The Key to Defeating Trump in the General Election Is in a Single Sentence of His in Last Night’s Debate: Angry Americans want big tax cuts for the wealthy
People come [to Trump campaign events] with tremendous passion and love for their country. … When they see what’s going on in this country, they have anger that’s unbelievable. They have anger. They love this country. They don’t like seeing bad trade deals. They don’t like seeing higher taxes. They don’t like seeing a loss of their jobs. … And I see it. There’s some anger. There’s also great love for the country. It’s a beautiful thing in many respects. But I certainly do not condone that at all.
— Donald Trump, during last night’s debate
Back last fall when Ben Carson was surging and according to the polls had overtaken Trump in Iowa, the Koch brothers’ main super PAC saw an opening to end the Trump phenomenon once and for all: It announced plans to buy, I think it was, $1 million in ad time on Iowa and New Hampshire airwaves.
Trump, up to that point, had been campaigning as sort of a fiscal progressive, suggesting (among other things) that he supports a more progressive tax code and maybe even universal healthcare insurance. Uh-oh; he definitely had to be stopped by a Koch brothers’ super PAC ad campaign.
Unless, of course, he adopted Koch brothers fiscal-policy positions and continued his climate-change-is-a-hoax thing. The latter would be easy, of course, but the former required the hire of a mainstream-wingy Republican fiscal-policy consultant who could, and did, chose a mainstream-wingy Republican fiscal-policy candidate’s already published trickle-straight-down-to-the-sewer-system fiscal policy platform and just double the tax cuts for the wealthy. Take that, Jeb!
It worked. At least to my knowledge, the ad buy never materialized. Carson collapsed in the wake of the Paris terrorist attacks, Trump’s campaign regained steam—and never looked back. Until two weeks ago or so, anyway, when comments he made about not wanting people to die in the street for lack of access to medical care raised questions about whether he – he – he supports Obamacare and its Medicaid expansion.
Not to worry. That mainstream-wingy Republican fiscal-policy consultant was still under contract with the Trump campaign and could quickly rattle off the points on the Movement Conservative list of heathcare-insurance-reform clichés for Trump to post on his campaign’s website as his healthcare-reform proposal. There was increasing healthcare savings accounts. There was allowing insurance companies to sell policies nationally.
And of course there was the end-Medicaid-by-giving-the-money-to-the-states-to-use-for-anything-they-wished-even-maybe-Medicaid-which-of-course-Republican-controlled-states-won’t-use-it-for proposal.
And you, Tea Partiers, were starting to worry that Trump doesn’t really want to kill Obamacare and Medicaid! Fear no longer. It’s safe to vote for him. Whew.
That was a relief, of course, for Establishment wingers, too. But, dang. It’s not enough. Some of them are pretty worried that although that fiscal policy proposal is still there on his website, Trump never actually talks about it. Instead he’s always just playing to the white blue-collar folks who’ve been financially devastated by the free-trade treaties. And by other policies that have had the effect of favoring the well-off, to the detriment of, well, these Trump supporters. And this guy Bernie Sanders keeps detailing the statistics about wealth and income distribution over the last thirty-five years. He won’t shut up about it.
Big problem. Especially since this week it became time for Trump to try to unite the Republican establishment behind him. Not easy for someone who’s one positive contribution to the political climate is to expose Republican establishment financial-elite proxies as not really so in sync with the Republican blue-collar base after all.
The answer? Ah. Higher taxes! The perfect fiscal dog whistle to the Koch folks and their ilk.
So … the people who come to Trump rallies? They have anger. They love this country. They don’t like seeing bad trade deals. And they don’t like seeing higher taxes on the wealthy. Because, see, the angry people who come to Trump rallies and who don’t like seeing bad trade deals are wealthy. Just ask them.
Interesting, isn’t it, that now that Trump has all but wrapped up the nomination and wants the party establishment’s support, his first olive branch is assuring them that he really does support massive tax cuts for the wealthy?
____
UPDATE: An exchange between reader Warren and me today in the Comments thread:
Warren
March 12, 2016 2:43 pm
I missed the part where Trump said “for the wealthy”.
Or are you saying that only the wealthy pay taxes, so it is implied?
