Despite that disgust, some of Trump's policy proposals are positive ideas for the country. Others, however, are not positive ideas for the country, and I take issue with statements urging everyone to unite and fully support Donald Trump. There are policies advocated by Trump's team that could halt our country's economic and social development.
Below, I outline areas where I am excited to work with Donald Trump, and areas where I plan to vigorously work against Donald Trump.
WORKING WITH TRUMP
Education. On Donald Trump's policy website is says, "Ensure that the opportunity to attend a two or four-year college, or to pursue a trade or a skill set through voational and technical education, will be easier to access, pay for, and finish." Three important ways you can make post-secondary education more accessible and easier to pay for is by 1) allowing students who took loans before July 2013 to refinance their loans at the current, lower interest rates 2) provide funding to states who agree to make community college free for two years for students who earn a 2.5+ GPA, and 3) provide states with grants to ensure that residents can access in-state tuition debt free (assuming that parents make a reasonable contribution and that students work part-time). Higher education is still considered one of the best paths to increased job security (the employment to population ratio dropped by >2% from 2007 to 2009 for adults without degrees, but fell by only .5% for college-educated adults), and it is recognized as fundamental to increasing our national innovation capacity (it has been shown to explain 31% of variation in national rates of technological innovations). Making higher education more available ought to contribute to decreasing inequality, improve our long-term economic dynanism, and create a more educated electorate (sorely needed!). These policies can be paid for by taxing carried interest as ordinary income (which Donald Trump has already proposed to do), and by increasing the estate tax (lower the threshold to $3.5million, boost the minimum rate to 45%, and set the maximum rate at 65% on estates over $500 million dollars). These changes will affect <1% of American households, but provide much needed investment in our country's collective human capital!
Regulations (with Caveats). Donald Trump's policy website also promises to ask all department heads to submit a list of every unnecessary regulation. Evaluating and reducing regulations is an important way to reallocate resources within the state to more productive uses, and can lead to both markets and the government operating more efficiently. It would continue the Obama administration's efforts to decreases red tape. In 2012, for example, they eliminated regulations that saved $6 billion for businesses and consumers after conducting an unprecedented government-wide regulatory review. My concern in this area is that there will probably be wide disagreement between progressive thinkers and conservative thinkers with regards to what constitutes an "unneccesary" regulation. I hope that we can push Donald Trump to make this review of regulations a bipartisan one.
Childcare and Family. While Donald Trump's platform is not nearly as pro-family as Hillary Clinton's platform (see her website: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/, and my blog post on her policies), there are some great ideas that I hope to support him on. First, his proposal to allow Americans to take an above the line deduction for children under age 13 would provide working and middle class families with a substantial reduction in their taxable income (according to the CBO, the multiplier of tax cuts for working and middle income families is ~1.5). Additionally, his plan to offer a child/eldercare exclusion to both stay-at-home parents/grandparents and those who use paid caregivers, as well as his proposal to provide 6 weeks paid leave, would go a long way to help American families fulfill familial obligations.
Cybersecurity. Finally, Trump's recommendation to review cybert defense vulnerabilities in the government and private sector is critical to protecting the national intellectual property which is vital to our economic and military competitive advantages.
FIGHT AGAINST TRUMP
We should not be focused on building the "Great Wall" of America and offend an important economic neighbor by saying that they will pay for it! Resources allocated to a "Great Wall" of America would be better spent on other infrastructure projects that will provide greater support for long-term economic growth. What's more, enacting comprehensive immigration reform ( i.e. a path to citizenship for non-violent undocumented immigrants, enhancing border security, cracking down on companies that employ undocumented workers, and making it easier for high skilled immigrants to receive worker visas) is revenue positive and will pay for the pro-family tax cuts that Donald Trump is proposing! This is a win for fiscal resonsibility, and a win for American ideals such as our call to the world to "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free".
Speaking of living up to our call to other nations to "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free", a record number of human beings are political refugees, and 87% of those refugees are located in developing countries. This is a time when America should be leading in the reception of "huddled masses yearning to breathe free", and our arms should be opened wide to "The wretched refuse of your teeming shore".
Instead Donald Trump and other faux limited government politicians want to increase regulation of the federal governments screening process for refugees even though historically the system has been incredibly effective (of the 785,000 refugees admitted since 2001, less than .00001% have been arrested). They also want to cease immigration of poltically displaced persons from the very areas that need refuge the most.
Refusing huddled masses is not the American Spirit that made this nation unique. This attitude never made any nation great. Lack of moral courage and sacrifice were never great.
