Topic: The Economy
“Illegal immigration should be ended, not mitigated; the border sealed, not reprioritized. Economic engagement with China should be ended, not rethought.”
The effect of “mass deportations” would be economic devastation. By one calculation, deporting 1 million immigrants would lead to 88,000 additional employment losses by other Americans, suggesting that Trump’s program could cost up to 968,000 Americans their jobs on top of the 7.1 million jobs held by immigrants up for deportation.” [Source]
Full contextual analysis of the foreword here.
“The next President should promote pro-growth economic policies that spur new jobs and investment, higher wages, and productivity.”
This is a fine goal, but the policies they support with regard to China and immigration would actually crush the economy, result in net job losses, and exacerbate poverty.
Full contextual analysis of the Foreword here.
“As a consequence of this approach, we see the return of costly, job-killing regulations that serve to depress the economy and grow the bureaucracy but do little to address, much less resolve, complex environmental problems.”
As I point out in the previous section, renewables add billions to the economy and create jobs.
“Making the switch from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources could boost the economy. For example, according to a Labor Energy Partnership analysis, the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act alone is expected to create more than 1.5 million new jobs in the U.S. over the next decade.
Additionally, according to the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) 2023 Renewable Energy and Jobs annual review, an estimated 13.7 million direct and indirect global renewable energy jobs existed in 2022, up from 7.3 million in 2012. Many millions more are expected in the coming years.”
But do environmental regulations cost the fossil-fuel industry jobs, as she claims here? A University of Chicago research project says no:
“A robust literature uses reduced-form empirical methods to evaluate the impact of existing regulations on employment levels in regulated industries. Berman and Bui (2001) compare Los Angeles (LA) refineries to other US refineries and find no evidence of changes in employment from increased regulation in LA refineries. Morgenstern, Pizer, and Shih (2002) examine the link between environmental spending and employment across four energy-intensive industries (pulp and paper mills, plastic manufacturing, petroleum refining, and iron and steel mills) and find that increased environmental spending is associated with a small increase in employment.“
“Hafstead and Williams (2018) use a highly stylized two-sector model to show that the effect of environmental taxation is largely a reallocation of jobs (from more-polluting to less-polluting industries) with very little net job loss. Among other implications, this suggests that prior difference-in-difference studies have substantially overestimated job losses in regulated industries and overestimated net job losses by even more.”
Gunasekara is either outright lying, or bothered to do zero research prior to making these claims.
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.4: Environmental Protection Agency here.
“In effect, the Biden EPA has once again presented a false choice to the American people: that they have to choose between a healthy environment and a strong, growing economy.”
Biden’s economy is thriving by all traditional markers.
According to the Joint Economic Committee:
“The U.S. economy improved more during President Joe Biden’s first year in office than in the first 12 months of any other president in the past 50 years. Job growth, economic growth, retail sales and business creation are all up, while unemployment and unemployment insurance claims are down significantly” [Source]
Moreover, the economy always does better under Democratic presidential administrations than Republican administrations.
In particular, the report finds that since 1949:
- Annual real GDP growth is 1.2 percentage points faster during Democratic administrations than Republican ones (3.79% versus 2.60%).
- Total job growth has averaged 2.5% annually during Democratic administrations, while it is barely over 1% annually during Republican administrations. Applied to today’s total workforce, this would imply nearly 2.4 million more jobs created every year under Democratic administrations.
- The Democratic advantage is even larger in private job growth than it is for total job growth. Notably, business investment is higher during Democratic administrations, with investment growth running at more than double the pace than it does during Republican ones.
- Average rates of inflation—both overall and “core” measures that exclude volatile food and energy prices—are slightly lower during Democratic administrations.
- Families in the bottom 20% of the income distribution experience 188% faster income growth during Democratic administrations.
“Economic performance is much stronger when Democrats hold the White House,” said Josh Bivens, EPI chief economist and author of the report. “But it is our sense that the simple facts on real-time economic performance during Democratic and Republican administrations aren’t particularly well known. These facts constitute important information people should have during this time of rampant misinformation.”
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.4: Environmental Protection Agency here.
“Eliminate the new Housing Supply Fund.”
The New Housing Supply Fund is designed to increase the availability of affordable housing by providing funding to support the construction and development of new homes. There are a lot of philosophical reasons someone might argue for ending this – opposition to public housing in general, reducing government spending, et al. Carson may even believe that private home developers will step in and provide affordable housing if we reduce government intervention (I’ll leave it to you to decide how likely you believe that one is.)