Me
March 12, 2016 7:06 pm
You missed the part where Trump said “for the wealthy”, Warren? Guess you didn’t read Trump’s tax proposals or any of the articles summarizing them. You should.
The link is to an Oct. 2 blog post by Paul Krugman. Trump had released his tax plan earlier that day.
Then:
Warren
March 12, 2016 8:53 pm
So is it “a single sentence in his in last night’s debate” or isn’t it?
Did he say “for the wealthy” in that sentence, or didn’t he?
Me
Beverly Mann
March 12, 2016 10:39 pm
I said the KEY to defeating Trump in the general election is in a single sentence of his in Thursday’s debate. In a debate performance in which he was saying he wanted to unite the party, he dog-whistled the Kochs, the other donors, and the rest of the Republican establishment that, as president, he would attend to their needs: big tax cuts for the wealthy.
Angry Americans don’t want big tax cuts for the wealthy. But the Republican donors and the rest of the Republican establishment do, and the only one they’re angry with right now is Trump. He announced to them on Thursday that he wants to change that.
The key to defeating him in the general election is to simply point that out. Trump’s tax plan says what it says. It’s just that the only ones who know what it says, other than Paul Krugman and a few other journalists and progressive economists, are the people it was targeted to: the Republican establishment, to keep them at bay.
He was reminding the Republican establishment of his tax plan.
Added 3/12 at 7:44 pm and 10:50 p.m.
i dont think anger is the most prevalent emotion i’ve seen in Trump supporters…i think it’s glee…they are really enjoying what the Trump candidacy has done to politics as usual…& that’s something you can’t beat with an issue…
Oh, I think you’re right, rjs, that glee at the destruction of politics as usual is a yuge part of what’s going on there. But what happens when Trump starts being funded by the Republican donor folks—who, I read today, are about to start contributing to his campaign (and presumably some super PAC for him) in order to get into his good graces, and people start to notice that these are the people whose taxes will be cut yugely if Trump under a Trump administration?
That’s why this particular issue is different than pretty much any other, I think, in its potential effect on his support. I was surprised when he announced earlier this week that he wanted to begin to win over the party establishment. When suddenly the policies he starts pushing at is rallies are the Koch brothers’ agenda, some of his supporters might not be thrilled. Citizens United, btw, is unpopular among working-class whites.
It won’t matter to the supporters whose main issue is the xenophobia, racism and tough-guy-beat-em-up stuff. But to the people who really don’t want the elites to control things anymore, and who care more about that than anything else, it could.
The problem is that if he’s running against Clinton, a big factor will be the trade treaties. The trade treaties are now, I think, probably second only to the xenophobia and racism in importance for Trump supporters.
Rjs, here’s an article in the Washington Post titled “Will Donald Trump reverse course and seek donations for his 2016 bid?”, at https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/will-donald-trump-reverse-course-and-seek-donations-for-his-2016-bid/2016/03/11/fd52eca2-e7bf-11e5-b0fd-073d5930a7b7_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_trumpmoney-720pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory
Here are three paragraphs from it:
“If Trump were to actively solicit contributions, he would reverse a central tenet of his outsider bid, turning for support to a donor class he regularly derides as a corrupting influence. “They make large contributions to politicians and they have total control over those politicians,” he said at Thursday’s CNN debate.
“But he also appears to be trying to smooth the path toward broader acceptance. He spoke of “love” and unity at the debate, and when retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson endorsed him Friday, he noted that Trump has “cerebral” side in private.
“Trump’s newly restrained tone will help make him “very acceptable” to top donors, said former House speaker Newt Gingrich, adding, “The thought of Hillary Clinton picking the next Supreme Court justices will bring almost everybody back in.”
the WaPo certainly has an agenda, Beverly, probably pro-Clinton, as witnessed by their 16 negative Sanders headlines in a 16 period a few days back…but i dont know if it it’ll matter to anyone if Trump takes outside money late in the game anyway, as he’d already be the unbought frontrunner by the time he does so…
people dont vote on issues, anyway, issues are just something the media make up to explain what happened…the way 2016 is shaping up, the key factor in deciding the next president will be revulsion…those who can’t stand Hillary will vote for Trump, and those who can’t stand Trump will vote for Hillary…whoever is seen as less repulsive will probably be our next president…
The WaPo is obsessed with stopping Sanders, no doubt about that. It’s a team sport over there, and the team has made some baldly false representations in the process. But the NYT had a similar article yesterday, reporting that several major Repub donors are considering donating to his campaign—the implication is that there will be a super PAC, and they’ll give big bucks to that as well as max out to the campaign itself—and that Trump is debating whether to accept the big bucks. In other words, he’s debating whether to have super PAC, at least as I understand it, although I guess he’s also debating whether to have his campaign accept donations at all.
