From the Brownstone Institute

By  Bret Swanson  

How will he organize the “deportation” of illegal migrants? In the best case, it will be difficult. There will be scuffles and chases. Critics will charge the new Administration as cruel and worse. How much stomach will Republicans have for a messy process?

Trump enjoys the momentum. Four of the most recent major national polls show him up 2 to 3%, while Democratic-friendly outlets like the New York Times and CNN both show a TIE race in their final surveys. The 2016 and 2020 elections were razor close even though Clinton (5%) and Biden (8%) had solid polling leads at this point. We need to contemplate a Trump win not only in the electoral college but also in the popular vote.

Here are some thoughts:

1. JD Vance ascendant, obviously. Big implications for the Republican trajectory.
2. Will Trump replace Fed chairman Jay Powell? Or merely jawbone for a change in policy? In a new CNBC interview, former Fed governor Kevin Warsh argues that the Fed has juiced both the stock market and inflation. Would reducing inflation, which Trump has promised, automatically therefore lead to a stock market correction and economic slowdown? Not necessarily. If Trump unleashes productive economic activity and Congress ends the fiscal blowout, the Fed could normalize monetary policy without causing a major economic slump.
3. Will Trump impose the broad and deep tariffs he proposed? Or will he mostly threaten them as a bargaining tool with China? I’m betting on some of the former but more of the latter. We notice, however, Trump allies are floating a trial balloon to replace income taxes with tariffs. As impractical and improbable as that may be, we’re glad to see the mention of radical tax reform reemerge after too long an absence from the national discussion.
4. How will he organize the “deportation” of illegal migrants? In the best case, it will be difficult. There will be scuffles and chases. Critics will charge the new Administration as cruel and worse. How much stomach will Republicans have for a messy process? One idea would be to offer a “reverse amnesty” – if you leave peacefully and agree not to return illegally, we will forgive your previous illegal entry(s) and minor violations. This would incentivize self-identification and quiet departure. Plus it would help authorities track those leaving. Would migrant departures truly hit the economy, as critics charge? We doubt large effects. Substantial native populations are still underemployed or absent from the workforce.
5. We should expect a major retrenchment of regulatory intrusions across the economy – from energy to crypto. Combined with recent Supreme Court action, such as the Chevron reversal, and assisted by the Elon Musk’s substance and narrative, it could be a regulatory renaissance. Extension of the 2017 tax cuts also becomes far more likely.
6. Trump has never worried much about debt, deficits, or spending. But he’s tapped Elon Musk as government efficiency czar. It’s an orthogonal approach to spending reform instead of the traditional (and unsuccessful) Paul Ryan playbook. Can this good cop-bad cop duo at the very least return out-of-control outlays to a pre-Covid path? Can they at least cancel purely kleptocratic programs, such as the $370-billion Green Energy slush funds? Might they go even further – leveraging the unpopular spending explosion and resulting inflation to achieve more revolutionary effects on government spending and reach? Or will the powerful and perennial forces of government expansion win yet again, sustaining a one-way ratchet not even Elon can defeat?
7. What if the economy turns south? One catalyst might be the gigantic unrealized bond losses on bank balance sheets; another might be commercial real estate collapse. Although reported GDP growth has been okay, the inflation hangover is helping Trump win on the economy. But many believe the post-pandemic economic expansion is merely a sugar-high and has already lasted longer than expected. A downturn early in Trump’s term could complicate many of his plans.
8. How will NATO and its transatlantic network respond? Or more generally, what will the neocon and neoliberal hawks, concentrated in DC and the media, but little loved otherwise, do? Does this item from Anne Applebaum — arguing Trump resembles Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin all rolled into one — portend continued all-out war on prudent foreign policy? Or will they adopt a more sophisticated approach? If the neocons move wholesale and formally (back) into the Democratic fold, how long will the coalition of wokes and militarists hold? On the economic front, Europe, already underperforming vis-a-vis the US, will fall even further behind without big changes. Reformers should gain at the expense of the transatlantic WEF-style bureaucrats.
