Thursday, November 14, 2019

Dollars and Sense -- The Worst Pun Ever?

Friends, my latest article considers what stance President Trump should take on fiscal matters heading into the 2020 election.  We know where the Democratic candidate will stand: he/she will promise the moon and the stars to American voters -- a veritable bonanza of new federal spending.  See what you make of my advice on how Trump should respond...

President Trump: In 2020, Embrace Fiscal Responsibility, Not Tax Cuts

As Democratic presidential candidates stumble over one another in a headlong rush towards socialism and fiscal insanity — promising trillions in new spending on everything from child care, health care, and higher education for all, to “the Green New Deal,” to slavery reparations — President Trump faces a critical choice. 
He could try to match the Democrats and promise more expansive government programs; he could instead offer to put more money in Americans' pockets through tax cuts; or he could do neither and stress the theme of fiscal responsibility, holding the line on new spending and tax cuts in favor of reducing the federal deficit.

Although the last choice is the least exciting, especially in an election year when people expect to be offered a cornucopia of “free stuff,” it is the right choice for America, especially given the fiscal challenges we currently face. This year our deficit will exceed $1 trillion for the first time since the Great Recession. Now is not the time, therefore, to be spending wildly or to be slashing government revenues via tax cuts. Now is the time to tighten our belts and return government finances to long-term sustainability, especially given the fact that the aging of the U.S. population means that massive spending obligations are coming soon.

To date, President Trump's philosophy on federal spending has been ambiguous. On one hand, he touts fiscal responsibility and a commitment to reducing federal deficits. On the other hand, Trump has cut taxes and simultaneously presided over a massive increase in spending. Often, he boasts about his administration's “investments” in Republican priorities like immigration enforcement and defense. Arguably, Trump is playing the Democrats' own game, parroting their view that a politician's virtuosity and even his humanity can be measured by his willingness to spend other people's money.

Lately, there is some evidence that Trump's advisers want to double down on this high spending/low taxation strategy for currying favor with voters. Although the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act already lowered middle class taxes — albeit modestly — now the Trump administration is considering further reductions to the marginal tax rates that apply to the middle class. The idea seems to be to establish a 15% rate that will kick in for those who may now be paying 22-24%.

No one likes income taxes or the IRS, but the American people ought to be skeptical of such proposals. Already, our deficit has inched up to almost 5% of GDP, a level that economists believe to be unsustainable. Trump's previous tax cuts were close to revenue neutral, but cuts on the scale now being proposed could be far more serious. Keep in mind the broader context: Social Security, Medicare, and Obamacare spending is all forecast to surge in the coming years. So far, inflation and interest rates have remained low, and the U.S. has been able to service its huge national debt with relative ease. If we were to depart totally from the path of fiscal responsibility, however, as Trump's advisers suggest, we have to wonder whether the wheels could come off of not just federal finances, but the overall U.S. economy. In that case, a negative feedback loop could lead to a severe recession, or even a depression.

President Trump should also consider the political optics of advocating for further tax cuts in an election year in which the eventual Democratic candidate will be promising the American people a laundry list of new entitlements, as well as tax breaks. Does Trump really want to compete with the Democrats for the job of Benefactor-in-Chief, or would he be better off drawing a sharp contrast with free-spending liberals? The Democratic candidate will be offering a vision of unprecedented growth in governmental power, unbridled hostility to job creators, and almost limitless federal spending. Presumably, it would be easy to argue in response that Democratic promises are empty and/or reckless. If Trump is making irresponsible claims and promises of his own, though, about either spending or taxation, his appeal as the economic voice of reason could be blunted. A socialist could then enter the White House by the back door.

My advice, President Trump, is to be honest with the American people. Tell them that, at this point in our history, huge new spending commitments are neither affordable nor prudent. In addition, given the future expenses that are already locked in, especially for Social Security and Medicare, it's clear that further tax cuts would be irresponsible.

If President Trump makes this his economic message going into 2020, he can frame the election as one of realism versus socialist fanaticism.

That sounds to me like an election that Trump can win. In fact, it sounds like an election in which only a fool would vote against him.

Dr. Nicholas L. Waddy is an Associate Professor of History at SUNY Alfred and blogs at: He appears weekly on the Newsmaker Show on WLEA 1480.

And here it is at American Greatness: 


  1. Dr. Waddy: The choice would seem clear: people of our convictions have been long since convinced that the essence of Dem (= leftist)government finance is increasingly confiscatory taxation coupled with unrestrained spending on unproven, "politically correct" goals by an "enlightened " and disdainful elite. Now leading Dem candidates have acknowledged as much.

    Most any relatively common sense policy would be better than that and we can count on President Trump to effect this and probably much more of favor in this setting.

  2. Agreed, Jack. Trump would, I suspect, become more fiscally conservative in a second term. He would have little incentive to buy our love, after all... The Dems, on the other hand, have promised the moon, plus an extra moon, to be constructed at taxpayer expense.