If he decides to go for the big boys’ bucks, I think a lot of people who are enthralled with the idea that he’s not taking money from the big-boys-who-fund-the-Repub-establishment will just not vote if Hillary is the Dem nominee. If Sanders is the nominee, a lot of them will vote for him.
I missed the part where Trump said “for the wealthy”.
Or are you saying that only the wealthy pay taxes, so it is implied?
You missed the part where Trump said “for the wealthy”, Warren? Guess you didn’t read Trump’s tax proposals or any of the articles summarizing them. You should.
So is it “a single sentence in his in last night’s debate” or isn’t it?
Did he say “for the wealthy” in that sentence, or didn’t he?
I said the KEY to defeating Trump in the general election is in a single sentence of his in Thursday’s debate. In a debate performance in which he was saying he wanted to unite the party, he dog-whistled the Kochs, the other donors, and the rest of the Republican establishment that, as president, he would attend to their needs: big tax cuts for the wealthy.
Angry Americans don’t want big tax cuts for the wealthy. But the Republican donors and the rest of the Republican establishment do, and the only one they’re angry with right now is Trump. He announced to them on Thursday that he wants to change that.
The key to defeating him in the general election is to simply point that out. Trump’s tax plan says what it says. It’s just that the only ones who know what it says, other than Paul Krugman and a few other journalists and progressive economists, are the people it was targeted to: the Republican establishment, to keep them at bay.
Just to be clear (and your title is), you said, “The key to defeating Trump in the general election is in a single sentence of his in last night’s debate: angry Americans want big tax cuts for the wealthy.”
But that is not what he said, is it?
He said, “They don’t like seeing higher taxes.”
And they don’t. People drive from DC to Virginia to buy gas with lower taxes. They drive from Maryland to Delaware so they don’t have to pay sales taxes. They drive from Virginia to Maryland to buy groceries. They drive from Maryland to Virginia to pay lower taxes on cigarettes. And they shop online and do not report the purchases and pay sales tax as they are supposed to.
If you think we should be paying more to the U.S. government, then put your money where your mouth is: https://pay.gov/public/form/start/23779454
Warren:
So how does your point take away from Bev’s point of taxing the rich in income more? There is a ground swell for such to happen. https://www.google.com/search?sclient=psy-ab&site=&source=hp&q=Most+americans+want+the+rich+to+be+taxed+more&oq=Most+americans+want+the+rich+to+be+taxed+more&gs_l=hp.12…1197841.1215617.0.1217896.47.40.1.6.7.0.209.2959.38j1j1.40.0….0…1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.15.764.kdO6xlSnOak&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.&bvm=bv.116636494,d.amc&biw=1366&bih=643&dpr=1&ech=1&psi=9GTlVrgLh6SOBMDYu_AF.1457874170146.3&ei=9GTlVrgLh6SOBMDYu_AF&emsg=NCSR&noj=1
My point is simply that Trump did not say what she says he said.
Wow, Warren, guess you’re not very good at puzzles and treasure hunts. Good thing you weren’t a cryptographer working on cracking the Nazi code during WWII. We might all now be being forced to raise our right hands in salute like some Trump fans do at his rallies.
The word “key”? The first three definitions listed Merriam-Webster’s are:
1. a usually metal instrument by which the bolt of a lock is turned b : any of various devices having the form or function of such a key
2. a means of gaining or preventing entrance, possession, or control b : an instrumental or deciding factor
3. something that gives an explanation or identification or provides a solution b : a list of words or phrases giving an explanation of symbols or abbreviations: c : an aid to interpretation or identification : clue d : an arrangement of the salient characters of a group of plants or animals or of taxa designed to facilitate identification e : a map legend
Trump said, “[Americans] don’t like seeing higher taxes.” But since they do like seeing things, like infrastructure maintenance and construction, affordable tuition at public colleges and universities, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid (which polls show is popular), excellent pre-K through 12th grade education, and so forth, good benefits for veterans, financially accessible healthcare, safe water, clean air, nice national parks, a strong national defense system, and some other things—and since they know that these must be paid for with taxes if the budget deficit is to remain manageable—they actually DO like seeing higher taxes on the wealthy.
