NY Times: This Economy Needs Donald Trump

NY Times: This Economy Needs Donald Trump

Wednesday, Donald Trump spent the day doing his whole illegal immigration schtick. First with a visit to Mexico to talk with their president, then with a big speech on illegal immigration, one which made sure people understood that he was not backsliding on deportations (until he backslides again, because he has long held the position of allowing non-criminal illegals the ability to have “touchback” amnesty). The speech itself was very good, and well worth the read. He laid out a 10 point plan, which also delved into stopping legal visa holders from dangerous areas who hold ideas incompatible with American society. Many parts of the speech stick out. Here’s one of them

We also have to be honest about the fact that not everyone who seeks to join our country will be able to successfully assimilate. It is our right as a sovereign nation to choose immigrants that we think are the likeliest to thrive and flourish here.

Meanwhile, the New York Times allows David Malpas, a senior economic advisor to the Trump campaign (yeah, I was kinda shocked that he had one, too), to write an op-ed, which received Internet front page status, all of which is rather unusual for the Fish Wrap

Why This Economy Needs Donald Trump

This year, the media has been focused largely on the election process — campaign managers, speaking styles, every slip and misstep. That’s been entertaining, but the policy differences between the two sides are much more important, and the most crucial difference may be over economic policy.

Donald J. Trump has campaigned very clearly for change — a policy upheaval to promote faster growth, repair the economic stagnation and end the corrupt pay-to-play system that favors the well heeled. Hillary Clinton has pledged to extend and build on the policies of the Obama administration.

There is no doubt who has the better plan. Our economy is growing at only 1.1 percent per year, a fraction of our average rate, and the Congressional Budget Office forecasts just 2 percent annual growth (in inflation-adjusted gross domestic product) for the next 10 years.

Yes, we went through a deep recession, but it ended in 2009. The recovery has been the weakest in decades, and the first that has actually pushed median incomes down. Business investment and profits are lower now than a year ago. Counterproductive federal policies squash small businesses with inane regulatory sprawl that affects hiring, taxes, credit and medical care.

All great points. Many have recommended that Trump spend the bulk of his time talking about the economy, and bread and butter issues. He’s still spending more time on illegal immigration, though, which, outside of his base (which wants a wall and deportation) and the far left Dem base (which wants amnesty), it is a low ranking issue.

To restart growth, Mr. Trump would immediately lower tax rates, including for middle-income voters, and simplify the tax code. Americans would be able to exempt average child-care expenses from taxes, and Mr. Trump’s administration would eliminate the death tax, which falls especially hard on some small businesses and farmers.

To help create a flood of new business investment and jobs, the Trump plan would reduce corporate tax rates to 15 percent while eliminating or capping many tax deductions. This would simplify the tax system, making us much more competitive with countries and a magnet for new jobs.

Mrs. Clinton wants to go in the opposite direction, depressing job growth with an uncompetitive corporate tax rate, higher taxes on estates and short-term capital gains, and a 4 percent surtax on the most successful individuals.

For all the complaints one might make about corporations, many of whom get sweetheart tax deals from both Republican and Democrat state administrations, many do not want to have their main headquarters in the U.S. because of our high tax rate (39%), the highest in the 1st World. There’s a reason they love going to places like Ireland (12.5 corporate tax rate). Lower rates equals more jobs and more taxes, because 39% of zero is zero (if we’re doing real math, not Common Core).

And, yes, Hillary would be more of the same that has made the American people think that the recession has not ended.

Critics of tax cuts say the government can’t afford his plan. But what the economy can’t afford is the current inept tax system, slow growth and Mrs. Clinton’s $1.1 trillion in tax hikes.

Government should learn to live within their means, much as successful businesses do. Much as families do. When they don’t they shut down or go into bankruptcy. Furthermore, when more people are working and more companies are making a profit, they actually pay more in taxes, and there are more being taxed. So more money heads to the state and federal treasuries. Wild how that works, right? People not working/companies not making money equals no taxes. Huh. Which is better? You can’t pull blood from a stone.

The scant economic gains in the past eight years are even weaker for most Americans than the G.D.P. data indicates because federal policy favored gains for the haves, not the have-nots. Your prosperity is increasing if you work in finance, issuing bonds or trading currencies, or you lobby or arrange government contracts. If not, you’ve most likely gone backward financially.

Wages are stagnant if not down. But the cost of living has mostly gone up. This is the reality for average citizens, who do not get to jet around on luxurious jumbo jets to attend fundraisers and play golf with celebrities and sports stars.

Voters will have an opportunity to decide for or against a government that’s failing on health care, taxes, trade, cost control and regulation. One candidate wants higher tax rates. The other would lower them. One candidate thinks the economic recovery has been successful whereas the other thinks it left millions of Americans out. One candidate has spent her lifetime seeking the presidency. Mr. Trump hasn’t.

As Thomas Jefferson said, “A little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical.” It’s time for one now.

There certainly could have been more detail, but the op-ed makes the point: Hillary is for more government intervention, more regulation, more taxes. Trump says he’s against those. He’s for freeing the economy. She’s for micromanaging it. It’s a good message.

Trump should spend his time on this message.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

Leave a Comment

Share this!

Enjoy reading? Share it with your friends!

Send this to a friend