Who Makes Policy Campaign 2016 Edition

Details about presidential candidate Donald J. Trump’s tax plan can be found on his website –www.donaldjtrump.com. According to his website presidential candidate Donald J. Trump will change the existing tax laws to make America great again by collapsing the current seven income tax brackets into three brackets, lowering the business tax rate from 35 percent to 15 percent for both big and small business and eliminating the estate or death tax amongst other things.

What Trump’s tax plan means for the economy

Trump’s plans aims to reduce the nation’s tax burden and somehow boost economic growth at the same time as if government taxes don’t play an important role in building the society we see. According to Jared Bernstein, a former chief economist to Vice President Biden, Trump’s tax plan involves tax cuts heavily tilted towards the wealthy and relies on the theory of trickle-down economics which presumes “a tax cut that raises the after-tax wage or lowers the after-tax cost of capital could boost the supply of these critical variables, increase growth, and spin off some revenues.”

“My plan will embrace the truth that people flourish under a minimum government burden and will tap into the incredible, unrealized potential of our workers and their dreams,” Trump said in a recent speech to the Economic Club of New York.

Jared Bernstein states, “Based on its -trickle-down economics- historical record, listeners should wholly discount linking high-end tax cuts to faster growth. What they will do is exacerbate after-tax inequality and raise the budget deficit.”

 

The New York Times has a good piece on the uneven benefits of trade, as seen from the US and Europe. Well worth a read.

After the first Clinton v. Trump debate one has to wonder if free trade is worth fighting for and if the timing to fight for it is now. Some of the talking heads on TV felt that Donald Trump had his best moments and missed opportunities when it related to NAFTA and the TPP. Many felt that Trump was his strongest when calling Hillary out on her support for free trade. However, they also lamented that his attacks were not sustained long enough to do the kind of damage that he needed to do  to win the debate. With American public opinion among key demographics solidly against further free trade agreements, perhaps its time to give it a rest. If NAFTA is an example of the economic benefits of free trade, then there is no solid reason to pursue the TPP. But if the case for the TPP is one of security and strategic alliances, then one has to ask what is it really worth in political capital?

It is clear to many that free trade could have potential strategic advantages for the United States. It could help build alliances in regions of concern. But a question that the parties must ask themselves is “what am I willing to pay?” What kind of political price are you willing to pay for these policies?

Climate change has been pretty low in the polls of registered and likely voter’s concerns, however during Monday night’s first presidential debate the issue had a bit of a chance to shine. Hillary Clinton undoubtedly chose to bring up the climate change topic as it is one that her opponent strongly is against. Clinton referred to Trump calling climate change and global warming a “hoax”, and he denied ever saying that word vehemently. Well Thank You Twitter for being a fact checker’s assistant. In watching the debate, it’s clear to see that Clinton prepared a strategy in order to depict Trump’s penchant for lying and/or going back on his word. Crossing my fingers (leg and eyes too) that strategy wins and Trump’s claims don’t raise additional uncertainty, as this Washington Post article totes is a possibility, that would assist his efforts.

We talked in class last week about the budget and how a small fraction of it is devoted to foreign aid. The U.S. and Israel recently agreed to a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for approximately $38 billion in military aid over the next 10 years. This $3.8 billion per year is budgeted into Obama’s $50.1 billion foreign aid budget for FY17. This Washington Post piece on foreign aid is a perfect introduction as to who gets what from the United States.

In what many believe should have been an easy presidential victory for Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump; has turned into a contest that will go down to the wire. The disbelief has even had Hillary asking herself why ‘she is not 50 points ahead‘. Some have come to believe that a major factor for Hillary’s struggles with the white working class has been a direct result of the displacement of workers caused by free trade.  Some of the swing states were affected by the economic slowdown following the George W. Bush administration. However, many workers believe that it was NAFTA that cause their displacement. According to several economic studies by think tanks and economists, they may be correct in their assumption. The Democratic party is vulnerable because for too long they touted the success of NAFTA and fully ignored the cries of those that had lost their jobs. They believed that the increased trade and resulting economic activity would make up for the job losses. Instead many found lower paying service jobs that carried no pensions or union benefits. This may explain the reason why this demographic, blue collar white workers, has abandoned the Democratic party, their traditional ally. It would also explain the extreme animosity this group carries for free trade in general. In many of the battleground states, it has been the reversal of this group’s traditional support for democrats that has turned this election into a nail biter.