We depend on immigration to keep our population growth rate at or above replacement rate, which is an important factor underlying economic growth (Kavoussi, 2012; Swanson, 2016). Recent work by economists shows that most of the decline in economic growth since 1980 has been due to factors such as the aging and retirement of baby-boomers, longer life expectancy for Americans, and lower fertility rates (Swanson, 2016). In fact, the aforementioned demographic changes account for a 11⁄4 % decline in annualized economic growth since 1980; according to some estimates, that is "essentially all of the decline we've seen in that metric" (Swanson, 2016; see also Gagnon et al., 2016). Immigrants and foreigners also account for the lion share of entrepreneurial activity (Stangler and Wiens, 2015), Nobel Laureates (Bernal, 2016), and STEM students (Sanchez, 2015). Which is why research tends to find a positive association between immigration and national economic wellness (Furtchtgott-Roth, 2014).
We depend on immigration to keep our population growth rate at or above replacement rate, which is an important factor underlying economic growth (Kavoussi, 2012; Swanson, 2016). Recent work by economists shows that most of the decline in economic growth since 1980 has been due to factors such as the aging and retirement of baby-boomers, longer life expectancy for Americans, and lower fertility rates (Swanson, 2016). In fact, the aforementioned demographic changes account for a 11⁄4 % decline in annualized economic growth since 1980; according to some estimates, that is "essentially all of the decline we've seen in that metric" (Swanson, 2016; see also Gagnon et al., 2016). Immigrants and foreigners also account for the lion share of entrepreneurial activity (Stangler and Wiens, 2015), Nobel Laureates (Bernal, 2016), and STEM students (Sanchez, 2015). Which is why research tends to find a positive association between immigration and national economic wellness (Furtchtgott-Roth, 2014).
Finally, Donald Trump's tones towards Muslims, refugees, and the Middle East are already seen as beneficial to terrorist organizations: "Rejoice with support from Allah, and find glad tidings in the imminent demise of America at the hands of Trump,” said the Islamic State-affiliated al-Minbar Media network, one of several extremist forums to post commentaries on the results of the U.S. election, "Trump’s win of the American presidency will bring hostility of Muslims against America as a result of his reckless actions, which show the overt and hidden hatred against them” (see Ishaan Tharoor in The Washington Post, 11.9.16).
Trade (with Caveats). Free-trade in a market-based innovation economy can be a win-win game if everybody plays by the rules, and I agree with Trump that systemic mercantilism (particularly innovation mercantilism) from other countries can be harmful. Since 2009, the Obama Administration brought 20 cases to the WTO regarding trade violations (more than any other member of the WTO!), and 11 of those cases were against China (substantially higher than previous administrations). The Obama administration won every of those cases, and thereby achieved the removal of barriers for American firms as well as increased export opportunities worth billions of dollars. I think that if Trump's team were to continue to work in the way that President Obama's administration has, then we can continue to ensure positive free-trade.
We need to think criticially about Trump's tone on NAFTA. NAFTA's overall effect on the US economy appears to be positive. According to the 2016 report from the Council of Foreign Relations, 33% of US exports go to Mexico and Canada. Furthermore, it is estimated that ~14 million jobs rely on trade with Canada and Mexico, while the 200,000 export-related jobs created annually by the pact pay 15 to 20 percent more on average than the jobs that were lost. Even those who aim to critique the pact because of potential job losses within the US will admit that much of those job losses would have happened even without NAFTA.
We also need to think critically about Trump's tone regarding the TPP. Overall, the stresses in the US labor market is a combination of technological advances and under-investment in both our physical infrastructure as well as under-investment in the human capital of our own people. While the impact of trade agreements is positive, it is relatively minor. Analyses of the TPP have shown that it should increase real incomes by ~$131 billion and increase annual exports by $357 billion by 2030.
Taxes. 47% of all cuts in Trump's tax plan go towards the top 1%. Tax cuts for the richest members of society tend to have a much smaller multiplier than tax cuts for the middle and working class (0.6 vs. 1.5). I applaud Trump's plan to give a "yuge" tax cut for middle and working class families (as discussed above), but I would fight against his plan to consolidate and reduce income tax brackets at the top. First, the plan would put substantial strain on our fiscal health, and second, tax cuts for the top 1% does not have near the multiplier effect that additional federal investments in science and technology would have (0.6 vs. 2.5). If we raise taxes on the top 0.12% of US incomes by enacting the Buffet rule (a 30% minimum tax on incomes over $1 million), and add a 4% surcharge on incomes over $5 million, then we could increase budgets for science and technology investments by 25% across the board (i.e. a 25% increase in the NIH, NSF, NASA, and Arts/Humanities respectively). As I have mentioned before, investors in the private sector tend not to invest in technological innovations until they are 3-5 years from commercialization, making the government (or US taxpayer) a key actor in assuming the risk required to produce technological innovations (a key to long-term economic growth). Increasing our collective stock of "patient" capital to fund innovations, and refraining from adding substantial strain to our government's fiscal health, is a much more productive allocation of resources.
Foreign Policy and Defense. In addition to what has been outlined above (Refugee immigration, tonal signals that only embolden terrorist groups, and strong discriminatory messages against a group of Americans because of their religion), I also disagree with Donald Trump's proposal to increase the size of the US army to 540,000 active duty soldiers. Increasing the size of active duty soldiers to make it easier for the US to unilaterally fight two ground wars simultaneously only emboldens the Neo-Cons who already craft a foreign policy for the US that is overly militaristic, and dangerous for world peace. Let use any savings from Trump's proposed audit of the Pentagon to increase funding for DARPA (military R&D, and one of the most innovative organizations in the world), and to improve the accuracy and agility of our Navy and Air Force.