9. Can Trump avoid another internal sabotage of his Administration? Before then, if the election results are tight, will the Democrats seek to complicate or even block his inauguration? Can he win approval for his appointees in the Senate? Can he clean house across the vast public agencies? How long will it take to recruit, train, and reinvigorate talented military leadership, which we chased away in recent years? And how will Trump counter – and avoid overreacting to – taunts, riots, unrest, and lawfare, designed to bolster the case he’s an authoritarian?
10. Will the Democrats reorient toward the center, a la Bill Clinton? Or will the blinding hatred of Trump fuel yet more radicalism? Orthodox political thinking suggests a moderation. Especially if Trump wins the popular vote, or comes close, pragmatic Democrats will counsel a reformation. James Carville, for example, already complains that his party careened recklessly away from male voters. And Trump’s apparent pickups among Black and Latino voters complicate the Democrats’ longstanding identity-focused strategy. Other incentives might push toward continued belligerence and extreme wokeness, however, and thus an intra-party war.
11. Will the half of the country which inexplicably retains any confidence in the legacy media at least begin rethinking its information diet and filters? Or has the infowarp inflicted permanent damage?
12. Will big business, which shifted hard toward Democrats over the last 15 years, recalibrate toward the GOP? Parts of Silicon Valley over the last year began a reorientation — e.g. Elon Musk, Marc Andreessen, David Sacks, and before them, Peter Thiel in 2016. But those are the entrepreneurs. In the receding past, businesses large and small generally lined up against government overreach. Then Big Business and Big Government merged. Now, a chief divide is between politically-enmeshed bureaucratic businesses and entrepreneurial ones. Does the GOP even want many of the big guys back? The GOP’s new alignment with “Little Tech” is an exciting development, especially after being shut out of Silicon Valley for the last two decades.
13. Industry winners: traditional energy, nuclear energy, Little Tech. Industry losers: Green Energy, Big Tech, Big Pharma, Big Food. Individual winners: X (nee Twitter), Elon Musk, RFK, Jr.
14. How will the Censorship Industrial Complex react? A Trump win will pose both a symbolic and operational blow to governmental, non-governmental, old media, and new media outlets determined to craft and control facts and narratives. It will complicate their mission, funding, and organizational web. Will they persist in their “mis/disinformation” framing and their badgering of old media and social media companies to moderate content aggressively? Or will they devise a new strategy? A.I. is pretty clearly the next frontier in the information wars. How will those who propagandize and rewire human minds attempt to program and prewire artificial ones?
15. How will Trump integrate RFK, Jr. and his movement? Will RFK, Jr. achieve real influence, especially on health issues? Big Pharma and Big Public Health will wage a holy war to block reforms in general and accountability for Covid mistakes in particular.
16. Trump has promised to end the war between Russia and Ukraine. On one hand, it should be easy. Despite what you hear from DC media and think tanks, Ukraine is losing badly. Hundreds of thousands are dead, and its military is depleted and faltering. Ukraine should want a deal quickly, before it loses yet more people and territory. Russia, meanwhile, always said it wants a deal, even before the war started, focusing on Ukrainian neutrality. Why Ukrainian neutrality should bother the US was always a mystery. And yet even critics of the West’s support for Ukraine, who want an agreement, think it will be difficult to achieve. The Western foreign policy establishment has invested too much credibility and emotion. It will charge “appeasement” and “betrayal” and make any deal difficult for Trump. Russia, meanwhile, has secured so much territory and now has Odessa and Kharkiv in its sights. Putin will not be eager to accept a deal he would have taken in 2021 or before. The far better path for all involved was a pre-war agreement, or the one negotiated but scuttled in April 2022.
17. What if A.I. launches a new productivity boom, enabled by an agenda of energy abundance, including a nuclear power revival? The economic tailwinds could remake politics even more than we currently see.
18. Can Trump, having run and won his last campaign, consolidate gains by reaching out and uniting the portions of the country willing to take an extended hand?

