Trump Policies will Lead to Worse Inflation

From The Wall Street Journal, Oct. 28, 2024 

Top Stories

Nashville grocery store that stopped raising prices to help people with food inflation may face closure

 Nashville grocery store that stopped raising prices to help people with food inflation may face closure

Rod's Comment: Duh. Good intentions don't keep the lights on. 

Top Stories

More on Donald Trump's Economically Illiterate Plan to Impose Massive Across-the-Board Tariffs

 

by Rod Williams, Nov.2, 2024- Unfortunately, we have two economic illiterates running for president this year and one will hold office. If Trump is elected, I doubt he will listen to economist who will tell him his tariff proposal will be disastrous for workers, consumers and the American and world economy. He thinks he is the smartest guy in the room and will expect total loyalty and no backtalk this time around. 

Congress has the constitutional authority to set tariffs, but overtime Congress has delegated that authority to the executive branch. Congress has for decades been delegating more and more rule-making authority to the executive branch. Simple gridlock will not stop Trump form imposing his tariff proposals should he be elected. Congress could claw back that authority to set tariffs from the executive branch, but it would not be easy, and gridlock in this case would serve the president and prevent Congress from regaining the authority they delegated away.  

Top Stories

Beware Kamala Harris’s Disastrous Housing Price Controls

 

by Rod Williams, Nov. 2,2024- I have already voted and voted for Kamala Harris. However, that does not mean I approve of her economic proposals, or much else about her campaign. I voted for her because she was the candidate that did not attempt a coup and is not likely to become a dictator.

Price controls is one of those dumb unworkable ideas that just keep popping back up.  If Harris is elected, maybe she will listen to economist and abandon her price-fixing scheme. If not, I hope Congress can block this rent control proposal from becoming law. I hope for gridlock. 

Top Stories

Donald Trump says Liz Cheney should face gunfire

Top Stories

Taxpayers Paying For Metro’s Mistakes

From The Pamphleteer, Nov. 1, 2024- It’s time to cough up a bit more cash for Metro’s unconstitutional sidewalk debacle. Next week, the council will be meeting on Thursday instead of Tuesday (due to the election) and is set to dish out another $36,472.51 in sidewalk reimbursements. Back in 2017, then-council member—now vice mayor—Angie Henderson sponsored a bill granting Metro the ability to withhold building permits, effectively allowing the government to coerce owners into building sidewalks for the city. A little over a year ago, the policy was deemed unconstitutional. To date, Metro has racked up legal fees and reimbursement payouts totaling $784,000 and some change.

Top Stories

About Trump’s ‘Reciprocal’ Tariffs

by Rod Williams, Nov. 1, 2024- Ever since the end of World War II up until the election of Donald Trump the Republican Party has been the party most committed to free trade. The presidents who were the strongest advocates of free trade were Ronald Reagan and George H. Bush.  It was Reagan who described the Republican Party as a three-legged stool comprised of a coalition of fiscal conservatives, social conservatives and national security hawks. Free Trade was a major component of the party's fiscal conservatism.

Durning this post WWII period, opposition to tariff reduction usually came from Democrats responding to labor union pressure, but that was a minority position in the Democrat coalition. Under the leadership of Bill Clinton, the Democrat Party fully embraced free trade and opposition to free trade was from then on, a small fringe of both parties. 

Donald Trump has changed that. Now, opposition to free trade is a major feature of Republican Party politics. It is surprising to me how many Republicans have jettisoned things they once believed in, in order to hold on to power or curry favor with Trump. One Republican who has not is former U. S. Senator Pat Toomey.  

I know that anyone who does not kowtow to Donald Trump is denounced by Trump loyalist as a RINO, or swamp creature or member of the Deep State. Pat Tomney is a solid conservative. Durning his time in the Senate he was one of the most conservative members. The Club For Growth gave Toomey a rating of 93%. and the American Conservative Union Rating gave him a score of 100. Pat Tomney did not change, the Republican Party did.

Below are excerpts from an article in the Wall Street Journal where Senator Tomney explains why Trump's tariff proposal is detrimental to American workers and consumers. 

About Trump’s ‘Reciprocal’ Tariffs

He wants to raise your taxes, and he thinks I’m the stupid one.

Senator Pat Toomey

By Pat Toomey, Wall Street Journal, Oct. 27, 2024 - Donald Trump recently declared that only stupidity could explain my opposition to his reciprocal-tariff proposals. There are other explanations. Concern for Americans’ jobs and standard of living comes to mind.

