hillary clinton has made the american public a promise she shouldn<u+2019>t keep. it surfaced at a fund-raiser in mid-october. describing her policy proposals, including infrastructure projects and paid family leave, she guaranteed that they would all be paid for. then she went further, promising , <u+201c>i am not going to add a penny to the national debt.<u+201d> she repeated it to a much wider audience a few weeks later. <u+201c>i have said repeatedly throughout this campaign, i will not raise taxes on anyone making $250,000 or less,<u+201d> she told the crowd. <u+201c>i also will not add a penny to the debt.<u+201d> she repeated the new vow two more times during the evening. promising to pay for policy proposals is nothing new in a presidential campaign. fiscally conservative members of congress may be more likely to go along with a new program if there<u+2019>s a way to cover its cost, so it can be politically wise. the american public consistently rates the national debt as a top concern. not to mention that mrs. clinton is a democrat, and polling shows that voters assume that means she is poised to go on a reckless spending spree with government funds once in office. but it is economically foolish to swear off all deficit spending. mrs. clinton is going further than simply promising to cover a new idea with increased tax revenue. she<u+2019>s promising that she won<u+2019>t put forward plans that add to the national debt. politicians, of course, break promises made in the heat of campaigns. think of no new taxes under president george h. w. bush, or keeping the health insurance plan you like under president obama. but by and large, research has found that presidents do at least try to stick to their word. this particular pledge, though, would significantly hem in mrs. clinton if she wins, particularly by blocking her from doing the very thing the economy desperately needs. economic growth has been sluggish since the great recession, as the republican primary candidates were all too happy to point out. growth in the gross domestic product has run under 2 percent this year. the recovery has been weaker than past recoveries from recessions and worse than what officials originally expected. at the same time, interest rates on the country<u+2019>s debt are incredibly low, hovering around 2 percent . that means we could borrow more money at a very low cost. what would we do with it? new money could be put to incredibly good use, rebuilding deteriorating roads and bridges or investing in education. this is the stance of an increasing number of economists, including prominent voices like lawrence summers and douglas elmendorf : the united states needs to borrow money and invest it in growing the economy. we<u+2019>re also not in danger of being unable to pay back what we owe. the cost of paying interest on the government<u+2019>s debt is at a 50-year low , consuming just 6 percent of the federal budget. there would be, at some point, good reason to bring down the debt. a high federal debt load could eventually accelerate inflation, but inflation is all but nonexistent right now. or the country could find itself in a position where it can<u+2019>t borrow more money to respond to increasing financial need during an economic downturn. but low interest rates and willing lenders give us plenty of room today. it<u+2019>s particularly disappointing that mrs. clinton is tying her promise not to add to the debt directly to her infrastructure plan, which offers perhaps the best bang for a government-borrowed buck. that becomes even more important if the economy careens into a ditch again, which some experts think we are due for soon. the best thing she could do would be to put forward a stimulus package with significant spending on building projects <u+2014> and she would need to finance it by adding plenty of pennies to the debt. the things that actually drive federal debt into dangerous territory are not the kinds of programs mrs. clinton wants to enact. the dangerous trends are the growth in costs related to health care and a retiring baby boom generation. the country<u+2019>s debt load could be accelerated by a government spending bonanza that doesn<u+2019>t lead to much growth <u+2014> say, perhaps, a huge tax cut giveaway to the wealthiest americans, like the nearly $10 trillion plan donald j. trump has put forward and which history has found probably won<u+2019>t spur the economy. mrs. clinton<u+2019>s promise is also one that<u+2019>s not likely to come true. her policy agenda, if enacted, would be mostly paid for, but would still increase the national debt at about the same rate as is now projected. this isn<u+2019>t the first time mrs. clinton has made a promise that might sound good to voters but hamstrings her if she takes office. she has been consistently pledging not to raise taxes on those who make less than $250,000, people she calls <u+201c>middle class<u+201d> even though median income is more like $54,000. that sounds good to those who already feel financially pinched. but it precludes enacting any programs that increase taxes on people in this category, no matter how small the increase or how much the middle class would actually benefit. a better promise than mrs. clinton<u+2019>s no-debt vow would be something like this: <u+201c>i will not significantly run up the national debt to pay for projects that won<u+2019>t make the economy grow.<u+201d> that<u+2019>s more honest and more sound, and it would leave her free to make necessary policy decisions in the white house. but it<u+2019>s not as neat a slogan, and that makes it a much harder sell. bryce covert is the economic policy editor at thinkprogress and a contributor to the nation. follow the new york times opinion section on facebook and twitter (@nytopinion) , and sign up for the opinion today newsletter .
hillary clinton<u+2019>s bad promise on debt
bryce covert