I’m not the only once to notice this unfortunate tendency. Here are some excerpts from a July column in the Wall Street Journal by Mickey Levy, a visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution.
The economic platforms of both presidential candidates are littered with antigrowth proposals. …Kamala Harris…is a pumped-up version of typical Democratic policies. It features significant increases in taxes and spending. Donald Trump…would raise tariffs… Neither candidate seems to have learned much from history. Every 100 years or so, the protectionist wing of the Republican Party pushes through significantly higher tariffs. The outcome is never good. …On the Democratic side, …Harris…includes an assortment of tax increases aimed at wealthy taxpayers. …Some proposals are simple job destroyers, while others are truly menacing. …Meanwhile, both candidates have pledged not to touch the benefits and structures of Social Security and Medicare. These are the primary sources of large deficits and mounting government debt. Promising to leave these programs alone may be good short-run politics, but it’s irresponsibly bad economics. …Whatever happened to common sense?
Meanwhile, Jim Tankersley of the New York Times has a report filed yesterday on the Trump and Harris agendas.
…both candidates sent voters clear and important messages about their economic visions. Each embraced a vision of a powerful federal government, using its muscle to intervene in markets… Ms. Harris…seeks large tax increases on corporations and high earners, to fund assistance for low-income and middle-class workers… At the same time, it provides big tax breaks to companies engaged in what Ms. Harris and other progressives see as delivering great economic benefit…the main thrust of Ms. Harris’s vision is clear: a mixture of government intervention and government assistance… Like Ms. Harris, …Mr. Trump offered a string of pledges on how he would wield government power to intervene in markets… He said he would direct his cabinet to somehow bring down the cost of car insurance… Mr. Trump also ratcheted up a promise to impose new taxes on imported goods…the rate could be as high as 20 percent. ..Ms. Harris had said in recent days that, like Mr. Trump, she supports exempting some tipped income from federal taxes.
I can’t help but comment on the disconnect between the headline and the subheading of the New York Times story.
If both Trump and Harris want to increase the size and scope of government, how are they offering “a clear contrast”?
Dan Mitchell is co-founder of the Center for Freedom and Prosperity and Chairman of the Board. He is an expert in international tax competition and supply-side tax policy.