I understand the emotional appeal of trade-rules reciprocity—it satisfies an urge for revenge. But that revenge will be less satisfying for the working-class Americans facing unemployment and higher prices if Mr. Trump carries through on his import-tax promises.

As I tried to explain to Mr. Trump when he was president, another country’s misguided decision to tax its citizens on what they buy from American manufacturers isn’t a good reason to punish Americans who wish to buy that country’s products. ...  low taxes on imports give American consumers more choices, cheaper prices and a higher standard of living. Low tariffs also make American manufacturers more competitive ... Mr. Trump’s reciprocal tariffs would effectively allow other countries to determine how the U.S. taxes its own citizens. 

No country has ever tariffed its way to prosperity. ... Today the nations with the highest tariffs are economic basket cases, ... 

More than 20 years ago noble prize-winning economist Milton Friedman wrote a Newsweek column extolling the virtues of free trade. That column still rings true today. I assume most of you know of Milton Friedman. He was an author and advisor to presidents and advocate of markets. If political movements had patron saints, Milton Friedman would be a patron saint of the conservative movement. 

Friedman on free trade

Milton Friedman

October 1, 1993 - We have heard much these past few years about using the government to protect the consumer. A far more urgent problem is to protect the consumer from the government.

The immediate occasion for these remarks is the bill that is being considered by the House Ways and Means Committee to impose import quotas on textiles, shoes, and other products. Such a bill will, like present tariffs, raise prices to customers and waste our resources. Unlike present tariffs, it will not even yield any revenue to the government. The higher prices will all go to the producers—mostly simply to pay for higher costs. The consumer will be forced to spend several extra dollars to subsidize the producers by one dollar. A straight handout would be far cheaper.

The proponents of quotas say, "Free trade is fine in theory but it must be reciprocal. We cannot open our markets to foreign products if foreigners close their markets to us." Japan, they argue, to use their favorite whipping boy, "keeps her vast internal market for the private domain of Japanese industry but then pushes her products into the U.S. market and complains when we try to prevent this unfair tactic."

The argument sounds reasonable. It is, in fact, utter nonsense. Exports are the cost of trade, imports the return from trade, not the other way around.

Suppose Japan were incredibly successful in her alleged attempt to restrict imports into Japan, managing to dispense with them entirely. Suppose that Japan were incredibly successful in her alleged attempts to push exports to the U.S., managing to sell us large quantities of assorted goods. What would Japan do with the dollars she received for her exports? Take crisp greenbacks back to Tokyo to stash in the vaults of the Bank of Japan? Let deposits at U.S. banks pile up? Jolly for us. Can you think of a better deal than our getting fine textiles, shiny cars, and sophisticated TV sets for a bale of green printed paper? Or for some entries on the books of banks? If the Japanese would only be willing to keep on doing that, we can provide all the green paper they will take.

The Japanese might accumulate, as they have been doing, a moderate sum in greenbacks or dollar deposits or dollar securities as a reserve for possible future needs. But they are too smart to do so indefinitely. Very soon Japan would take steps either to reduce exports or to use the dollars to buy imports (by changes in trade restrictions, or in the internal price level, or in the exchange rate between the yen and the dollar). We would again be under the unfortunate necessity of having to pay in real goods for real goods.

But, you may say, what if the Japanese asked for gold? Like greenbacks, gold would be useful to them only as a reserve for future purchases. They would derive no current services from the gold any more than we do from the gold buried at Fort Knox. I for one would rather have the useful goods than the idle gold. But if the U.S. authorities thought differently, they could readily refuse to sell the gold for the dollars at a fixed price of $35 an ounce. In that case, Japan would again have only the alternatives of greenbacks, deposits, dollar securities—or buying U.S.-produced goods.

Japan does impose numerous restrictions on trade—though in recent years she has been reducing them. Those trade restrictions hurt Japan and they hurt us—by denying them and us mutually profitable trade. In Japan no less than in the U.S., concentrated producers exert a greater influence on government than widely diffused consumers and are able to persuade the government to fleece the consumer for the benefit of the producers.

However, we only increase the hurt to us—and also to them—by imposing additional restrictions in our turn. The wise course for us is precisely the opposite—to move unilaterally toward free trade. If they still choose to impose restrictions, that is too bad but at least we have not added insult to injury.

