For the second consecutive week, Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris has been criticized for overstating third-party support for her economic plan. On Friday, the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania told Newsweek that its analysis of Harris’ proposal “did not find a positive impact on the economy from her plan in any future year,” contradicting Harris’ claims from the previous night.
During a “Unite for America” livestream event in Michigan on Thursday, Harris asserted, “That is why Goldman Sachs, Moody’s, the Wharton School of Business, and 16 Nobel laureates have collectively determined, after analyzing our plans, that mine would strengthen the economy, while his would weaken it,” referring to Republican nominee Donald Trump.
Wharton disputed this statement. “We did not find a positive impact on the economy from her plan in any future year. The Trump plan does increase GDP for a few years but lowers it by the end of the 10-year budget window,” a spokesperson for the Penn Wharton Budget Model (PWBM) told Newsweek.
Additionally, Harris reiterated her claim from last week’s debate that Goldman Sachs supported her economic plan, despite the CEO of the investment bank disputing that assertion the next day. “The report mentioned last night in the debate came from an independent analyst, and it’s interesting … I think a lot more has been made of this than should be,” CEO David Solomon said, noting the difference between the two plans “is about two-tenths of 1%.”
Regarding the Wharton analysis, Harris cited a PWBM report that estimated her tax and spending proposals would increase primary deficits by $1.2 trillion over the next 10 years and reduce GDP by 1.3% by 2034 and 4% within 30 years (year 2054).
In contrast, PWBM stated that under Trump’s plan, “GDP increases during part of the first decade (2025-2034)” before declining by “0.4% in 2034.”
Trump graduated from Wharton in May 1968. PWBM describes itself as “a nonpartisan, research-based initiative that provides accurate, accessible, and transparent economic analysis of public policy’s fiscal impact.”
