalency," writes Philip Moeller, a social security expert, in a recent column for PBS.com. "Clinton has presented many specific proposals. Trump has not."
Recommended For You
At the very least, however, Moeller can say with confidence that Trump's stated vow to both maintain Social Security and Medicare benefits in their current form and dramatically cut taxes would "take our current lake of red ink and turn it into an ocean."
A key Trump adviser told a group of Republican donors in May that Trump would in fact be willing to entertain cuts to Social Security and Medicare, a comment ostensibly aimed at assuaging the concerns of conservatives in the party who have long advocated for various cuts or privatization efforts. However, reports of potential cuts were quickly rebuked by Trump himself.
Hillary Clinton hasn't assured budget hawks that she will do much to rein in federal spending either. As a result of a primary in which she was challenged hard from the left by Bernie Sanders, the former first lady now says she supports allowing people to opt into Medicare at age 55 and expanding Social Security benefits.
One analysis, by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, suggested that under Clinton's proposed policies, the national debt will increase by $10 trillion over the next decade, to $29 trillion. Under Trump's, the debt would grow twice as fast, hitting $39 trillion in 2026.
Clinton's plans would result in less debt because she has not proposed massive tax cuts, as Trump has. At the very least, in fact, her proposal to expand Social Security would be partially funded by subjecting income above the current cap ($118,500) to Social Security taxes.
In addition, some suggest that allowing middle-aged Americans to buy into Medicare could actually help the massive health program, depending on how much they are charged to opt in, since they will be healthier and use less services than the current pool of exclusively elderly beneficiaries.
"Adding healthier, younger people to the risk pool might bring down the per-person costs of the program," writes Vann Newkirk in the Atlantic. "If the subsidies are equivalent to (ACA) marketplace subsidies, premiums and savings from the over-50 crowd could actually cut back net costs for the Medicare albatross."
Of course, speculating on the costs of a presidential candidate's proposals will only get you so far, since only a small number of proposed policies are ever fully realized. Whichever candidate wins in November, he or she will likely face a Congress that isn't entirely amenable to their plans.
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