We should further stand against attempts to relocate the US embassy in Israel from Tel-Aviv to Jerusalem. Such a move would undermine our ability to act as a broker in a sensitive political conflict. Lastly, I plan to stand boldly against any provision calling for the return of practices such as water-boarding. Interrogation tactics such as these are below the character and integrity of our country, and it is ineffective.
Energy. Trump's policy page on energy outlines a vision that I agree with, "protect clean air and clean wayer. We will conserve our natural habitats, reserves and resources." However, I disagree with his aim to expand onshore and offshore drilling, and I disagree with his aim to tap shale, oil, and natural gas reserves. The US has become the largest producer of oil and natural gas over the last eight years while also implementing energy policies that support the development of clean energy industries and that do more to protect habitats by restricting drilling. We should instead extend, and make permanent, renewable energy tax credits so that we can more aggressively support the emergence of these industries in our own country, and so that we can be competitive against China and Germany in this space globally.
Health. Competition among health insurers across state lines is not quite the blanket market-based solution that it is cracked up to be. According to the Georgetown Health Policy Institute, barriers to entry into markets across states are not regulatory so much as financial and network. Selling insurance in a new region or state is more than simply getting the necessary licenses, and making sure that your product includes locally required benefits. Insurance companies also have to set up favorable contracts with doctors and hospitals in those regions. In 2012, a study of several US states that passed laws to allow out-state insurance sales was conducted and the authors found that not a single out-of-state insurer took them up on the offer. The fact is that there is no federal impediment to "across-state-lines" arrangements, and the Affordable Care Act actually has a few provision to encourage more regional and national sales of insurance, but they have not proved popular. Even enthusiasts for interstate insurance sales say that the plan is not the silver bullet solution (See Sanger-Katz in NYT on 8.31.15).
Germany could be a great model to look to for improving the provision of Health Insurance for Americans. Health Insurers are private, some have argued that there is actually less government regulation of the German health insurance system than the American one, and there is greater coverage, it is cheaper, and provides greater quality of care. One reason for this is that private health insurers in Germany are non-profit. American health insurance companies use 20% of their revenue on administration costs (Medicaid and Medicare spend about 5% in comparison), and they are expected to provide dividends to shareholders. In contrast, German health insurers don't have the adverse (or perverse) incentive to provide as little actual healthcare as possible like American health insurers because they are not expected to provide dividends to shareholders, and they don't have to spend as much on administrative costs due to their non-profit form of organization. The result is cheaper and more liberal coverage than their American counterparts--- all from a system with private insurers that has less government regulation than the American system.
T.R. Reid called the German system "Applied Christianity". But, I know, why would Republicans want to mimic those European Socialists even if it is a private system with less government intrusion that provides cheaper, and better, healthcare to more people with a nickname referring to their favorite Divine Healer? (Sarcasm).
I don't know, but Trump is the Uber-Intelligent Defender of American Christendom, maybe he can tell me?
Racist, Sexist, and Islamophobic Rhetoric. I cannot, and will not, simply forget the ugly rhetoric that Trump has used over the past year and a half to propel to this office in the name of unity. I will not return his vulgarity with vulgarity, but this rhetoric cannot be tolerated. I saw this picture come across my Facebook feed today:
News flash: If you want the other half of the nation to begin to warm up and unite with you, then you better show a bit more...class.
I also saw one person, who supported Trump, write on social media that Hillary Clinton supporters ought to simply tell their children that a president was elected who does not share our views, but that we should give him the respect that you would give any president.
My question is: Are Trump supporters referring to the respect that they gave President Obama for the last 8 years wherein he was called several extremely gross, vulgar, and racially loaded names? Or the type of respect where one creates conspiracy theories regarding his birthplace and religious practices?
Or do they mean to say that even though the alt-right treated Obama with extreme dis-respect, that we should not treat their candidate that way?--- even though he was one of the loudest participants in treating President Obama with extreme disrespect? (a stunning show of hypocrisy from devote believers in a Man who despised hypocrisy)
Some Trump supporters would to well to step off the stool of self-righteousness and, in the words of Jesus Christ, "First cast out the beam out of thine own eye" (Matthew 7:5).
All in all, I am looking forwarding to supporting Trump in the areas where he and I agree, and actively fighting him in the areas where we don't.
And remember, Hillary Clinton did win the popular vote (by more than 2 million votes). Factor in the 6 million votes given to Johnson, Stein, and others, and it sends a clear message that a majority of Americans actually rejected Trump's rhetoric, and many of his policy ideas. So yes, let's listen to each other, work together where we can, and vigorously continue the national conversation!
Comments
Post a Comment