Donald Trump played nice with the teleprompter yesterday, reading off a bland economic speech meant to “reset” his campaign. You can read the speech here. It did nothing of the sort, reminding voters instead that not only do they still despise Donald Trump, but also the putrid pile of failed tricked-down policies the Republican Party has frolicked in for decades. Needless to say, the speech got scathing reviews. First up, The New York Times:
Donald Trump said on Monday that he wanted to usher in “economic renewal,” but most of his proposals would hurt the economy, rack up huge deficits, accelerate climate change and leave the country isolated from the world. [...]
In a speech billed as a blueprint for stimulating growth and creating jobs, Mr. Trump offered a grab bag of ideas that borrow from discredited supply-side economics, the fossil fuel industry’s wish list and “America First” isolationism. He also criticized Hillary Clinton and President Obama for what he called their “job-killing, tax-raising, poverty-inducing” agenda. It was vintage Trump, full of promises of greatness and victories backed by fantastical proposals.
Mr. Trump considers himself a businessman, uniquely capable of improving the economy. But this list of misguided and risky proposals would reduce economic growth while showering the rich with tax breaks.
Rolling Stone’s Tessa Stuart:
"American workers have paid taxes their whole life, they shouldn't be taxed again when they die," Trump said Monday. What Trump calls the "death tax," and what is more widely known as the "estate tax," is worth an estimated $25 billion a year. Doing away with it would only benefit the children of the very wealthy (for individuals, the first $5.45 million are exempt; for couples, the first $10.9 million) — like Donald Jr., Eric, Ivanka, Tiffany and Barron. (The Los Angeles Times dusted off a good breakdown from 2009 of the pros and cons for the occasion.)
James Pethokoukis at The Week:
During her RNC speech, Ivanka Trump spoke about the need for affordable child care in the United States. Her father followed through in Detroit, saying parents should be able to fully deduct the cost of child care spending from their taxes — which is great for folks who have lots of taxable income. Like, you know, Ivanka Trump. But what about all of Trump's working class supporters? Most lower-income families don't really have much taxable income, if any. Giving them a tax deduction for child care isn't much help.
John Cassidy at The New Yorker:
[T]he details of his speech confirmed that he had caved in to the regressive, anti-tax G.O.P. orthodoxy that is defined and policed by groups such as Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the Club for Growth.
Consequently, the contradictions attending Trump’s economic platform are more glaring than ever. He goes into the last months of the election campaign as a political schizophrenic. On immigration and trade, he is a pitchfork-wielding Pat Buchanan Republican; on taxes and regulation, he is a dark-suited Paul Ryan Republican. Perhaps the old saying is right and consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. Purely from a political perspective, though, it seems to me that Trump has missed a big opportunity.
You can read factchecks on Trump’s economic speech here (NYT), here (CNN), here (WSJ), here and here.
And you can watch Hillary Clinton’s initial response to his speech here.
In an op-ed in The Washington Post, Republican Susan Collins explains why she won’t be voting for the nominee of her party:
My conclusion about Mr. Trump’s unsuitability for office is based on his disregard for the precept of treating others with respect, an idea that should transcend politics. Instead, he opts to mock the vulnerable and inflame prejudices by attacking ethnic and religious minorities. Three incidents in particular have led me to the inescapable conclusion that Mr. Trump lacks the temperament, self-discipline and judgment required to be president. [...] I am also deeply concerned that Mr. Trump’s lack of self-restraint and his barrage of ill-informed comments would make an already perilous world even more so. It is reckless for a presidential candidate to publicly raise doubts about honoring treaty commitments with our allies. Mr. Trump’s tendency to lash out when challenged further escalates the possibility of disputes spinning dangerously out of control.
Here’s Eugene Robsinon’s analysis on the state of the campaign:
It may be hard to imagine, but I fear this election campaign is going to get worse — maybe a lot worse — before it gets better. By the time it’s done, the whole nation may feel like it needs a shower. [...]
I expect Trump to double down not just on his attacks against Clinton but also on the two issues that won him his white working-class following: immigration and trade. That means more bigotry, more xenophobia and more totally unrealistic promises about the miracles that he and his team of rich-guy economic advisers will magically perform.
Ryan Cooper at The Week explains how Republican operatives have “found their next con” in Evan McMullin, the Republican who went from 135 Twitter followers to running for president:
Frankly, donating $20 to Clinton's campaign would do about as much to stop Trump as this goofy run.
What it will do, however, is make a ton of money for political consultants and ad specialists. McMullin apparently has the backing of GOP bigshot Rick Wilson and Better for America, a spooky PAC looking to put up an anti-Trump presidential candidate. This run is tailor-made for a handful of GOP insiders to con a king's ransom out of elderly rich conservatives to make pointless TV ads and email blasts. All the better that it's foreordained to fail, because that way it can be framed as a noble rearguard action and the donors won't be mad when Clinton wins.