Dem
50
GOP
50
Donald Trump did a rather poor job of selling his economic plan yesterday. That's not too surprising as, in addition to his addled mind, it's just not a very good plan. That's not our opinion, mind you, it's the opinion of economists who are paid to know about this stuff.
Let's start with the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB), which is a think tank made up of conservative economists who are budget hawks. Last week, they issued their analysis of the two major-party candidates' economic plans, and CRFB likes Harris' plan better. They don't really like either plan, mind you, but if they have to pick their poison, they'll pick the bottle labeled "Kamala."
In the end, what CRFB cares about is the national debt. They are convinced it represents a looming armageddon, and want candidates to take steps to reduce the debt. Neither Harris nor Trump has any such plans. However, CRFB estimates that a President Harris would add between $0 and $8.1 trillion to the debt over 10 years, with a midrange figure of $3.5 trillion. A President Trump would add between $1.45 trillion and $15.15 trillion, with a midrange figure of $7.5 trillion. If you want to see how CRFB gets to those numbers, click on the link, and you can see the painstaking detail. Anyhow, Harris' numbers are all lower than Trump's, so she comes out ahead by process of elimination.
It is also worth noting that while the CRFB analysis is instructive in some ways, it's actually kind of limited. The first problem is pretty obvious; whatever program the next president puts into action, it won't look all that much like the program they're running on. That's the nature of shared governance. But beyond that, CRFB doesn't concern itself with the effects of non-fiscal policy proposals. As The Los Angeles Times' Michael Hiltzik points out, Harris does not have any non-fiscal policies likely to wreak havoc on the economy. Donald Trump does. For example (as we note above), Trump's plan to commence mass deportations would have huge costs for the government and would also create vast economic turmoil. So, concludes Hiltzik, the gap between Harris' plan and Trump's plan is actually even greater than CRFB would propose.
Moving along, The Wall Street Journal is also interested in this general subject, and so the paper surveyed fifty economists about the two candidates' economic plans. Specifically, the WSJ wanted to know about inflation, since that's the hot topic du jour. Among the respondents, 68% said Trump would be worse for inflation, while 12% said Harris would be worse, and the rest said both candidates are the same. The New York Times' Paul Krugman observed, correctly we think, that "This is as close to unanimity as the profession gets."
All of this said, what matters in an election is not what the eggheads think, it's what the voters think. And according to a new survey from Bankrate, 42% of Americans trust Trump more on the economy, whereas 38% of Americans trust Harris more. Maybe a lot of voters don't really understand macroeconomics, maybe they aren't paying attention, or maybe they define economic issues in a different way than the pros do. In any event, even if Trump's ideas are worse (and, in some cases, like the tariffs, absolutely crazy) they aren't ruining him. Although, a 4% gap is not great for a Republican candidate, since Democrats (including Harris) tend to swamp Republicans on other issues (environment, reproductive choice, etc.). (Z)