On my visit to Britain last week I met many people with a broad variety of views. But only one was a supporter of Donald Trump, the Republican presidential candidate. For his protection, he will remain anonymous.
My statement that I am a Trump supporter was met with incredulity. “He doesn’t have the temperament to be president,” one friend told me. “Don’t you worry that he will push the nuclear button?” another said. “How could he suggest Hillary Clinton’s bodyguards disarm?” I was asked. In Britain, admitting to being a Trump supporter was even worse than supporting Brexit—equivalent to endorsing necrophilia or incest. Civilized people just don’t do that.
There’s a simple reason to be in favour of Trump. His policies would improve the American economy and America’s standing in the world. He would lower taxes and reduce costly regulations. In contrast, Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton wants to raise taxes and impose more regulations. Further, Trump acknowledges the dangers posed by radical Islam, and would strengthen the U.S. military, while Clinton would keep it on its path of decline.
After eight years of President Obama, the United States has a growth rate of gross domestic product that is at about 1%. Her labour force participation rate, the share of Americans who are either employed or looking for work, is at 1978 levels. Laws and regulations are discouraging investment and job creation.
If elected, Donald Trump would change that. He has proposed lower individual and corporate taxes, which would encourage more investment and growth. He suggests lowering individual taxes from a top rate of 40 percent to 33 percent. In contrast, Hillary Clinton would raise taxes both on ordinary income and on capital gains.
The U.S. corporate tax rate is now the highest in the world, at 39%, compared to the Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development countries’ average of 25%. Trump proposes to lower it to 15%, which would attract investments from all over the world. Clinton has called for raising taxes.
Of course, American presidents are constrained by Congress. Tax legislation starts in the House of Representatives and then has to pass the Senate before getting signed into law by the president. House Speaker Paul Ryan has proposed tax reform along much the same lines as Trump, and the Senate supports many of the fundamental principles. If Congress remains under Republican control then Trump’s type of reforms have a good chance of becoming law if he were to be elected.
More important than tax reform is regulatory reform. Taxes are predictable, and firms can incorporate their costs into future budgeting. In America regulations by different executive branch agencies—no approval from Congress needed—can wreak havoc with companies’ expansion and employment plans. The Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Education, and the Department of Labor have been especially aggressive over the past eight years.
These agencies have produced an onslaught of regulations. Most are too technical for the layman to understand. Even though air quality in America is steadily improving, the Environmental Protection Agency wants states to produce State Implementation Plans to further reduce emissions of mercury, ozone, carbon, and other substances by decreasing the numbers of factories and power plants. The Democratic Congress in 2010 refused to pass a similar law due to adverse effects on jobs and economic growth.
Neither did the 2010 Democratic Congress pass the Paycheck Fairness Act, which would have required firms to keep track of the earnings of their employees by race and sex. So the Labor Department circumvented Congress and put out the same requirement by regulation, at substantial cost to employers. The measures used for wages and occupations are so vague that they cannot be of any real use in assessing whether women are underpaid. However this would enable the Labor Department to investigate firms it does not like—wrong campaign contributions, perhaps?—and accuse them of underpaying women.
There is no chance that Clinton would repeal any of these harmful rules. She has stated clearly that she supports them, and she has called for more.
Donald Trump takes the threat of terrorism seriously, and is not afraid to lay the blame on radical Islam. He has talked about the cooperation among Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah, al Qaeda, the Taliban, and the PLO. He knows that Iran funds Hezbollah, which trains the al Qaeda terrorists. Trump wants to destroy the jihadi armies; discredit their ideology; form new 21st century alliances; and challenge and weak governments that support terrorism.
As secretary of state Clinton did not mention radical Islam, and left the Middle East in a worse state than she found it. She blamed the attacks in Benghazi on a video whose producer was jailed as a result. She kept classified information on a personal computer system in her basement exposing the sensitive information to foreign surveillance. Lower-level government officials would have lost their jobs for such offences. She is accused of using the Clinton Foundation to sell access to the State Department and to provide jobs for her friends.
Britons are put off not by Trump’s policies, but by his language. He does not speak the Queen’s English, but says what he thinks, and does not hesitate to use hyperbole to make his points. Taken out of context, this can be misunderstood.
For instance, when Trump suggested that Clinton give up her bodyguards, he was not calling for her to be assassinated. He was showing the hypocrisy of someone who wants to limit guns for average Americans for their own protection—but has her own armed guards.
America has a choice. She can continue on the path of high taxes and burdensome regulation, and continue to cede power to Iran and Russia. Or, she can make substantive economic reforms and take a leadership role in the world. Many Americans prefer the first path—which is why Trump’s poll numbers are steadily rising.
Diana Furchtgott-Roth is former chief economist of the US Department of Labor and is an unpaid advisor to Donald Trump.
