Minutes before 10 a.m. Wednesday, former President Donald Trump abandoned a plan to overhaul the relationship between millions of older Americans and the federal government.
“Older people shouldn’t have to pay Social Security taxes,” Trump shouted on his “Truth Society” account.
If implemented, this would be a costly policy change. That would reduce federal revenue by $1.5 trillion over 10 years and increase the national debt by $1.8 trillion, according to a quick estimate from a former White House chief economist. (The additional costs are the result of interest on new debt, which accrues without revenue.) It would also hasten Social Security’s descent into insolvency. And, obviously, it’s going to be a huge tax break for Americans who receive Social Security checks, but not a tax break that’s particularly good for growing the economy.
Still, what’s most notable about Trump’s statement is what it doesn’t include. For example, no attempt was made to calculate the numbers. No agents were sent to explain why the change was necessary or beneficial to the economy or the country. No press release was issued. There is, of course, no attempt to explain which government programs will be cut to offset the drop in revenue. For that matter, the idea was not discussed at the Republican National Convention. It was not mentioned in Trump’s (lengthy) acceptance speech, nor is it included in the party’s platform.
Like so much else in the Trump era, the idea seemed to travel from the former president’s head to his social media accounts with little pause in between.
There’s something to be said for this level of transparency. If nothing else, it’s classic Trump: hastily conceived, poorly thought out, more marketing slogan than substance. Let’s call it what it is: a naked political game to win over Social Security—to collect the American vote.
As it emerged Wednesday morning, the “No Tax on Social Security” plan stood in stark contrast to the message the Trump campaign released a day earlier. On Tuesday, the Trump campaign officially (and gleefully) rejected the Heritage Foundation’s “2025 Plan,” a 900-page document in which the conservative think tank outlined broad options for a future Trump second term. policy plan. The program, led by Paul Dans, who served in the Trump administration, is central to Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts’ agency-wide shift toward populism in recent years.
In a statement, two of Trump’s top campaign officials not only buried the “2025 plan,” but issued threats.
Suzy Wells and Chris LaCivita said: “Reports of the termination of the 2025 program will be greatly welcomed and should serve as a warning to anyone seeking to misrepresent its influence on President Trump and his campaign or Warning from any group – this will not end well for you.
Translation: How dare anyone Trying to replace any random thoughts that might have gone through the former president’s head Wednesday morning with actual policy substance?
Roberts’ mistake “was the idea that Mr. Trump cared about anyone but himself. He ruled with feral instinct, tactical opportunism, and whatever seemed fashionable at a given moment,” wrote wall street journalThe editorial board responded harshly to the news that Project 2025 was being shelved and Dans was resigning from Heritage. “The lesson for Heritage and other think tanks is that it’s better to stick to your principles rather than cater to today’s political style.”
I hope so.
Meanwhile, Vice President Kamala Harris has launched her own campaign, pivoting heavily toward her own almost Trump-like policy nihilism. She has tried to erase her record as the Biden administration’s so-called “border czar” — Read reasonIf you need to know about this controversy, look to Liz Wolfe — Harris now seems to be rewriting her stance on a lot of other things, too.
For example, Harris was a co-sponsor of the Green New Deal when she was a U.S. senator in 2019.
Now, she’s moving away from it. This week, a spokesperson for the Harris campaign told the media washington examiner Harris no longer supports the federal jobs guarantee — the promise that the federal government will provide “family-wage” jobs to anyone who wants them — a key feature of the Green New Deal.
as Examiner noted that Harris also “dropped her support for eliminating private health plans as part of the Medicare for All proposal. Her campaign also told us hill If she is elected, she will not seek a ban on fracking. He previously told CNN when he was running for president, “There’s no question that I support a ban on fracking.”
Perhaps this is why Harris embraces her philosophy of “shedding the burden of the past.” Maybe she was just copying Trump’s book — after all, the former president never paid much to make up for it.
For Trump and Harris, simply telling voters what you think they want to hear may be the most direct path to winning the election. But this cynical approach to campaigning excludes any policy discussion and means the election is likely to be decided on even dumber grounds.