This is clearly the right course of action on economic grounds. But it is also the only course of action that is in keeping with our political position in the world. We are a great nation, the leader of the free world. Yet we squander our political power to appease the textile industry in the Carolinas! We should instead be setting a standard for the world by practicing the freedom of competition, of trade, and of enterprise that we preach.

Unfortunately, the above will not resonate with today's Republican Party, for the Republican Party has ceased to be a conservative party and has morphed into a nationalist populist party that has turned its back on the principles it once professed. Along with support for America's leadership role in the world and collective security, the Republican Party has also jettisoned fiscal responsibility and free trade. 

 

Top Stories

Trump's Economic Plan Would Likely Add $7.75 Trillion to the National Debt and Harris' Plans Would Add $3.95 Trillion.

by Rod Williams, Oct. 31, 2024- The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget has updated their analysis of the economic policy proposals of the two candidates and concluded that the Trump economic plan would likely add $7.75 trillion to the national debt and Harris' plans would Add $3.95 trillion. Note that this is the most likely estimate. High estimates for Trump are $15.55 trillion and $8.3 trillion for Harris. We are headed for a financial cliff and neither candidate is hitting the breaks, instead both are pushing the accelerator, but Trump is accelerating at twice the speed of Harris. 

I know that the Trump cult will dismiss this. They dismiss anything that contradicts the message of the leader. However, the economic analysis of CRFB is sound. The organization is non-partisan and respected. Most often it is Democrats who would dismiss the analysis of CRFB. If you are one who dislikes Trump's authoritarian tendencies but were going to vote for him anyway because you believe he is better on policy, please consider this. On economic policy, Trump is to the left of Kamala Harris.  Trump's economic policy proposals are disastrous. If you are concerned about the national debt, do not vote for Trump.

Below is the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget analysis.

The Fiscal Impact of the Harris and Trump Campaign Plans

Oct. 28, 2024- Since The Fiscal Impact of the Harris and Trump Campaign Plans was published on October 7, both Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump have put forward additional proposals.   In this update, we find Vice President Harris’s new proposals will increase her ten-year borrowing by $450 billion and President Trump’s new proposals will increase his borrowing by $250 billion, under our central estimate. As a result, Vice President Harris’s plans would add $3.95 trillion to the debt over a decade (with a range of $300 billion to $8.3 trillion), compared to $3.50 trillion in our initial analysis. President Trump’s plans would add $7.75 trillion to the debt (with a range of $1.65 to $15.55 trillion), up from $7.50 trillion in our initial analysis. ***** The next President will face significant fiscal challenges upon taking office, including record debt levels, large structural deficits, surging interest payments, and the looming insolvency of critical trust fund programs. Our large and growing national debt threatens to slow economic growth, boost interest rates and payments, weaken national security, constrain policy choices, and increase the risk of an eventual fiscal crisis. However, neither major candidate running in the 2024 presidential election has put forward a plan to address this rising debt burden. In fact, our comprehensive analysis of the candidates’ tax and spending plans finds that both Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump would likely further increase deficits and debt above levels projected under current law. Under our central estimate, Vice President Harris’s plan would increase the debt by $3.95 trillion through 2035, while President Trump’s plan would increase the debt by $7.75 trillion. These estimates are an update of our October 7 analysis, and include additional policy proposal.

Our estimates come with a wide range of uncertainty, reflecting both different interpretations and estimates of the policies. Under our low- and high-cost estimates, we estimate Vice President Harris’s plan could increase debt by between $300 billion and $8.30 trillion through 2035, while President Trump’s plan could increase debt by between $1.65 and $15.55 trillion.

US Budget Watch 2024 is a project of the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget designed to educate the public on the fiscal impact of presidential candidates’ proposals and platforms. Throughout the election, we will issue policy explainers, fact checks, budget scores, and other analyses. We do not support or oppose any candidate for public office.