More depressing news out of Syria. A tense, two-week cease fire agreement was marked with violations on both sides, a US strike that killed 62 Syrian soldiers and a Russian airstrike that hit a U.N. aid convoy. The main goal of the agreement was to allow aid into Aleppo – as of now it appears that no aid ever made it to the people of Syria’s largest city.

With the agreement deteriorated, Assad wasted no time bombing his own citizens. An airstrike on Friday killed at least 27 citizens. Samantha Power has called Assad and his government’s actions “barbaric.”

I was at the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) last weekend and listened to Secretary of Defense Ash Carter give an update on our operations in Syria. The senators pressed him for a solution that would end the conflict and he provided a grim outlook. Essentially, he said that an agreement between Russia and U.S. that allows for a political transition is the only practical thing that could end the fighting. Given that Assad is in no position to relinquish power and we have not been able to reach any sort of stable agreement with Russia, we will be seeing carnage like this weekend for the foreseeable future.

I’m writing my memo on the state of affairs in Afghanistan and what decisions the next president will have to make. I checked out Trump’s and Hillary’s websites for their positions on Afghanistan and found nothing. This WSJ “on the issues” piece on foreign policy also mentions nothing about the conflict.  The longest war in American history is barely being discussed on the campaign trail.

If the lack of coverage on Afghanistan led you to believe that the situation is under control, you’d be wrong. The next president will have to decide what to do with the 9,800 U.S. troops there and will have to exercise extraordinary diplomacy to keep the fragile National Unity Government from collapsing. Divisions and corruption in the young democracy have created a vacuum that the Taliban has filled.

Pakistan has continued to aid the Taliban and promote instability in the country for it’s own benefit. Additionally, ISIS has emerged in the country adding an additional layer of complexity to the situation. The next president will have some difficult choices to make in Afghanistan but ISIS, Syria, and the activities of Russia and China has shifted much of the attention away our 15 year war in the country.

 

Yesterday, I went to a Bloomberg Government event where they unveiled their new poll decoder website.   This didn’t really present any new information to me, nor in my opinion is it more comprehensive than others we’ve looked at. Thoughts?

As a reminder, Donald Trump believes climate change and the associated global warming is a “hoax.” Another reminder, he actually stands a chance at winning the presidential seat.

Due to those two factors above, we must now combat his beliefs with science and cross our fingers, legs, and eyes that science prevails.  This letter, signed by 375 scientists, works to stress the importance of maintaining and furthering climate change policy. Though it was not directly written to Mr. Trump, the use of the term “hoax” in its first sentence leaves unmistakable intention.

In case you’re wondering what exactly are Trump’s plans for climate  change, the environment and energy

“Rescind all the job-destroying Obama executive actions including the Climate Action Plan and the Waters of the U.S. rule.

Save the coal industry and other industries threatened by Hillary Clinton’s extremist agenda.

Ask Trans Canada to renew its permit application for the Keystone Pipeline.

Make land in the Outer Continental Shelf available to produce oil and natural gas.

Cancel the Paris Climate Agreement (limit global warming to 2 degrees Celsius) and stop all payments of U.S. tax dollars to U.N. global warming programs.

Lift restrictions on American energy, which will increase GDP annually by $100 billion, create 500,000 new jobs and increase wages by over $30 billion over the next 7 years.”

Look at the language: “Job-destroying Obama actions” and “Hillary Clinton extremist agenda.”  Also he mentions next 7 years, Presumptuous are we?