Donald Trump's campaign promises would send the national debt soaring much faster than Kamala Harris' would, per two new analyses from the Penn Wharton Budget Model.

• Both of them increase the deficit relative to the current baseline.

Why it matters: When the government gives money to individuals and businesses, as both candidates propose, that's good for the recipients and broadly good for economic growth, but it also accelerates the growth of the national debt, which is already at worrisome levels.

What they found: Keeping Trump's campaign promises would increase the national debt by $5.8 trillion over 10 years, while Harris' would cost $1.2 trillion.

• If the policies are scored using "dynamic pricing" that reflects increased tax revenues from proposals that increase economic activity, the gap shrinks a little, with Trump's promises costing $4.1 trillion to Harris' $2 trillion.

Between the lines: The biggest difference is the question of what happens to Trump's tax cuts, which are due to expire at the end of 2025. Trump would extend them; Harris wouldn't.

• Extending the individual income tax cuts would cost $3.4 trillion over 10 years; doing the same for the corporate income tax cuts would bring the total to over $4 trillion.
• On top of that, Trump wants to cut the corporate income tax even further, to 15% from its current 21%, at an estimated cost of $600 billion, and abolish the income tax on Social Security benefits, which would cost another $1.2 trillion.

The other side: Harris wants to increase the corporate income tax to 28%, which would raise $1.1 trillion for the public fisc.

• That's more than enough to pay for the cost of increasing the child tax credit to $6,000 for newborns; for expanding the earned income tax credit; for extending the tax credit that currently exists for health insurance premiums; and for providing down payment support for first-time homebuyers. Between them, those policies would cost about $600 billion.
• Harris has one other very large proposed expense, however, which is raising the child tax credit to $3,000 for children over 5 years old and $3,600 for children aged 5 years and younger. (It stands at $2,000, and is set to drop to $1,000 in 2026.)
• That policy would cost $1.7 trillion over a decade.

By the numbers: The Wharton study concludes that the Trump proposals would increase the national debt by 9.3% above its current trajectory by 2034 and by 12.7% by 2054.

• The equivalent numbers for the Harris proposals are 4.4% and 7.7%, respectively.
• Trump's proposals would see U.S. GDP fall by a relatively modest 0.4% relative to the current baseline by 2034. The Harris proposals mean a slightly larger decrease of 1.3%.

Follow the money: The top 1% would see their post-tax income rise by $47,000 in 2026 under Trump, compared to a fall of $9,000 under Harris.

• The median household would see an income gain of about $2,000 per year under both plans.

The bottom line: If the GOP was ever a party committed to reducing the national debt, it's not anymore.

The biggest proposed U.S. supermarket merger in history, between Kroger and Albertsons, is on trial in a Portland, Oregon, courtroom this week.

Why it matters: No longer simply the province of boring old eggs, milk and coupon cutters, the nation's grocery stores have become ground zero for political fights over price-gouging and the new era of tough antitrust enforcement.

Catch up quick: Kroger agreed to buy rival Albertsons for $25 billion in October 2022, in a deal to merge the country's second- and fourth-largest grocery retailers. (Walmart would remain in the top spot.)

• The FTC earlier this year sued to block the deal and is asking a U.S. district court in Oregon for a preliminary injunction.
• Arguments before the court kicked off Monday and will likely continue through mid-September.

Zoom out: The outcome will impact food prices for millions of consumers.

• Both sides agree on this, although the government thinks prices would rise and Kroger believes prices would decline.
• It also could impact thousands of union jobs.

The big picture: The case is a test of the new era of antitrust enforcement ushered in by Lina Khan at the FTC and her counterpart Jonathan Kanter at the Department of Justice.

• Not only is the FTC asserting that the tie-up between these grocery giants will raise prices for consumers, but it's also arguing that the merger will reduce competition for workers, leading to lower wages and fewer employment opportunities.
• It's an argument that worked once before when the DOJ succeeded in blocking the merger between Penguin Random House and Simon & Schuster. The argument at the time was that the merger would harm authors — because there would be fewer publishers bidding for their work.

The other side: The grocers say that a merger would lower costs and be good for workers.

The bottom line: This may be the Biden/Harris administration's last major antitrust case to reach resolution before November's election.