Worried about the U.S. debt? Then vote for Harris.

At this week’s debate, the deficit was referenced just twice.

That’s unfortunate, because the issue is pressing. The national debt is on an unsustainable path: Federal debt relative to gross domestic product is on track to surpass its post-World War II record by 2027, according to the Congressional Budget Office. It won’t stop there. The country will almost certainly need more government investment in the years ahead because of national security concerns, an aging population and the existential threat posed by climate change.

Of course, there has not been a presidential candidate in the 21st century who presented a fully satisfying plan to fix the debt.

But here, as in most arenas, the gap between Vice President Kamala Harris and former president Donald Trump is large. Trump’s proposals would add at least $4.5 trillion to the deficit over the next decade. In contrast, Harris could actually achieve some deficit reduction depending upon how much of the GOP tax cuts she opts to extend. At worst, her plan would increase deficits only modestly, by less than one-fifth of the Trump total.

The gulf between Trump and Harris is the byproduct of two fundamental policy differences.

First, Harris supports raising taxes on high-earners and large corporations. Trump supports lowering them.

Harris has been clear that she embraces essentially all of the tax increases outlined in President Joe Biden’s budget, with the exception of his capital tax changes. (She would raise capital gains rates for high earners by less than Biden has proposed.) Overall, these proposals would generate around $5 trillion in additional tax revenue from the wealthy and corporations over the next decade.

In contrast, Trump would lower taxes on these groups by trillions over this period. He would keep the rate cuts going for those at the top and give corporations an even bigger tax cut by lowering their tax rate to 15 percent (down from 21 percent today) for firms that he classifies as “American producers.” (Who qualifies is unclear, and consequently, so is the deficit impact of this measure.)

I suspect Trump and his advisers would contest my calculus. They would argue — and have argued, repeatedly — that these tax cuts pay for themselves, in the form of increased economic growth. It’s true that cutting taxes can lead businesses to invest in themselves in ways that grow the economy, such as when a firm uses its tax savings to buy a new factory or launch a product line. But it’s not enough of a boost to come close to offsetting the costs.

Trump’s tax cuts — and our historical experience more generally — have proved how costly this policy can be. The best empirical evidence on the impact of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is that economic growth offset just two percentage points of the 41 percent decrease in corporate tax collections that resulted from the legislation. Doubling down on those approaches will be just as problematic for our nation’s finances.

The second key difference between the candidates? Harris is more committed to tax cuts for low- and middle-income earners.

Her campaign has paired tax increases on the top with cuts for the bottom, in the form of new and expanded credits for families, small businesses and new homeowners.

In contrast, the only real revenue raiser Trump has embraced is a tax increase on most Americans in the form of global tariffs that would substantially raise the cost of imports. To be sure, tariffs would decrease the deficit. Estimates from the Peterson Institute for International Economics suggest they would raise around $2.75 trillion over a decade, likely closer to $2 trillion when you take into account the fact that other countries will retaliate with tariffs of their own.

But how deficit reduction is achieved matters. Trump’s $2 trillion of tariff revenue would be raised by forcing Americans of all income levels to pay thousands of dollars extra for the goods they buy.

Any fair fiscal comparison shows this election is not a close call. If the deficit is your top issue, Harris is the clear choice.