Questioning Trump Policies
Terry H. Schwadron
Sept. 23, 2024
We’ve been getting a regular feed of news and opinion that basically says that Kamala Harris needs to do a better job of addressing specifics about what she would do as president — whether through tougher interviews, her own speeches or other public exposure.
The knock for many “undecided” voters is that they still want her to persuade them that her administration would change their household economics or answer some other specific desire that they carry. Promises for an “opportunity economy” that adds housing incentives, protects against middle-class tax hikes, pursues child tax credits and the like are not specific enough for them, they say. What will she do for them, they ask.
By contrast, generally, Donald Trump offers sweeping statements about the economy, world tensions, and the disappearance of immigration and all else that ails us as a society without a lot of definition. He promises to remake the Justice Department and FBI as political tools to go after opponents, remake taxes to favor investors, and to eliminate the Education Department, all without definition.
Indeed, there is so much talk about his tendencies towards statements of anti-Semitism and racism, attacks without evidence on both voting and what he insists are pet-eating habits of Haitian immigrants, comments that make us question his mental decline as well as any lack of commitment to truthful versions of recent history that his proposals are not getting anywhere near as many questions, whether from undecideds or from the public.
Unquestioned Trump Promises
We all have witnessed broad statements about immediate roundups and deportations of millions of immigrants — apparently without distinction as to whether they are here legally, as in the case of Springfield, Ohio’s Haitian community. But no one knows how it is all supposed to work, or who is considered “illegal” or who’s going to do the rounding up or even how we plan to pay for such a program. That has led to open speculation even among his own circles that the military will be used, a violation of U.S. law, as well as breaches among families and communities.
In economics, Trump’s singular, if incorrect, insistence that dropping tariffs on all foreign goods will result in lower consumer prices and payments by other governments to the U.S. treasury now regularly go unchallenged, as there is too much other crazy talk afoot. Indeed, tariffs will result in higher costs per U.S. family for everything from tee shirts to wine to cars, and tariffs do not involve government-to-government payments, and, indeed, will result in retributive tariffs on U.S.-made goods in search of foreign markets. The costs of an extra 10% or 20% for import are passed on to consumers.
In the last week alone, Trump has vowed to restore access to vaping products, despite medical advice and against his own previous policies; he has supported shutting down the federal government over Congress’ disinterest in passing a Republican bill to outlaw anew already-banned voting for non-citizens; Trump has insisted anew that he would end wars in Ukraine and the Middle East instantly and, apparently, without the necessary agreement of the warring parties with nary a plan in sight.
Trump immediately labels anyone raising practical questions about any of these unexplained proposals an enemy, whether journalist, politician or citizen, and has called for their investigation, prosecution or license revocation. It’s not even clear exactly how he would achieve any of those, though the record of his first term shows that he did get legal processes launched against some of his perceived political foes.
The Trump Health Plan
Apart from his still flopping views on abortion policies, a key question arose during the recent debate about his calls to overturn the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare. He’s been at it for a decade, with no replacement plan. He said again that he has concepts of a plan.”
Washington Post columnist Catherine Rampell took on his “concepts” as translated in remarks by Trump’s running mate JD Vance. Her take: “Those concepts would probably unravel the U.S. health-care system”
While Vance’s translation of Trump-speak says they want all Americans covered, the basic point he pursued was for more “choice,” a favorite Trumpism for all government programs other than abortion. As understood, “choice” in this context would allow younger, healthier Americans to opt out of any mandated health system.
“Choice” would let insurance companies offer different plans and pricing based on whether patients have preexisting conditions or might need more medical care because of their age or health status. The economic heart of the Obama approach was to recognize that insurers need participation by all to underwrite the most expensive health care for seniors and the chronically ill. Any plan to allow younger, healthier workers to opt out would eliminate health care as we have come to know it. As Rampell explained, policies allowing insurers to discriminate based on age or preexisting conditions has long been politically unpopular and doing so would probably cause insurance markets to implode.
To make the Trump-Vance idea work would require Congress to underwrite the most expensive risk pool, something that entitlement-resistant Republicans are loath to do. Republicans are trying to kill off more modest subsidies already guaranteed.
There is a reason we ask candidates for specifics. We want to determine whether they have thought through how their slogans will translate into practical action. More than Harris’s proposals, the ideas from Trump about policies he would pursue require more rigorous explanation.
##