The KEY is in DECODING what he was saying and pointing that out by reference to his actual tax plan.
If you join the military, Warren, please don’t put in for assignment to the Signal Corps.
Now the dogwhistles are messages only the establishment can hear.
Well, it’s only the establishment among Republicans that knows what his fiscal plan says–or even knows that he has one. Suffice it to say that he does not tout it on the campaign trail. It was put forth to serve only one purpose: to fend off the Koch brothers’ super PAC ads and other establishment attacks that he’s insufficiently supply-side-fiscal-policy.
I think that all the political mavens are way off base when they try understanding Trump’s popularity. First, understand that Trump is getting between 35% and 40% of the Republican primary voters. Not a really big number when applied to a national election scale. Yes, there is plenty of glee being demonstrated by the crowds at Trump’s rallies. But that out pouring of happy emotions has little to do with Trump’s tax plans, or his constantly changing stand on health care financing. This isn’t rocket science. It is simple social science. Trump appeals to the base emotions of the fringe of the Republican base. Call it what it is. For the most part bigotry and social intolerance. The working class is well known for its inability to understand its own economic self interests and who best represents those interests. So either Clinton or Sanders will have to make it crystal clear that a vote for the Republican candidate, which ever it turns out to be, is a vote for pushing the over all tax bill onto the working, middle and even upper middle classes and thereby lightening the tax liabilities of the truly wealthy.
But since [Americans} do like seeing things, [such as] infrastructure maintenance and construction, affordable tuition at public colleges and universities, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid (which polls show is popular), excellent pre-K through 12th grade education, and so forth, good benefits for veterans, financially accessible healthcare, safe water, clean air, nice national parks, a strong national defense system, and some other things—and since they know that these must be paid for with taxes if the budget deficit is to remain manageable—they actually DO like seeing higher taxes on the wealthy.”
Maybe they don’t like the governments’ giving money to people who do not do anything to earn it.
An let’s look at a few items on your list:
“infrastructure maintenance and construction” — primarily a State and local government function. Only the IHS, Amtrak, and the DC Metro are in the purview of the central government.
“affordable tuition at public colleges and universities” and “excellent pre-K through 12th grade education” — also a function of the State and local governments. Except, of course, for DC. Do you want the public education of the United States to look like that of DC?
“financially accessible healthcare” — also not within the purview of the central government.
“safe water” — again, mostly done by local governments.
“nice national parks” — we have nice State Parks, too.
All these things are done or can be done by State governments (even the National Health System of Canada is run on sales taxes, which are not a tax on the rich)
Do you want the central government to take over the library system, too?
Warren, you are blowing smoke if you think that the states have typically funded infrastructure such as highways and bridges. Even local school systems get federal support money through their state governments. Hospitals rely heavily on direct federal grants and payments from Medicare. Virtually every aspect of the general good is supported in a major way through government grants, including grants to colleges and universities. And even libraries get federal support dollars, https://www.usaspending.gov/Pages/AdvancedSearch.aspx?k=Libraries
the advantage of having the federal government fund infrastructure and education is that they’re the issuer of the currency, and they dont have to raise taxes on anyone, even the rich, as long as there are national resources that are underutilized, whereas the states must tax their citizens to spend on anything they’d want to do..
I don’t fully understand rjs’s statement–I’m not a fiscal-policy expert, man–but I fully understand Jack’s point and would have posted a comment along those lines, although not as perfect.
But I want to add this: One of the Chatty Cathy lines that comes out whenever you pull the string that triggers the states-can-do-everything-no-need-for-a-federal-government-except-to-do-what-the-wingers-want-done set of canned messages is that states can do healthcare insurance. But Cathy’s record breaks before she explains why, then, in all the decades they had to do that, they didn’t.
Wingers love to conflate what can be done theoretically, voluntarily, with what will be done voluntarily. And they won’t admit that what will be done is what actually matters.
