Something interesting happened on Thursday: Donald Trump explained Kamala Harris' economic plan better than Kamala Harris did.
It was weird, to borrow a common criticism of all things Trump by the left. Worse, it was a stark reminder of how much is at stake when Americans go to the polls to choose their next president. They really should think twice before condoning someone so close to the center of power as “Comrade Kamala,” to borrow a name Trump often uses for his opponents.
I came to that conclusion as I listened to Trump's extensive and detailed economic speech at a luncheon hosted by the Economic Club of New York that day. I was struck not only by Trump's grasp of economic issues, but also by how Harris left it to her opponent to explain how she wanted to manage a $28 trillion economy.
I think she either doesn't have a plan or isn't smart enough to explain what her advisors are thinking.
Of course, most Americans aren’t as well-versed in the nuances of the economic debate as some of us small talkers and event attendees. They understand how inflation is making life harder, and that Harris’ boasts that she and her nearly-thrown-out-the-window boss, Sleepy Joe Biden, have crushed it ring hollow as inflation is falling while the prices of basic goods remain stubbornly high.
Americans may or may not fully understand that the Biden-Harris Administration's spending spree and regulatory tightening over the past four years are to blame. But they remember the strong growth and low inflation of the Trump era, fueled by the pro-growth policies of lower taxes and deregulation. Despite his behavioral shortcomings and the blemishes of January 6, polls show he is by far the better on the economy.
Perhaps if Trump keeps up this same economic message long enough, and can deliver it well in the upcoming debates, he can win the support of enough voters to win the presidency a second time.
The people in that room on Thursday — the financiers, asset managers and legal elite — are not the average American voter, who have long thrived on a stock market fueled by easy fiscal and monetary money.
But outside Wall Street we also know the country is suffering, and the risks are too great to hand over the keys to the economic codes. The latest economic data shows signs that the job market is slowing. Food and housing prices remain high.
Meanwhile, Harris's team has yet to reveal details of how she plans to fix things. Harris herself is often incoherent even in non-threatening situations, so she campaigns on “vibes.” Her plans have come from leaks to friendly media outlets and social media posts by surrogates like Mark Cuban. She touts herself as an economic moderate, even though she has offered left-leaning views on regulating food prices and has not rejected Biden's crazy proposal to tax unrealized capital gains (i.e. stocks that haven't been sold), which is not just socialist but would crash the stock market.
Cuban has also been ratting out to anyone who will listen (including me) that it's unreasonable to expect a detailed economic plan from a candidate who didn't know he was going to be the nominee until Biden's rant at them during the June 27 debate. Oh, and it's Trump who is truly economically ignorant of the two.
Gaslighting on Steroids
I like Cuban because he is a self-made billionaire unlike most leftists and is actively involved, but his comments are extreme gaslighting.The American people deserve more from a VP who knew or should have known that Sleepy Joe was going to get a call as he was about to leave office.
Trump literally gave an hour-long speech on Thursday about how he would create jobs and lower the prices of basic goods for ordinary people, and what was wrong with Harris' insensitive plan for the country.
As Trump put it (feel free to fact-check, Mark), the leaked information also included a promise to “end the Trump tax cuts, which would itself be a massive tax increase — more than $5 trillion in tax increases. … The result would be the largest small business tax increase in history, dramatically increasing taxes for 25 million small businesses and raising small business tax rates by as much as 43%.”
Harris then worked on her own proposals, preserving tax reform passed in her first year in office that would have expired next year if she had her way: She lowered the corporate tax rate to 21%, which brought jobs back from overseas tax havens, caused wages to soar, and increased employment — without causing inflation.
I'm not a big fan of the other aspect of MAGA economics: economic nationalism. I doubt that the audience was either when Trump explained how he would impose across-the-board tariffs to make American companies more competitive. While I do have my doubts, I did notice some people nodding in agreement when he explained how he would lower the corporate tax rate to 15% for companies that manufacture their products in the US.
Trump painted a dystopian vision for the country if Harris were elected: more open borders, more crime, higher taxes, and an overall weaker world. Was he exaggerating? Of course, but that's Donald. Is a trade war necessary, not just with belligerent enemies like China, but with our allies as well?
Of course not, but if you're concerned about the country's economic future, what he's proposing seems far more palatable than Harris' vibe.
