Dem
47
GOP
53
Donald Trump knows he's got a problem. To a large extent, other than the fat tax cut for rich people, most of what he's done so far in his second term has been stuff that fits vaguely within the realm of foreign policy. Tariffs. Sinking Venezuelan boats. Bringing a still-fragile peace to Israel. Flip-flopping back and forth on Ukraine. Flip-flopping back and forth on China. Flip-flopping back and forth on North Korea. Flip... well, OK, you get the idea.
As it turns out, and as we saw last week, that's not getting it done as far as voters are concerned. If you run for president on kitchen table issues, and you promise to bring down prices, it turns out that voters expect you to focus on kitchen table issues, and to bring down prices. Who knew? Those voters are so damn unfair! In public, Trump has been throwing temper tantrums about the economy, decreeing that inflation is fake news, and a scam being perpetrated by the Democrats. There are some things where Trump's reality-distortion field works well, but this is not one of them. People notice that they paid $7/pound for coffee in January and now they are paying over $9/pound. People notice that the price of a combo meal at McDonald's is up to $15. People notice that a pound of steak cost a little less than $12 in January, and now it's a little more than $14. This is not an invention of the Democratic propaganda machine (which, even if it exists, is pretty anemic).
Behind the scenes, there is less posturing, and much more nervousness. Several White House insiders, under condition of anonymity, spoke to Politico and said that everyone is trying to get Trump to shift his focus to domestic matters, and in particular to cost-of-living issues. "The President hasn't talked about the cost of living in months," said one of them. "People are still hurting financially and they want to know the White House is paying attention and trying to fix the problem as quickly as possible."
There are plenty of people who don't work in the White House who are also trying to get Trump to re-focus. He's currently feuding with, of all people, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA). She's been talking like the populist that she actually is, and has been complaining about the health care subsidies, the SNAP funding, and the Epstein files. Trump, who expects absolute loyalty, is not happy about Greene's apostasy, and told reporters: "Nice woman. But I don't know what happened, she's lost her way, I think." He also accused her of putting on "an act." Pro tip, Mr. President: You're thinking of Reps. Nancy Mace (R-SC) and Elise Stefanik (R-NY). They are the ones who are putting on an act.
Similarly, Federalist co-founder Sean Davis has been very MAGA over the last decade. But yesterday, he posted a scorching-hot rebuke of Trump and the GOP to eX-Twitter. Here's the message:
I don't know who is advising congressional Republicans on strategy right now, but it is whoever it is [sic] has an IQ barely approaching room temperature.
Republicans right now have no accomplishments, no plans, and no vision. Why on earth would anyone be excited to go vote for them 12 months [sic] right now?
Trump needs to ditch the foreign policy crap and focus all his attention on the domestic economy, which is still not working for the majority of people. Right now he looks weak and rudderless. Be mad all you want, but it's the truth.
Newly minted college grads can't find work and are saddled with debt. Where is their path to the American dream right now? Who is giving them a vision of a future worth fighting for?
You cannot have a viable country or future when half your country and all its young people are locked out of the economy and locked out of ever owning a home or much of anything beyond next month's streaming subscription.
Does anyone in Washington care about this? Anyone at all?
Republicans had better wake up, because right now their nightmare is only beginning if they don't start making massive changes.
Read that over again, and note that it basically could have come from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT). The Senator does not resort to silly references to IQ to make his points, and he's not in the habit of framing his remarks as advice for Republicans. But beyond that, it's pretty Bernie-esque.
Trump seems to be aware that he and his party have a problem, and in response, he's tossed out some... ideas? Three of them, in fact. Here's a rundown:
Health care: Yet again, Trump is talking about repealing Obamacare. In contrast to (most of) the other times, he does have a vague idea as to a replacement. It's not his idea, though, it's an idea that Republicans (like Paul Ryan) have been pushing for years. Here's Trump, on his diseased social media platform, explaining:Democrats claim to be working for "the little guy," and driving down your Health Insurance, but the OBAMACARE SCAM goes STRAIGHT TO THEIR BEST FRIENDS IN THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY. THEY ARE MAKING A "KILLING," while Health Coverage only gets WORSE. If Democrats get their way again, they're in for another HUGE Payday at the expense of the American People. NO DEAL! Republicans should give money DIRECTLY to your personal HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNTS that I expanded in our GREAT BIG BEAUTIFUL BILL. Thank you for your attention to this matter!Trump and some of his acolytes have also been spreading the notion that Barack Obama personally earns royalties from Obamacare plans. This, of course, is a baldfaced lie.
