Where Trump and Harris Supporters Agree
Voters largely support policies that promise financial assistance from the government, regardless of which presidential candidate proposes the plan.
According to a new WSJ survey, six out of ten economic policies proposed by Trump and Harris received support from almost 50% or more of Republicans, Democrats, and independents.
49% of Republicans support Harris’ plan to provide a $6K tax credit for newborns. 60% support her plan to cap out-of-pocket spending on prescription drugs. And 75% support her plan to cap insulin prices at $35.
On the other side, 76% of Democrats support Trump’s plan to eliminate taxes on Social Security income. And 76% support his plan to eliminate taxes on tips. (Harris has also since adopted this policy.)
Oh, and where do we find the revenue to fund these goodies? This is a question neither Trump nor Harris address. But voters don’t seem to care. When the WSJ asked respondents if they would support these policies even if there were negative side effects (in particular: “even if they increased the national debt”), support didn’t dip all that much.
In the abstract, to be sure, deficit reduction remains very popular. But when it comes to concrete proposals, a new benefit or tax cut beats out deficit reduction in the political marketplace every time. Just before the Trump-Harris debate, according to a Peterson Foundation survey, 61% of Americans said it is “very important” and another 30% “somewhat important” that the candidates talk about their plan to reduce the deficit. Guess how much Trump or Harris talked about deficit reduction? If you guessed anything more than nothing at all, you must not have been watching.
If you’re an optimist, you may conclude that both candidates remained mysteriously silent on a topic that would have gained them millions of new voters. If you’re a realist (I hesitate to say a pessimist) you come to a different conclusion—that even if voters know that large deficits are unsustainable, they don’t trust the leaders of either party to reduce them. Today, so long as the roof isn’t leaking, give us what we want. Tomorrow, if the flood comes, leaders will do whatever they have to do. That day is no doubt coming in any event. Until then, at least, we get something.
The bottom line here is that Demography Unplugged still doesn't appreciate (recognize, accept) the huge leap in financial flexibility that the1970 advent of universal fiat currency (the elimination of money's connection to gold) handed governments that issue their own currency. In that regard, DU is just like most people (even most classical economists), but, unlike most people, DU actually thinks it knows something everyone else doesn't and, accordingly, wrongly tries to spur fear among voters of government "overspending," disparaging them for "ignorance" that isn't ignorant. Social Security is never going to go bankrupt (can't go bankrupt unless Congress decides not to fund it), and increased, direct, federal fiscal spending (such as the candidates are proposing) is a very sound (anti-austerity) public-interest agenda. Read up on Modern Monetary Theory.
With Prophets in power and Heroes coming of age?
Donald J. Trump, the archetypal Prophet, has addressed the “deficit problem” … to fire up the economy’s engine and inspire animal spirits. Each candidate has a very different view of “government assistance”. Harris with here centralized command and control “hand-out economy” … Trump with his creating the conditions necessary for peace and prosperity to flourish “hand-up economy”.