Presidential Clash: Analyzing the Economic Platforms of Trump and Harris

Are the economic policies of both the Democratic and Republican parties strangling the U.S. economy?

By Scott T. Cross

 

Last week’s debate marked the latest attempt by the Republican and Democratic presidential candidates to convince voters that they had their best interests in mind.

According to a recent poll by the Pew Research Center, viewers overwhelmingly cared about one issue: the economy. This singular subject unites Democrats and Republicans more than any other. Over 80% of respondents believe the economy is “very important” in the upcoming election.

 

Whose Plan is “Better?”

Tuesday’s debate was not the place to look for information on the candidates’ policies. Voters have begun searching for the candidates’ plans on their own so that they may judge them for themselves.

The next logical question voters should ask is: “How do you tell whose plan is better?”

Throughout the world, countries with less economic freedom tend to be objectively worse off, causing increased suffering for their citizens. The United States has a mixed economy and is partly a free market and partly centrally planned.

President Donald Trump’s and Vice President Harris’s plans for the economy should be assessed based on whether they bring the country closer to free market capitalism and prosperity or down the path of centrally planned socialism and economic decline.

 

Trump’s Protectionist Plan

Unfortunately for free market advocates, Trump’s agenda is largely protectionist. His policies seek to enact various laws and barriers to “protect” its domestic workers from their foreign counterparts. Trump has also repeatedly said that he would place a blanket tariff of 10-20% on all imports to the U.S. in addition to even higher tariffs that would be placed on goods from China, further “protecting” U.S. workers and trade.

The primary argument in favor of protectionist policies insists that foreign exports drive U.S. industries out of business because of their cheap goods. The tariff would add an additional tax to foreign products, raising their prices and therefore encouraging Americans to “buy American” and expand U.S. industry.

On the other hand, while certain individuals may benefit from the tariffs, many everyday Americans will be harmed by them. There are many industries in the U.S. that use the tariffed goods in production. Increased tariffs on those goods would therefore also drive up the price of American-made goods. The tariffs would also drive some foreign companies to stop dealing in America because of the higher cost. This would result in less competition for domestic producers once again causing prices of goods to increase.

The use of tariffs pushes the U.S. toward the centrally planned economy of socialism and ruin and further from the goal of free market capitalism and abundance.

 

Harris’s Expansion of Government

A mere fleeting glance at Harris’s agenda allows the viewer to see that her plan is one of overwhelming government interference in the economy. After repeatedly citing her idea of an  “Opportunity Economy” during her debate with Trump, Harris boasted that her Administration would “crack down on anti-competitive practices.” In essence, she would use the might of the government to enact a federal ban on price gouging.

Harris also indicated that she would haphazardly spread money around to “assist” with homeownership, small businesses, and social security.

These actions dilute the free market, expand government power, and forbid people to engage in mutually beneficial exchanges when they want to, shifting the country closer to socialism.

 

Two Sides of the Same Coin

Although they criticize each other, the reality is that both Trump in the previous administration and Harris in the current one oversaw tremendous amounts of money flowing into their favored social and national defense issues. Each was willing to sacrifice the free market in favor of central planning, but they denounced the other when they did the same. The result of this was massive deficits, trillions of dollars in government spending each year, and soaring inflation levels, all of which reduced the quality of life for the American citizens.

 

Hope Remains

There is, however, a glimmer of hope. Recently, Trump announced that he would eliminate taxes on tips if he was elected president. Harris, seeing how politically advantageous this was for Trump, quickly copied him, saying she would do the same. Although abrupt, these changes are encouraging because they demonstrate that the two political candidates are, at least on one front, battling over who can offer the freer market rather than who can offer the most government assistance.

While both Trump and Harris have agendas that lean toward increased government intervention in different ways, their recent competition over tax policies indicates an unexpected shift toward the free market. One can only hope that this trend continues, and that Trump and Harris embrace free market solutions to problems rather than burdening the U.S. economy with still more government edict.

 

About the Author

Scott T. Cross is a content editor for Checkpoint News from Columbiana, Ohio. As a junior student at Grove City College, Scott is majoring in Economics with a minor in Music. He is a marketing fellow at the Institute for Faith and Freedom.

During the summers of 2023 and 2024, Scott interned as a Research Assistant at the Allegheny Institute for Public Policy in Pittsburgh. There, he co-authored numerous published Research Briefs analyzing and advocating for public policies that promote private property and roll back the ever-increasing scope of government power. Scott also appeared on multiple radio broadcasts to discuss his research.

On campus he serves as Vice President of the Mises Society, an organization he co-founded that seeks to promote fellowship and the ideas congruent with the Austrian School of Economics

Scott has won a Don Lavoie Fellowship through the Mercatus Center, is a member of the Omicron Delta Epsilon international honors society in economics, and his work has been published by the Mises Institute.

Following Graduation, Scott intends to pursue graduate studies in either economics or law.

 

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed are those of the writer alone and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Grove City College, the Institute for Faith and Freedom, or their affiliates.

Cover Image: Ramy Majouji, Wikimedia Commons (cropped). License.