There are two problems with the Health Savings Accounts (HSAs). The first (and Trump might very well be aware of this) is that they are a very regressive benefit. Study after study has shown that people who are wealthy tend to have the extra cash to put into the accounts, and thus to derive the benefits. People who are not wealthy, and in particular people of color, often do not. Trump seems to vaguely be suggesting that the government could put money into the accounts, but the money the government spends on Obamacare (about $100 billion a year) would be nowhere near enough to cover Americans' annual not-covered-by-health-insurance health care costs (about $500 billion a year). Also, the whole point of all of Trump's tax-cut bill was to cut the government's expenses, not to simply move money around.
The second problem with the HSAs is that they have a snowball's chance in hell of getting through Congress. Freedom Caucusers in the House would scream about the price tag. Democrats in the House would scream about the regressive nature of the plan. And if the measure somehow got to the Senate (or if it originated in the Senate), it would die at the hands of the filibuster. Heck, a filibuster might not even be necessary, because there likely aren't 50 Republican votes for the scheme.
50-Year Mortgages: A second idea that Trump has tossed out, and this appears to be new for him, is that banks should start offering 50-year mortgages. The idea here is that if you spread your payments over 50 years, then you pay less each month, and home ownership becomes more affordable.
This is such a bad idea it's hard to believe Trump could propose it with a straight face. Does he honestly not understand the numbers here? Or does he understand all-too-well, such that this is actually a backdoor attempt to enrich his donors? Either seems possible. In any event, a 50-year mortgage does not reduce house payments all that much. At the moment, with a house of average cost for the United States (a little over $400,000) and a 30-year mortgage with the average interest rate (a little over 6%), and a standard 20% down payment, the monthly bill is $2,056. If you extend the term to 50 years, the payment drops to $1,823. That's $233 less.
Now, $233 is not nothing. But it's not enough to be a difference-maker for most people. Meanwhile, because payments would be made over 50 years rather than 30, the cost of paying off the mortgage would basically double, from about $350,000 to about $700,000. And that's assuming the same interest rate; since a 50-year mortgage is riskier, the interest rate would almost certainly be higher, which could easily push the final cost to something like $900,000. Oh, and the owner of the house would not build up meaningful equity for decades, meaning it would be difficult-to-impossible to move to a different house. A very disciplined person who manages to scrape together a 20% down payment at age 25 could be tied down to the same house until they are eligible for Social Security. Oh, and on top of all of this, 50-year mortgages are currently not eligible for backing from Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, so banks won't touch them with a 50-foot pole. And, like the HSAs, there's no way a bill changing the law would ever get through Congress.
Tariff Dividends: The HSAs were Saturday's idea. The 50-year mortgages were Sunday's idea. Monday's idea was the most outlandish of all, perhaps; Trump suggested that his administration might start giving out $2,000 "tariff dividends" to all Americans, thanks to all the money that's coming in.
When it comes to the problems with this idea, we hardly know where to start. How about with the observation that if the money is going to be redistributed, then what was the point of the tariffs in the first place? Does Trump still not understand that the money is coming from American pockets (largely) and not from foreign countries?
The math also does not add up. Thus far, the U.S. has collected about $200 billion in tariff revenue. The cost of giving every adult a $2,000 check would be about $350 billion. Trump said he would exclude wealthy people, but even if you make the cutoff $100,000 in income a year (solidly middle-class), the price tag would still be $300 billion. And let us not forget that Trump keeps spending this same exact money in other ways; he's also pledged to use it to reduce the national debt, and also to cover the money for the HSAs.
Oh, and the other branches of government might have something to say about the matter as well. While Trump is treating the tariff money as his own personal piggy bank/slush fund, it's not, and Congress has to approve any use of those funds. Maybe they stand up to him here, if he tries to start cutting checks. On top of that, the Supreme Court appears ready to strike down the authority Trump used to impose about half the tariffs. If $100 billion or so suddenly has to be refunded to importers and other businesses, and that $100 billion has already been handed out in the form of "tariff dividends," then what?
We will also point out: The U.S. has had a fair bit of recent experience with these sorts of mass payments. And they have all proven to be inflationary. Not the best thing when people are already upset about inflation.
In short, it is clear that Trump realizes he's got a problem on his hands. It is equally clear—and we're going to be blunt here—that he hasn't the slightest idea what to do about it. He's never known what to do, and there's no reason to think he'll ever know what to do. There is an irony that a fellow elected as the "businessman president" might well know less about economics and finance than any of the 44 men who preceded him in his high office. Even the Andrews, Jackson and Johnson, who were about as ignorant of macroeconomics as any president not named Trump, would not entertain these ridiculous "simple fix" fantasies. (Z)