Republished from the author’s Substack

Author

Bret Swanson

Bret Swanson is president of the technology research firm Entropy Economics LLC, a nonresident senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and writes the Infonomena Substack.

From the Brownstone Institute

By David Stockman 

In the last weeks of the campaign, Donald Trump is slicing and dicing the Federal income tax nearly as fast as he served up fries at the McDonald’s drive-thru window last weekend. So far, he has proposed to extend the lower rates, family tax credits, and investment incentives of the 2017 Tax Act after they expire in 2025 and to also exempt tips, Social Security benefits, and overtime wages from the Federal income tax.

Those items alone would generate a revenue loss of $9 trillion over the next decade, but he has recently proposed to also exempt firefighters, police officers, military personnel, and veterans from the Federal income tax as well.

We estimate the latter would cost another $2.5 trillion in revenue loss over 10 years. As it happens, there are 370,000 firemen, 708,000 policemen, 2.86 million uniformed military personnel, and 18.0 million veterans in the US. These 22 million citizens have an estimated average income of $82,000 per year, which translates to about $60,000 each of AGI (adjusted gross income). At an average income tax rate of 14.7% these exclusions would generate $250 billion per year of reduced income tax payments.

In all, Trump has thus tossed out promises to cut income taxes by $11.5 trillion over the next 10-year budget window. In turn, these sweeping reductions would amount to upwards of 34% of CBO’s estimated baseline income tax revenue of $33.7 trillion over the period. Alas, even in the halcyon days of Reagan supply-side tax cutting no one really dreamed of eliminating fully one-third of the so-called crime of 1913 (the 16th Amendment which enabled the income tax).

10-Year Revenue Loss:

• Extend the 2017 Trump tax cuts: $5.350 trillion.
• Exempt overtime income: $2.000 trillion.
• End Taxation of Social Security benefits: $1.300 trillion.
• Exempt Tip income: $300 billion.
• Exempt Income of Firemen, Policemen, Military and Veterans: $2.500 trillion.
• Trump Total Revenue Loss: $11.500 trillion.
• CBO Income Tax Baseline Revenue: $33.700 trillion.
• Trump Revenue Loss As % of Baseline: 34%.

Then again, Trump may have something virtually epic in mind. To wit, scrapping the income tax entirely in favor of taxing consumption via levies on imported goods and merchandise.

“In the old days when we were smart, when we were a smart country, in the 1890s and all, this is when the country was relatively the richest it ever was. It had all tariffs. It didn’t have an income tax,” Trump said at a sit-down with voters in New York on Friday for Fox & Friends.

“Now we have income taxes, and we have people that are dying.”

The New York Times is deeply alarmed: “The former president has repeatedly praised a period in American history when there was no income tax, and the country relied on tariffs to fund the government.”

Actually, however, 19th-century America was even smarter than Trump realizes. In 1900 total Federal spending amounted to just 3.5% of GDP because back then America was still a peaceful republic and had no Warfare State or even significant standing army at all. And save for the most advanced precincts of Europe, the Welfare State hadn’t yet been invented, either.

So, yes, the so-called “revenue tariffs” of the 19th century did meet the income needs of the Federal government to the point of actually balancing the budget year after year between 1870 and 1900. Indeed, the actual annual surpluses were large enough to pay down most of the Civil War debt, to boot.

Today, of course, the Warfare State, Welfare State, and the Washington pork barrels account for 25% of GDP. So Trump may be directionally correct in wanting to tax consumption rather than income, but, as usual, he’s off by about seven orders of magnitude when it comes to the size of the Federal budget that needs to be financed.

Still, Trump has stepped up to the plate when it comes to a 21st-century version of the revenue tariff. He has pledged to impose a 20% universal tariff on all imports from all countries with a specific 60% rate for Chinese imports. Based on current US import levels of $3.5 trillion per year from worldwide sources and $450 billion from China, Trump’s tariffs would generate about $900 billion of receipts per annum.

To be sure, Trump’s claim that these giant tariffs would be paid for by Chinamen, Mexicans, and European socialists is just more of his standard baloney. Tariffs are paid for by consumers, but that’s actually the hidden virtue of the Tariff Man’s favorite word.

The truth is, government should be paid for via taxation on current citizens, not fobbed off in the form of giant debts on future citizens, born and unborn. So if we are going to have Big Government at 25% of GDP rather than a 19th-century government at 3.5% of GDP, and Trump is a Big Government Man if there ever was one, better that the burden be placed on consumption, not production, income, and investment.

After all, today the “makers” get hit good and hard by the current exceedingly lopsided income tax system. Thus, the top 1% pays 46% of income taxes, while the top 5% pays 66% and the top 10% pays 76% of all income taxes. On the other end, by contrast, the bottom 50% pays just 2.3% of individual income taxes, while 40% of all families pay no income tax at all.

In any event, the math works out such that the proposed Trumpian revenue tariffs would generate about $9 trillion over the next decade, or nearly 80% of the $11.5 trillion revenue loss from drastically shrinking the income tax coverage and collection rate. So that’s a big step in the direction of fiscal solvency rather than more UniParty free lunches.

To be sure, the proper redirection of Federal tax policy would be a national sales tax or VAT levy, which could be applied to both goods and services and to domestically produced output as well as to imports. Thus, a 5% VAT on the current $20 trillion per year of total PCE (personal consumption expenditures) would generate the equivalent of Trump’s revenue tariff, while a 15% levy on total PCE could replace both the Trump tariff and the remainder of the income tax entirely.

Notwithstanding its shortcomings, however, a revenue tariff is a long overdue start in the right direction. Trump’s bold stance in favor of taxing consumption rather than income and requiring all households to bear the cost of government, not just the small number of producers at the top of the economic ladder, is clearly superior to the status quo.

