There was a time when political parties spoke about issues and philosophies that served as the foundation for their policies and their respective approaches to government. In recent years, however, political parties have allowed elected officials to serve as the voice and face of their "principled" organization, which made politics more personal.
After spending some time reading the economic proposals of both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, it's clear that the fundamental difference between them is found in a basic view of private property rights and the American government's relationship to that private property.
Both nominees have laid out plans that on one hand significantly reduce taxes on the productivity of Americans from Trump's proposals and on the other hand propose a minimum of $1 trillion in new taxes specified by Clinton.
When asked about the $19 trillion in debt, an anchor that is slowing America's economy, the two candidates are clearly different. Trump declares, "We've got to get rid of the $19 trillion in debt. I think we could do it fairly quickly over a period of eight years." Through spending cuts, renegotiation of trade and aid packages and a restructuring of the current debt, Trump offers his plan to work with Congress.
Clinton's new spending proposals are "paid for" by the aforementioned new taxes with the oft-repeated Democratic refrain: "We need to get the wealthy and the corporations to pay more of their fair share."
On trade, Trump has been painted as "opposed to trade deals." In reality, he's opposed to the insane declaration that free and fair trade consists of competitor nations, such as China and Mexico, having no labor or wage laws, no environmental regulations and no mandatory health care and other regulations. Further, he has directly tied the massive influx of illegal immigrants to stagnation of the wages of workers. In essence, Trump consistently favors the American worker versus those in countries without our regulations or those here illegally.
Clinton and her vice president pick, Sen. Tim Kaine, have proven to be the darlings of Wall Street from their overwhelming financial support from bankers and financiers. In a 2014 Politico article titled "Why Wall Street Loves Hillary," the following were listed as her biggest supporters: Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, the heads of JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America. Author William D. Cohan wrote, "According to a wide assortment of bankers and hedge-fund managers I spoke to for this article, Clinton's rock-solid support on Wall Street is not anything that can be dislodged ."
Now, back to the fundamental difference about private property. Who pays for the new government spending programs of Clinton? Those who work will have their productivity taxed for the benefit of others. The proposals of Trump consistently aim to raise the earning capacity of American workers by leveling the competitive playing field with international competitors and allowing a U.S. worker to keep more of his or her own money through tax cuts.
In America the government can, through the guise of false philanthropy and contrived "equality," confiscate the wealth and property of one to award to another. Frederic Bastiat, a French economist, declared this "plunder."
"But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime," Bastiat wrote.
America needs workers with good jobs, not more "legal plunder."
Robin Smith, a former chairwoman of the Tennessee Republican Party, is owner of Rivers Edge Alliance.