What Do the Candidates Propose and How Do the Numbers Add Up? Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump have both called for a number of policy changes with potentially significant fiscal impact. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget has produced a central, low-, and high-cost estimate for each of these policy proposals. Under these estimates, we find: Vice President Harris would add $3.95 trillion to the projected debt through Fiscal Year (FY) 2035 under our central estimate, as a result of $7.65 trillion of deficit-increasing measures, $4.25 trillion of deficit-reducing measures, and $550 billion of interest costs. President Trump would add $7.75 trillion to the projected debt through FY 2035 under our central estimate, as a result of $10.40 trillion of deficit-increasing measures, $3.70 trillion of deficit-reducing measures, and $1.05 trillion of interest costs. Vice President Harris would increase projected debt by $300 billion through FY 2035 under our low-cost estimate and by $8.30 trillion under our high-cost estimate. President Trump would increase projected debt by $1.65 trillion through FY 2035 under our low-cost estimate and by $15.55 trillion under our high-cost estimate. These estimates reflect the expected fiscal impact of policies on the candidates’ campaign websites and of policies that have been proposed through official campaign announcements, white papers, and social media posts. In many cases, we relied on speeches, discussions with campaign staff, and similar proposals in Presidents’ budgets and elsewhere to help clarify policy details.

During the 2024 campaign, Vice President Harris has proposed to significantly expand the Child Tax Credit and other individual tax credits, increase support for housing and health care, expand Medicare, lower taxes on tips, and strengthen border security. She has also called for spending and tax breaks for child care, education, long-term care, preschool, paid leave, domestic research and manufacturing, and small businesses; and she has expressed support for extending expiring provisions of the Tax Cuts & Jobs Act (TCJA) for households making under $400,000 per year. President Trump, meanwhile, has proposed to modify and extend the TCJA, further cut taxes for corporations and small businesses, increase military spending, strengthen border security, expand deportations and immigration enforcement, and increase support for housing, health care, and long-term care. He has also proposed ending the taxation of tip income, overtime pay, and Social Security benefits. To help offset the costs of her plan, Vice President Harris has proposed increasing taxes on corporations and high-income households and reducing prescription drug prices. Her campaign also says she supports the revenue-raising provisions in President Biden’s FY 2025 budget, which would further increase taxes on corporations and high-income households. To help offset the costs of his plan, President Trump would impose new tariffs on imports; repeal energy- and environment-related spending, tax cuts, and regulations; cut fraudulent spending; and end the Department of Education. Under our central estimate, both plans would add substantially to the debt. Specifically, we find the Harris plan would add $3.95 trillion to the debt over the ten-year period from FY 2026 through 2035 and the Trump plan would add $7.75 trillion to the debt over that same period. These findings involve a high degree of uncertainty, mostly due to questions about the details of how candidates’ policies are designed. We have therefore relied on candidate statements, campaign feedback, past budget proposals, and other sources for enough detail to credibly estimate the potential costs or savings and in most cases have produced wide-ranging estimates that reflect many different potential policy choices. Furthermore, even fully detailed and previously analyzed policies have uncertain costs. This is especially true of policies that, if implemented, might significantly alter behavior. In these cases, we look to different scores as well as the available academic literature on behavioral responses. Where possible, we analyze a wide range of behavioral responses. Our ranges also reflect different estimates from different sources and different estimating methods. As in past election years, this analysis presents high- and low-cost estimates for each proposal along with our central estimates. The high-cost estimates reflect the upper bound for likely potential costs and the lower bound for potential savings and therefore represent our maximum estimate for the overall budget impact of a candidate’s plan. Our low-cost estimates reflect the inverse and therefore represent our minimum estimate for the overall budget impact of a candidate’s plan. We discuss the specific differences between our estimates in our descriptions of each policy area and provide general discussion of our methodology in Appendix I. Under our low-cost estimate, we find the Harris plan would increase debt by $300 billion, while the Trump plan would increase debt by $1.65 trillion. Under our high-cost estimate, we find the Harris plan would increase debt by $8.30 trillion, while the Trump plan would increase debt by $15.55 trillion.

