Who is policy-better? Trumps vs Harris analysis by Steve Chapman

 
TLDR
Steve Chapman's article examines Donald Trump's economic policies, contrasting them with Kamala Harris's positions. While many voters trust Trump on economic issues, Chapman argues that this confidence is misplaced. Trump's interference with the Federal Reserve, harmful tariff policies, and irresponsible tax cuts jeopardize economic stability. Harris, though imperfect, represents a less risky alternative. Chapman also criticizes Trump's disregard for the rule of law, which threatens the foundations of a healthy capitalist system. Despite Trump's popularity among businesspeople, Chapman contends that Harris is a safer choice for the economy, free-market principles, and the long-term rule of law.
 
Central-Banking
Chapman highlights Trump's detrimental interference with the Federal Reserve's independence during his presidency. Trump constantly pressured Jerome Powell, the Fed Chair, to lower interest rates, calling him derogatory names such as a "bonehead" and an "enemy." Trump's desire to control the Fed undermines the central bank's primary mission of curbing inflation and promoting economic stability. In contrast, Kamala Harris supports maintaining the Fed's independence. During her campaign, she emphasized that the Fed should operate without political interference, a stance consistent with the Biden administration's approach, which left the Fed largely autonomous. Protecting the Fed's independence is crucial for long-term economic health.
 
Trade
According to Chapman, Trump's trade policy, particularly his aggressive tariffs, posed significant economic risks. Trump plans to impose across-the-board tariffs ranging from 10-20%, including a 60% levy on Chinese goods, which could cost the average American household over $2,600 annually. These tariffs raise import costs and allow domestic producers to increase prices, further inflating consumer expenses. In contrast, while Kamala Harris isn't a staunch advocate for free trade, she criticizes these tariffs as harmful national sales taxes. Harris supports a more strategic and targeted approach to tariffs, aiming to protect American workers without unnecessarily burdening consumers.
 
Tax and Fiscal Policy
Chapman acknowledges Trump's 2017 tax cuts, which lowered the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21% and cut individual rates, benefiting high earners. However, Trump's fiscal policy ballooned the national deficit, and his plans to further lower corporate taxes would worsen the financial situation. In contrast, Harris's fiscal approach involves raising the corporate tax rate to 28% and increasing taxes on individuals earning over $400,000. Though Harris's proposals aim to fund social programs, her approach may dampen investment incentives. Chapman criticizes both candidates for their tax policies. Still, he argues that Harris's plans would lead to less fiscal damage than Trump's.
 
 
The Cost of Each Budget
Chapman outlines the budgetary consequences of Trump's and Harris's proposals. According to the Penn-Wharton model, Trump's fiscal plans would increase the national deficit by $4.1 trillion over a decade due to further tax cuts and unsustainable spending. Harris's proposals, while also expensive, would raise the deficit by a comparatively more minor $1.2 trillion. Chapman emphasizes that neither candidate offers a straightforward solution to the deficit. Still, Trump's approach, particularly his corporate tax cuts, would further exacerbate the national debt. Harris's budget, though ambitious, is more fiscally responsible, especially when considering long-term national debt concerns.
 
The Economic Impact of Regulation
Chapman contrasts Trump's and Harris's regulatory approaches. Trump is often seen as a deregulator. However, his term was marked by selective enforcement of regulations that fit his political goals, mainly targeting industries relying on immigration. While he dismantled some environmental regulations, his administration expanded others, increasing the size of the federal government. Harris supports regulations to curb greenhouse gas emissions, acknowledging the economic costs but emphasizing their necessity to address climate change. While neither candidate offers a perfectly balanced approach, Chapman suggests Harris's focus on long-term environmental sustainability makes her a better choice than Trump's inconsistent regulatory policies.
 
Climate
Chapman strongly criticizes Trump's dismissal of climate change as a "hoax" and his lack of any meaningful action on this critical issue. Trump's environmental policies rolled back key regulations designed to reduce carbon emissions, undermining global efforts to address climate change. In contrast, Harris, aligned with the Biden administration, recognizes climate change as an existential threat and advocates for comprehensive policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. While her policies may have economic costs, Chapman argues that combating climate change is crucial for long-term global stability. Harris's commitment to environmental sustainability positions her as the only viable choice.
 
Markets and Prices
Chapman criticizes Harris's proposal for a federal ban on price-gouging, noting that most economists consider such policies ineffective. Price controls can distort markets and create shortages rather than alleviate consumer pain. However, Chapman argues that Harris's proposal is more limited than critics suggest, focusing on emergencies like natural disasters. In contrast, Trump's policies during his presidency, such as tariffs and selective regulations, also disrupted market dynamics. Chapman concludes that Harris's price-gouging ban is flawed but unlikely to have widespread economic consequences. In contrast, Trump's broader market interventions have posed more significant economic risks.
 
Housing Costs
Chapman highlights housing as a critical economic issue, with rising costs and limited supply affecting millions of Americans. Harris has pledged to build three million new homes and rentals, focusing on affordability and expanding the housing market. Her proposal aligns with the YIMBY (Yes In My Backyard) movement, which advocates for increasing housing supply by reducing zoning restrictions and incentivizing construction. In contrast, Trump has criticized zoning reforms that could increase housing supply, arguing they would lower property values. Chapman suggests Harris's plan is more comprehensive and likely to address the root causes of the housing crisis, benefiting more Americans.
 
Immigration
Chapman addresses the economic consequences of Trump's harsh immigration policies, notably his plan to deport millions of undocumented immigrants. Such mass deportations would shrink the labor force, reduce demand, and hurt economic growth, costing billions of dollars. Harris supports more humane immigration policies, including protecting undocumented immigrants contributing to the U.S. economy. Chapman argues that Trump's approach would cause economic harm by removing workers from industries that rely on immigrant labor. On the other hand, Harris would continue Biden's efforts to reduce illegal crossings while maintaining protections for immigrants vital to the U.S. economy.
 
The Rule of Law
Chapman concludes by stressing the importance of the rule of law in maintaining a healthy capitalist economy. He criticizes Trump for his disregard for legal norms, particularly his attempts to overturn the 2020 election and his threats to use the Justice Department to punish political opponents. Chapman warns that Trump's authoritarian tendencies seriously threaten economic stability, as businesses need a predictable and lawful environment to thrive. In contrast, Harris respects the rule of law despite her critiques of corporate behavior. He would provide a more stable and consistent legal framework for businesses.
 
Summary 
Chapman's analysis reveals that Donald Trump's economic policies, while often praised for short-term gains, pose significant risks to long-term economic stability. His interference with the Federal Reserve, damaging trade policies, and fiscal irresponsibility outweigh his appeal to voters seeking growth and lower taxes. Kamala Harris, though not flawless, offers a more balanced approach. Her respect for institutions like the Fed, her commitment to combating climate change, and her focus on affordable housing suggest a more sustainable economic future. Ultimately, Harris presents a safer option for the economy and the rule of law, vital for long-term prosperity.