Thursday, Oct. 20, 2016 | 2 a.m.
View more of the Sun's opinion section
View more of the Sun's opinion section
While the nation remains consumed by Donald Trump’s lewd comments and predatory sexual behavior, we should not lose sight of the issues that matter most to the American people: who can improve the economy and generate good-paying jobs.
Trump’s claims to represent American workers and their families are bogus. Not only has his treatment of contractors and workers indicated how little concerned he is for middle-class Americans; his policy prescriptions would be disastrous for them.
His tax-cut proposals are not only highly skewed toward the rich, but would create massive budget deficits, a return to higher interest rates and even slower growth. His anti-trade policies would spark almost-certain retaliation from (and even trade wars with) our trading partners, thus hurting millions of well-paid U.S. workers in industries that rely on such exports. His anti-immigrant policies would deter immigrants from coming to the U.S., eliminating the thousands of new businesses that they open and the good jobs that come with them. Others would no longer be here to contribute to lower costs and prices in key industries (such as elder care, child care, construction and agriculture) that create higher real incomes for most Americans.
In contrast, Hillary Clinton’s economic proposals are sound and would contribute to higher economic growth and good-paying jobs. For instance, her proposals to make college more affordable and expand apprenticeships and other forms of job training would give more Americans the skills they need to get good-paying jobs in health care, advanced manufacturing, information technology and transportation/logistics. A more skilled workforce would generate higher productivity growth and rising incomes. Her investments in infrastructure and clean energy would expand employment in the construction and manufacturing industries. She would moderately raise the minimum wage and expand paid family leave to help millions of lower-wage workers and their families. She would reward firms that share profits with workers and pay them better. And her proposals are budget-neutral and would not add to federal deficits.
But none of her policy proposals could come to pass unless we also elect more Democrats to the House and Senate. If the Senate remains in Republican hands, we could expect more of the same obstruction that has characterized the Obama years, and that would make it nearly impossible for Clinton to enact legislation. If a very large Republican majority in the House remained in place, the so-called Freedom Caucus would find it that much easier to block efforts by Speaker Paul Ryan to cut deals with a prospective President Clinton.
On the other hand, with a Democratic Senate these proposals would at least come to the floor, and sometimes generate enough bipartisan support to break the inevitable filibusters that follow. With a smaller House majority, Ryan would hopefully be more emboldened to show that he, too, can get things done, perhaps seeking and finding compromises with Clinton on issues such as infrastructure, immigration and tax reform. With both having shown interest in fighting poverty, perhaps Ryan and Clinton could also find common ground here, with increases in the Earned Income Tax Credit for low-income workers and expansions of the Child Tax Credit.
There is, at this point, no question that Trump is unfit for the presidency. His policy prescriptions are as unsound as his temperament and behavior. A Clinton presidency, in turn, would generate sensible and helpful economic policies. But Clinton would need the help of a more supportive, and more Democratic, Congress, if any of her promising proposals were to have any chance of becoming reality.
Harry Holzer is the John LaFarge Jr. SJ professor of public policy at Georgetown University and a former chief economist of the U.S. Department of Labor.