The bottom line, however, is that this would cause a reduction in the affordable housing supply, particularly for low-income households and vulnerable populations. This would lead directly to increased homelessness, higher housing costs, and higher rent. If we make it more difficult for people to find affordable housing, we’re widening the gap between the rich and the poor even further.
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.6: Department of Housing and Urban Development here.
“Biden’s DOI is hoarding supplies of energy and keeping them from Americans whose lives could be improved with cheaper and more abundant energy while making the economy stronger and providing job opportunities for Americans.”
Yes, Joe Biden is “hoarding” energy. Cackling as he sits atop a giant pile of coal. This statement is ridiculous. While Biden’s actions have protected federal lands and restricted new federal oil and gas leases, this does not equate to “hoarding” existing energy supplies. Energy companies still have access to previously issued leases, and U.S. oil and gas production remains at record highs, partially due to existing leases and non-federal sources.
The claim that lives would be improved with “cheaper and more abundant energy” oversimplifies the complex causes of high energy prices. While increased domestic production could modestly affect prices, U.S. energy prices are still heavily influenced by global oil markets.
I touch on all of this more in Section 3.3, including the fact that clean energy is creating a ton of jobs.
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.7: Department of the Interior here.
“Meaningful reform of the Endangered Species Act requires that Congress take action to restore its original purpose and end its use to seize private property, prevent economic development, and interfere with the rights of states over their wildlife populations.”
More recommendations that we harm endangered species and wildlife in the name of capitalism. To this end, Pendley recommends de-listing the grizzly bear and the gray wolf as endangered species, so we’d no longer need to worry about protecting those – they wouldn’t qualify for protection anyway. Right now, it’s illegal to harm, harass, or kill grizzly bears, unless it’s in self-defense. This will open them up to be hunted. And yes, they’re still endangered.
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.7: Department of the Interior here.
“The next Administration must prioritize the economic prosperity of ordinary Americans. For several decades, establishment “elites” have failed the citizenry by refusing to secure the border, outsourcing manufacturing to China and elsewhere, spending recklessly, regulating constantly, and generally controlling the country from the top down rather than letting it flourish from the bottom up.”
We’re off to a bad start, here, considering that many of the policies the Heritage Foundation has touted throughout Project 2025 would result in economic devastation. I address that every time it comes up under a specific mandate. Second, are they arguing that their particular brand of fascism wouldn’t be “controlling from the top down”? They’re literally arguing for staffing the entire federal government with regime loyalists. It’s throughout this document.
Third, they praise Reagan throughout this document, who gave us trickle-down economics, which not only didn’t work but is the opposite of “letting it flourish from the bottom up.”
Pay attention to their actions, not their words. Their guy (Trump) is the one who killed the bipartisan border control bill, so he could continue to campaign on it as an issue. Obviously, the border can’t be that big of a problem if it can wait to be addressed.
As for economically disengaging from China, as is argued for in the Foreword of Project 2025, the results of that, at this point, are also economic devastation.
Full contextual analysis of Section 4: The Economy here.
“Lassman does not think that an aggressive U.S. trade policy would lead to more manufacturing jobs. Rather, he writes, “Federal Reserve research shows” that the Trump Administration’s steel tariffs, and the retaliatory tariffs levied by other nations in response, “have cost about 75,000 manufacturing jobs while creating only about 1,000 jobs in the steel industry.” Furthermore, he writes that “protectionism and similar progressive policies tend to weaken American security.” Lassman maintains that “trade creates peace,” and if China weren’t so reliant upon trade with the U.S., it would be “much more unstable and dangerous.””
Project 2025 is a bit all over the place with regard to who supports tariffs and who does not. Lassman didn’t serve in the Trump administration, so perhaps he has a clearer picture of what a bad idea tariffs generally are. Lassman is correct in his assertion, but off on his numbers. Trump’s tariffs on China alone cost the United States 245,000 jobs, according to a Janurary 21 study, in addition to $51 billion in increased consumer prices and a net loss of $7.2 billion to the economy. More about that here.
For context, Lassman shares Section 4.6: Trade with Peter Navarro, who disagrees with him almost across the board. Peter Navarro DID serve in the Trump administration, and spent four months in prison in 2024 for contempt of Congress. Navarro is a proponent of “decoupling” from China.
Full contextual analysis of Section 4: The Economy here.
“In contrast to Lassman, Navarro thinks that “trade deficits matter a great deal.””
Trump is famously obsessed with trade deficits, and, like tariffs, doesn’t understand what they are or how they work. More commentary on that in the analysis linked below.
Full contextual analysis of Section 4: The Economy here.