{"id":23431,"date":"2016-08-09T12:33:53","date_gmt":"2016-08-09T19:33:53","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/?p=23431"},"modified":"2016-08-09T12:33:53","modified_gmt":"2016-08-09T19:33:53","slug":"trump-embraces-tinkle-down","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/2016\/08\/09\/trump-embraces-tinkle-down\/","title":{"rendered":"Trump Embraces Tinkle Down"},"content":{"rendered":"

When it comes to populism from Rump Dump Trump, it includes hatred of all the people that Republican Supply-side Jesus (the polar opposite of the real Jesus) wants them to hate, especially Muslims and undocumented immigrants (except his wife).  However, when it comes to his economic plan, he embraces the Tinkle Down policies of Paul Lyin’ Ryan.<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\"1853406000\"<\/p>\n

From the beginning of Donald Trump\u2019s campaign, there has been a nagging inconsistency in his approach to economic issues. On trade and immigration, he has broken with Republican dogma, arguing that the influx from abroad of cheap goods and low-wage workers has undermined the job prospects and living standards of ordinary Americans. [his own products excluded<\/em>] On tax policy, however, Trump has stuck to the standard G.O.P. script, promising a slew of tax cuts skewed toward businesses and the rich. To be sure, until Monday, Trump hadn\u2019t talked much about his tax plan, but the broad outlines of it were there on his Web site, serving as a reminder of the limits of his populism<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

Trump rolled out his original tax plan last September<\/a>, after his Republican-primary opponents accused him of lacking policy specifics. I thought at the time that adopting trickle-down economics represented a strategic error for a candidate who was promoting himself as a new type of Republican. Instead of saying he\u2019d slash business taxes and bring the top rate of income tax down to twenty-five per cent, Trump could have promised tax cuts and tax credits targeted specifically at middle-class Americans, citing the fact that wealthy Americans were doing fine and didn\u2019t need another handout. For instance, he could have suggested raising the upper-income cut-off on Social Security contributions and using the cash this generated to pay for higher benefits for everybody. Or he could have eschewed tax cuts aimed at the wealthy in favor of expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit, which boosts the take-home pay of low-income working families.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s true that without any offsetting cuts in spending, such a tax plan would have raised the hackles of deficit hawks\u2014but the plan he did introduce raised those hackles anyway. A plan aimed at the middle class, however, could have complemented Trump\u2019s populist line on immigration and trade, wrong-footed the Democrats, and allowed him to claim he had a three-pronged approach to raising wages and living standards. In short, it would have made him a much more formidable candidate.<\/p>\n

The problem was that moving in that direction would have signalled [sic<\/em>] that Trump was a genuine populist insurrectionary, rather than a cosseted billionaire who plays one on television<\/strong>… [emphasis added<\/em>]<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

From <The New Yorker<\/a>><\/font><\/p>\n

Click through for more of this excellent analysis.<\/font><\/p>\n

Lawrence O’Donnell<\/a> provided some analysis of his own, and it’s superb.<\/font><\/p>\n