Let’s not forget that most of our red state red necks would have lost the farm were it not for generous federal spending throughout the last century. The interstate highway system. Roosevelt replenishing what had become the “dust bowl” under the watchful eyes of state governments. The internet. Military facilities all over the southeast and the west. Hoover Dam. The TVA (which was not a Tennessee state phenomenon, but another effort by FDR to make life better for those in need). The list of U.S. government efforts to make life more livable for even those who constantly disparage the need for that government is endless. As is the total lack of gratitude on the part of those so called conservatives who benefit from their government’s efforts on their behalf.
I would love to see the federal government leave the Deep South, the Appalachian states, Texas, Oklahoma and a few other states to their own devices. I’d love to say that they should be careful what they wish for, but I know they’ll never get it.
ain’t gonna happen if Michigan gets back every $ it contributes to the federal gov.
“you are blowing smoke if you think that the states have typically funded infrastructure such as highways and bridges.”
The INTERSTATE highway system is a central government function, and does go to providing for the general welfare of the States, as per the Constitution.
“Even local school systems get federal support money….”
Why? Is there something to central government can do with K-12 education that the State and local governments cannot?
“Hospitals rely heavily on direct federal grants and payments from Medicare.”
Of course — hospitals are forced by that same government to eat the costs of those who renege on their payments, or claim that they cannot pay.
“Virtually every aspect of the general good is supported in a major way through government grants, including grants to colleges and universities. And even libraries get federal support dollars”
Again, is there something in those areas that the central government can do that the State governments cannot?
“One of the Chatty Cathy lines that comes out whenever you pull the string that triggers the states-can-do-everything-no-need-for-a-federal-government-except-to-do-what-the-wingers-want-done set of canned messages is that states can do healthcare insurance. But Cathy’s record breaks before she explains why, then, in all the decades they had to do that, they didn’t.”
But they DID. We had RomneyCare in Massachusetts, TennCare in Tennessee. The reason other States did not do it is simple: they didn’t want to.
Hmmmmm:
Or maybe it costs too much? Or maybe one state wants curvy roads and the next one straight roads? Maybe it makes more sense for the federal government to create a healthcare policy and hold “all” of the states to one policy of one type of interstate highway methodology?
“The reason other States did not do it is simple: they didn’t want to. ”
And you have your answer. The reason the federal government can do a better job than the states is that the states don’t want to. It isn’t hard to improve upon zero.
Rationalization doesn’t work in this circumstance, Joe the Plumber’s word carries more weight with these people than the explanation of who he really is and what his tax status actually is does.
Increased revenues from fuel and usage taxes is necessary, but has been target of the “no new tax” meme. In some states general revenues fund too large a portion of road building, repair and maintenance. The result is backlog!
The US’ 3 trillion dollar infrastructure need is exacerbated by the “no tax”, “starve the beast” policy of the republican party.
Federal money supports (around 25% of total spending varying on fiscal period and location) roads at every level, US roads and transit are funding jointly by the feds, state and local revenue collecting entities.
“Or maybe it costs too much?”
What costs too much? The States have the same resources the central government does — the pockets of its residents.
“Or maybe one state wants curvy roads and the next one straight roads? Maybe it makes more sense for the federal government to create a healthcare policy and hold ‘all’ of the states to one policy of one type of interstate highway methodology?”
Then change the Constitution to allow the central government to do that. The IHS falls under the provision to provide for the general welfare of the States. The central government does not pay for city streets.
“The reason the federal government can do a better job than the states is that the states don’t want to. It isn’t hard to improve upon zero.”
And if the States don’t want to, what authority does the central government have to force them into it? (Please quote the actual part of the Constitution in which the States gave that power to the central government.)
“States have the same resources the central government does — the pockets of its residents.” is not true.
as the issuer of the currency, there is no need for the federal government to tax its citizens to fund its programs or investments…the primary purpose of federal taxation is to take excess currency out of circulation to keep the economy from overheating…
“[As] the issuer of the currency, there is no need for the federal government to tax its citizens to fund its programs or investments….”
Then why is the U.S. government in debt?
“The reason the federal government can do a better job than the states is that the states don’t want to. It isn’t hard to improve upon zero.”
warren replies: “And if the States don’t want to, what authority does the central government have to force them into it? (Please quote the actual part of the Constitution in which the States gave that power to the central government.)”