Still, this sweeping change in the composition and incidence of tax policy doesn’t really put the impending fiscal disaster to bed. Not by a long shot.

If you assume Trump’s big revenue tariffs and sweeping income tax cuts and that the other Federal payroll, corporate, and excise taxes remain the same, 10-year revenues compute to just $60 trillion versus built-in spending of $85 trillion per the CBO baseline. In short, even with a giant Trumpified version of the historical revenue tariff, Trump’s budget plan would still generate $25 trillion of red ink over the next decade.

10-Year Budget Outlook with Trump Tax Cuts and Tariffs, 2025 to 2034:

• Individual income taxes with Trump cuts: $22.0 trillion.
• Trump Revenue Tariffs: $9.0 trillion.
• Existing Payroll Taxes: $20.9 trillion.
• Existing Corporate Tax Ex-Trump Cut to 15% on Manufacturers: $4.6 trillion.
• Other Existing Federal Receipts: $3.5 trillion.
• Total Federal Revenue Under Trump Policy: $60.0 trillion.
• CBO Baseline Federal Outlays: $85.0 trillion.
• 10-Year Trump Deficit: $25.0 trillion.

To be sure, Trump has promised to turn Elon Musk loose on a crusade against government waste and inefficiency, and we say more power to him. If anyone has the courage and smarts to take on the Swamp, surely Elon Musk is at the top of the list.

Then again, Trump has promised to shield 82% of the budget from any cuts at all. That’s right. Elon could huff and puff and shrink the non-exempt programs and agencies by one-third and still leave deficits in excess of $20 trillion over the next decade.

10-year Cost Of Programs Trump Has Championed, Promised Not To Cut or Can’t Cut:

• Social Security: $20.0 trillion.
• Medicare: $16.0 trillion.
• Federal Military and Civilian Retirement Pensions: $2.5 trillion.
• Veterans’ programs: $3.0 trillion.
• National Security Budget: $15.5 trillion.
• Interest On the Public Debt: $13.0 trillion.
• Total Exempt Programs: $70.0 trillion.
• Exempt Programs As % of $85 trillion CBO Baseline: 82%.

In short, even with Trump’s full revenue tariffs and assuming Elon could actually slash 33% of the non-exempt budget without closing the Washington Monument, the bottom-line math leaves little to the imagination. Spending at $80 trillion would amount to 22.7% of GDP, while Trump’s tariff-heavy revenue package would generate $60 trillion of Federal receipts over the next decade, amounting to about 17.0% of GDP.

In turn, that would leave a structural deficit of nearly 6% of GDP as far as the eye can see. And that projection assumes no recession ever again and that interest on a public debt approaching $60 trillion by 2034 would average just 3.3% across the maturity spectrum.

We will take the unders on that proposition any day of the week and twice on Sunday. That is to say, CBO’s projection of $1.7 trillion of annual interest expense by 2034 is likely understated by several trillion. Per year.

In any event, the challenge of financing these giant deficits along with $900 billion per year of Trump tariffs would be considerable. The latter alone would amount to nearly 10% of annual US consumption of consumer goods and fixed investment goods.

So if the Fed were to “accommodate” these massive Trump tariffs by running the printing presses red-hot in an attempt to compensate for lost household purchasing power, it could well trigger a burst of inflation even more virulent than that of 2021-2024.

On the other hand, were it to adhere to the correct sound money solution and refuse to “accommodate” both the massive Trump deficits and the giant Trump tariffs, bond yields, and interest rates would soar, even as the Main Street economy contracted sharply in response to a one-time 10% increase in the general price level.

Financing massive budget deficits honestly in the bond pits rather than at the Fed’s printing presses would also unleash the mother of all meltdowns in today’s insanely inflated financial markets. Trump would therefore get his tariff and some substantial reshoring of industrial production, but also a hair-curling recession on Main Street and a Bronx Cheer from the canyons of Wall Street.

Unfortunately, that’s the price America would have to pay even under Trumpian economics to purge the destructive effects of decades of UniParty spend, borrow, and print policies.

Still, we can actually think of a decidedly worse scenario. To wit, perpetuation of the UniParty status quo, which is what we would get from the Washington ruling party that replaced a failing mind in the Oval Office with an empty one on the Democratic presidential ticket.

A version of this piece appeared on the author’s site.

Author

David Stockman

David Stockman, Senior Scholar at Brownstone Institute, is the author of many books on politics, finance, and economics. He is a former congressman from Michigan, and the former Director of the Congressional Office of Management and Budget. He runs the subscription-based analytics site ContraCorner.