Trump’s Economic Folly

To the Editor: 
In September 2009, less than a year after he was elected, Obama slapped a 39 percent tariff on Chinese-produced tires. Did you notice any jobs created in the tire-producing industries? Any new plants started in the U.S. or shuttered ones unshuttered? No, simply because tire wholesalers in this country simply switched to low-cost producers in other countries, and there are a lot of them. 
Japanese-owned Bridgestone Tires, the world’s largest tire producer, has plants in 24 countries. Obama should have known that because as the Wall Street Journal reported, “The Tire Industry Association has opposed the tariffs, arguing that they will not preserve American jobs but will instead cause manufacturers to relocate plants to other countries where they can produce tires cheaply.”
President George W. Bush flatly rejected proposals to put up tariff barriers. Mitt Romney said that the tariff was “bad for American workers and the nation … Protectionism stifles productivity …” Obama apparently learned his lesson because he removed the tariff in 2012. The only person who didn’t learn it is Donald Trump and his supporters.
Thus, we see almost no economist coming out in favor of what few concrete details Trump gives in his economic plans. Actually,  most economists are saying either that it would probably put us into a recession or say that his plans wouldn’t benefit the middle class but would be expensive. The conservative Tax Foundation says that his latest (9/2016) tax plan would give the top 1 percent a  10-16 percent tax cut while giving the middle class a 2 percent cut.
Consider his claims that he would create 25 million jobs over the next 10 years. The Tax Foundation says that his tax plan would only produce two million at most and most economists predict a loss of jobs due to the  proposed  deportation of about 2 percent of  the workforce. Most economists expect a downturn in the next couple years anyway, but think that Trump’s plans, which are essentially  dressed up trickle-down economics, will make it significantly worse.
It seems that he is relying on his favorite economist, Rosy Scenario, who is chair of the economics department  at Dreamland University.
Conversely, consider Hillary’s economic plan. Much less exciting. Much less dramatic. Few promises.
She wants to ensure that taxpayers making over $1 million a year, pay 30percent (“Buffett Rule”), and those making over $5 million, pay an additional 4 percent surcharge. She wants to limit deductions to 28 percent for the wealthy and cut taxes a bit for the lower incomes. The  Tax Foundation and the leftish Tax Policy center both agree her plans will generate a revenue surplus, unlike Trump’s which will create a serious deficit. Clinton’s surplus will probably be offset by additional spending but at least it’s a sound starting point.
She wants to spend $300 billion over the next five years for long overdue infrastructure improvements, and lots of other specific proposals, like tax cuts for small businesses and a $15/hr minimum pay over five years (which I don’t favor, but can understand why others do). 
All of her plans are clearly laid out on her website and are consistent with what she has said for years, unlike Trump who seems to change his positions monthly and almost never in detail.
Her program is sound but as one Nobel economist put it, “it doesn’t fit on a bumper sticker.” She doesn’t make cure-all, snake-oil promises.
I care about the economy, not slogans. I care about our country, not a person. I care about policy, not a party. So my vote is for Hillary.