The largest sources of uncertainty in Vice President Harris’s plan are her proposals to extend the TCJA for those earning under $400,000 per year, fund higher education, support paid leave and child care, and raise taxes on corporations. The largest sources of uncertainty in President Trump’s plan are his proposals to extend and modify the TCJA, end taxes on overtime, increase defense spending, address immigration, and increase tariffs. Our analysis incorporates policies that we understand to be part of each candidate’s campaign platform and that increase or reduce deficits by at least $50 billion over a decade. In Appendix II, we discuss some policies mentioned on the campaign trail that were not included in our analysis – either because we do not understand them to be an official campaign policy or their fiscal effect is not likely to be large enough to incorporate into our analysis. Since we initially published our analysis on October 7, 2024, both President Trump and Vice President Harris have announced additional policy proposals that would affect the overall budget impact of their respective plans. We have updated our analysis to incorporate these proposals, which we explain further in Appendix III. You can read the original analysis here. What Would the Candidates' Proposals Mean for the National Debt? The national debt currently stands at 99 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and is projected to grow from 102 percent of GDP at the start of FY 2026 to 125 percent by the end of 2035 based on the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) current law baseline. The debt will exceed its record as a share of the economy – 106 percent set in 1946 – in just three years. Debt would continue to grow faster than the economy under either candidates’ plans and in most scenarios would grow faster and higher than under current law. Under our central estimates, we find that Vice President Harris’s plan would push debt to 134 percent of GDP in FY 2035 – a 9 percent of GDP increase. We estimate President Trump’s plan would push debt to 143 percent of GDP in 2035 – an 18 percent of GDP increase. Debt could be higher or lower under different scenarios. Under our low-cost estimates, debt in FY 2035 would grow to 125 percent of GDP under the Harris plan (just above current law) and would grow to 129 percent under the Trump plan. Under our high-cost estimates, debt would grow to 144 percent of GDP under the Harris plan and 161 percent of GDP under the Trump plan.  Our estimates assume policies are implemented in 2026 – the first year for which the next President will submit a budget proposal – and that lawmakers follow the current law baseline outside of the candidates’ proposals. We do not account for possible changes in GDP resulting from the candidates’ policies, though in some high- and low-cost estimates we account for dynamic feedback effects on revenue and spending.

Click here to read more about the Harris Plan.

Click here to read more about the Trump Plan. Click here to read the full analysis.

Top Stories

 

Top Stories

Learn More About "Choice Lanes."

 From Council Member Bob Nash, Oct. 30, 2024- 

For those of you who are interested in learning more about the proposed “Choice Lanes” project along I-24, TDOT will be holding an informational meeting on November 14th at 6:30 pm at the MNPD South Precinct community room located at 5101 Harding Place. TDOT is interested in your feedback.

Top Stories

Beacon Center Young Professionals October Happy Hour and Networking Event is Wed. Oct. 30.

 

Top Stories

On Watching Trump's Interview with Joe Rogan

by Rod Williams, Oct. 28, 2024- I watched the Joe Rogan interview of Donald Trump, so you don't have to. I have watched Joe Rogan a few times, or more accurately I have watched him a time or two and listened to him on my headphone while walking a few more times. I walk almost every day, and usually listen to interviews or lecture when I do. 

I won't say I like Joe Rogan, but he is generally not terribly offensive. He sometimes has interesting guest. Rogan, I think, has the largest audience of any podcaster, with something like 31 million subscribers.  Rogan is in the same vein as Andrew Tate and some other podcasters popular with young men but not near as crazy. He is more laid back and does not rant and is a pretty good interviewer. 

Rogan, from what I gather from my limited exposure, is one of the people that young men like. I have not heard him be misogynistic, but he has that reputation, and he is a "manly" man. He is into sports and bodybuilding and against vaccines and talks of living a healthy lifestyle among other interest. 

The interview was three hours long! I watched parts of it in 1.25- or 1.5-time speed and did some skipping ahead. I thought that being in front of a friendly interviewer and trying to motivate young men who often don't vote, Trump might really let his freak flag fly and get these young men living in their mom's basement excited to get off the couch and go vote. He didn't. 

Trump was just boring. He wasn't very scary. He seemed almost normal. He wasn't even very entertaining. He repeated the case he makes that the 2020 election was stolen and repeated the normal case about the danger of the out-of-control border and made his case for isolationism some other policy positions, but without a lot of passion. Rogan asked Trump for specifics about how the election was stolen, and Trump didn't offer any. Rogan seemed disappointed with the answer but didn't push. Of course, Trump told a lot of lies as normal and if you want to see CNN's factcheck of the interview you can at this link. 

Most of the time, they talked about stuff that is not even political. They talked about boxers and who was best and talked about sports injuries. Trump talked about how fit he was. They talked about whether or not there was life on other planets. Trump says he believes there might be life on Mars. He talked about how the people on The View use to love him before they turned against him, and other stuff of no consequence. 

Trump came across as somewhat of a blowhard but mostly just boring and harmless. It was snoozefest. I can't imagine many people watched the full three hours. If you missed it, you didn't miss much.  

Top Stories