Please point to the part of my post where I mentioned the “central government” forcing states to do . . . anything. Take all the time you need.
Yeah, this is an example of why it’s all-but-impossible to have a meaningful conversation with wingers. They’re programmed so that if you say one of the words or phrases that they’re programmed to respond to in a certain way, it doesn’t matter what you’ve actually said using the trigger word or phrase. They’re like computers. They just spout their programmed responses. It’s really weird, but that’s what happens. All the time.
“Then why is the U.S. government in debt?”
The US debt is an obligation to be paid in dollars. That obligation doesn’t stipulate where the dollars come from. That “debt” can be erased in an instant, because it is monetized in dollars, and the US can create or destroy dollars at will. That it chooses not to doesn’t mean that it cannot.
i understand what he means, Beverly…”debt” is an unfortunate choice of a word to refer to issuance of Treasury bills, notes, and bonds, and like taxes, there is no need for the government to issue such script before they spend for their programs or to invest in infrastructure or its citizens….that Treasury script that many call “debt” functions in the economy, in the banking system, and in international trade in the same way a $20 bill in my wallet functions for my personal economy..what most call “government debt” would be better thought of as “government money issuance” because it functions more like money than like debt…banks are required to hold such safe reserves to back up their balance sheets, pension funds buy them as a permanent and safe asset…if Walmart wants to buy a boatload of goods from a Chinese producer, they’ll transfer Treasury script of an appropriate value to the Chinese company’s bank account…without such Treasury “debt”, the banking system and global economy would collapse…
while there has been and still is a shortage of such safe assets globally, they are really not necessary for the federal government to go about its business of funding its commitments..
Thanks, rjs. I’ll have to reread it verrrry slowly. I’m not good at this stuff. I’m still trying to master long division—although somehow I actually understood it back when I was in fourth grade. I’m not sure that I was the same person then, though. I used to be smart back in grade school.
The long-division comment was a joke. I understand long division! I just never come out with the right answer. Thank goodness for calculators.
‘Please point to the part of my post where I mentioned the “central government” forcing states to do . . . anything.’
You are correct — I misspoke.
The PEOPLE of the several States could have their State governments implement single-payer health care. It is within the authority of the States to do that. Do you not agree with THAT statement, at least?
Warren, it’s a really complicated thing to get done, and very few states are large enough to have the bargaining power with healthcare providers and drug and medical-device manufacturers to bring down costs. Vermont recently gave up trying to implement its single-payer plan, for that reason.
But why do you keep saying that the federal government should not do it because states can do it? Even if states could do it, they’ve have many decades to do it and they haven’t done it. Then again, maybe it’s because for practical reasons states can’t do it.
I don’t get wingers’ fixation with theory. Access to health care is what matters. Theory, not so much.
“The PEOPLE of the several States could have their State governments implement single-payer health care. It is within the authority of the States to do that. Do you not agree with THAT statement, at least? ”
Of course. But most of them won’t. And until all of them do, simultaneously, single payer won’t work.
All other industrialized nations on the planet have some form of single payer. All other industrialized nations of the planet have lower per capita health care costs than the US. All other industrialized nations on the planet have as good or better healthcare outcomes as the US. Not the kind of “exceptionalism” I expect for my country. YMMV.
i’m sure glad that long-division comment was a joke, Beverly…i was quite perplexed as to how i could explain why it works..
“[It’s] a really complicated thing to get done, and very few states are large enough to have the bargaining power with healthcare providers and drug and medical-device manufacturers to bring down costs.”
There are multiple countries with single-payer systems. Have they brought down the profit margins of the pharmaceutical companies? As for the providers in the U.S., what bargaining power do they have? Most people have a whole slew of doctors to choose from.
“But why do you keep saying that the federal government should not do it because states can do it? Even if states could do it, they’ve have many decades to do it and they haven’t done it. Then again, maybe it’s because for practical reasons states can’t do it.”
If it is for practical reasons that the States decide it is not feasible, that should be a lesson to the central government.
The fact is, the central government simply does not have the Constitutional authority to implement a single-payer system. If you disagree, please quote the section of the Constitution which you think grants the central government such power.