Unless you descend from an overtly wealthy, upper-class family, President-elect Donald Trump’s proposed economic policies and future inflation plan were not created for your benefit.
As a 17-year-old incapable of casting her vote on November 5th, my options were limited to staring glassy-eyed at the live voting count from The Associated Press and thoroughly researching exactly why the results displayed about 75,391,856 Americans wanting to see Donald Trump in office. My consensus was simple, and my fears were a reality: they believed his plans for the United States economy were promising for the blue-collar worker, an opinion I further analyzed and strongly disagreed with.
Trump—self-proclaimed “Tariff Man”—announced his central campaign promise, which was to place tariffs of either 10% or 20% on all goods imported into the United States, as well as a hefty 60% tariff on goods imported from China. As a result, when importers pay higher tariffs, they have a choice: either pass those costs to consumers by raising prices or absorb the loss themselves, significantly hurting their profit margins. In either scenario, the outcome is likely the rise in consumer prices and job cuts as businesses adjust to the higher costs. This raises the cost of living and increases unemployment, something Trump’s administration either downplayed or ignored.
Donald Trump claims his tariff plans will help pay for his other policy initiatives, such as tax cuts. This is unlikely because the revenue generated from new tariffs would not cover his spending proposal expenses and the broader economic impact could exacerbate the national debt. This, of course, is coming from a President-elect who has stated over 30,000 false or misleading claims in the four years of his last presidency (not including the countless false information spread by him throughout his recent 2024 campaign). Despite his rhetoric, tariffs are unlikely to boost domestic manufacturing. Instead, further investigation and realistic examples suggest that these tariff proposals would only increase costs for consumers and fail to create significantly more job openings.
After numerous conversations with those of opposing beliefs in the Ward Melville senior parking lot, I’ve noticed a lack of understanding surrounding global inflation and what it is truly caused by. During the June 27, 2024 presidential debate between Donald Trump and Joe Biden, both candidates pointed fingers for any inflation-related wrongs during the pandemic era.
Of Biden, Trump stated, “He caused the inflation…I gave him a country with no, essentially no inflation.”
Biden said, “He decimated the economy, absolutely decimated the economy.”
In truth, inflation can’t be so easily blamed on a single person. The COVID-19 pandemic was the cause of significant global inflation in both the supply of goods and the demand for them. Factories around the world were forced to close or operate at reduced capacity. This led to a significant decrease in consumer products, even though demand for everyday products—especially household items— was increasing. In the pandemic’s aftermath, inflation rose to its highest since 1981. So, while Trump and Biden push the blame onto one another, the pandemic was the main cause for any economic instability we grapple with.
In this year’s campaign, Donald Trump promised to tackle inflation (even though increasing price rates have already returned to their historical norm of 2-3% since their peak in 2022). Goals of lowering housing costs, cutting regulations for builders, and lowering energy prices by 50% all seem more aspirational than realistic.
Firstly, to implement his goal of lowering the cost of housing, Trump says he would increase the number of homes in locations such as Arizona and Nevada, also allowing them to be built on federally protected land. Cutting regulations for builders is also a goal, though these regulations are typically set at both local and state levels. His idea of promoting homeownership through tax incentives was also introduced in his campaign, but he hasn’t described it further or been specific about any upcoming plans.
Additionally, reducing energy prices during his first year in office is unrealistic. To achieve this, oil companies must drill in numerous new areas to remove barriers to speed production. Oil is already being produced at record levels in the United States, with limits on infrastructure and labor. Producing too much oil would drive down the price, which, although beneficial, would cause companies to lose money with each barrel pumped.
The last subject I wanted to mention (much like I do with my unwilling peers at 7:00 AM) is the extension of individual income and estate tax cuts, originally provided by the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, or TCJA. These cuts included a significant reduction in the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%, as well as increases in the standard deduction and the estate tax exemption. He also proposed lowering the corporate tax rate to 15% for specific businesses.
Sure, tax cuts encourage investment and savings in the short term. Still, if immediate spending cuts do not finance them, they will likely end in an increased federal budget deficit, reducing national savings and raising interest rates in the long term. Trump’s failure to present a clear plan to offset these cuts with spending reductions is a major red flag.
Ultimately, Trump’s countless campaign promises appear surface-level, with little research or explanation involved. Whether it’s his placement of tariffs, his approach to inflation, or his tax cut proposals, the effects of this presidency won’t benefit middle- and lower-income Americans as promised. It’s important to examine these policies and their potential consequences in preparation for the challenges ahead. This is the president elected by 75,391,856 Americans, despite these economic plans, among other things, and this is the president we will have to endure for the next four years.
