On Thursday, President Donald Trump issued a speech attempting to characterize his legislative goals and tax cut bill as “populist.” Despite significant contradictory analysis, the president claimed his efforts negativity affect wealthy individuals and aids most Americans.
This assessment falls short of factual reality. In truth, Trump used emotional rhetoric to divide American voters. The president’s pseudo-populism pushed a class warfare narrative.
Trump attacked the most vulnerable Americans – the destitute – by stating the need to cut welfare spending. To drive support for this position, he attempted to pit working Americans against the poor.
“I know people, they work three jobs and live next to somebody who doesn’t work at all. And the person who’s not working at all and has no intention of working at all is making more money and doing better than the person working his and her ass off.”
Trump claimed an unwillingness to work costs the government and the taxpayer an undue burden. Realistically, most of the unemployed lacked the necessary skills to fill open positions. Furthermore, the effect on the nation’s budget was negligible compared to the future costs of Trump tax cut plan.
When describing his tax cut plan, the president painted a factually-deficit picture. He claimed:
“Believe me, this is not good for me. Me, it’s not so — I have some very wealthy friends — no so happy with me, but that’s okay.”
This assertion defied analysis from non-partisan budget evaluators.
Sunday, the Congressional Budget Office released a report describing the effects of Trump’s future tax cuts. The report showed cause for alarm.
By and large, Americans earning over $100,000 annually benefited the most and the poor bore disastrous consequences.
The bill increased the nation’s deficit by $1.4 trillion. Republicans wanted corporate tax cuts to be permanent but allowed the majority of individual cuts to expire after 2025. Because of this, most Americans affected by the bill will lose.
The CBO indicated that by 2029 Americans earning $30,000 a year would suffer. Additionally, the report showed by 2021 Americans earning $40,000 annually will endure a net loss.
Worst, analysis warned Americans earning $75,000 a year and under will be harmed.
Insidiously, the tax cut bill proposed eliminating the health insurance mandate. The CBO showed that action would lead to an increase in premiums for those choosing to remain covered.
For those who choose to go uninsured, analysis depicted a loss of government tax credits and subsidies. By 2027, the report indicated that 13 million Americans would lose health coverage.
In contrast, the CBO showed wealthy Americans like Trump stand to benefit greatly. Due to lower pass-through rates and a repeal of the alternative minimum tax (AMT), the president set himself up for a financial windfall.
If implemented, much of Trump’s income sources stand to gain from the lower rates. Furthermore, the president’s 2005 tax return leak showed that without the alternative minimum tax Trump’s rate would have dropped from 24 percent to an absurd four percent total.
Trump used his speech to promote a divisive agenda. Despite contrary non-partisan evaluation, he claimed to embrace populism. The president masked destructive policy as the pro-working class. This did not match analytical reality.
Objectively, Trump offered emotional based arguments. He sought to play the working class against the destitute. Worst, the financial truth remained obfuscated.
Trump called for placing a higher long-term tax burden upon all but the very wealthy. During his speech, he promoted shifting responsibility away from America’s top earners while simultaneously claiming otherwise.
Ultimately, Trump pretended to defend all American interests but used emotional pleas to divide the country upon class interests. In effect, the president chose to underhandedly wage class warfare upon the American populace.
Featured Image Via YouTube Video.