The Baker School and Haslam School of Business hosted a moderated debate on the economic plans of the presidential candidates, asking whether the economic policies of former President Trump and Vice President Harris can deliver on their promises.
Courtesy of Amy Smotherman Burgess
On Tuesday, September 25, the Howard Baker School of Communications and Public Policy partnered with the Haslam School of Business for the second discussion in a three-part series on the 2024 election.
Tuesday’s discussion brought the economy to the forefront in moderate forums and debates, with the night’s big issue being that presidential candidates, former President Donald Trump and current Vice President Kamala Harris, each promised economic “Can we achieve prosperity?”
Marianne Wanamaker, Dean and Professor of the Baker School, began the evening by sharing the goals of these discussion events.
“(Our goal is) to inform this campus community and our neighbors in Knoxville and encourage them to get involved and vote in this election,” Wanamaker said.
Professor Monica Langley, an award-winning veteran reporter and former vice president of technology who worked for the Wall Street Journal for 27 years, hosted the forum discussion.
She moderated a lively discussion with Michael Strain, director of economic policy research at the American Enterprise Institute, who appeared to take more conservative and classically liberal positions on policy. His counterpart, Matt Yglesias, is an independent columnist who writes with a focus on economic policy and political realism, taking the more progressive side of the economic field.
Interestingly, both commentators seemed to agree on some issues highlighting good or bad points, and neither advocated for a single candidate’s platform. While it is true that there were differences in some policy philosophies and specific lines that the government should take, it was felt that there was no juxtaposition between the two. Perhaps it is a sign that we are not as divided as we think.
According to the Pew Research Center, 81% of American voters say the economy is the most important issue when voting in this election. Presidential candidates have therefore put the economy at the forefront of their campaign discussions, but the question is whether what they say can actually be implemented – between hopeful promises and promises that actually come true. be.
Panel discussions addressed five issues: inflation and home prices, industrial policy and trade, taxes, immigration, and the American Dream.
inflation
From 2020 to 2024, the Consumer Price Index, a tool that measures the prices of hundreds of goods and services Americans buy, rose 21.8%. This means that the price of goods has increased by about 21% on average over the past four years. Strictly speaking, Americans saw food prices rise by nearly 25% between 2020 and 2024, and 2.5% between 2023 and 2024.
But inflation, the issue that received the most attention during this election cycle, has declined over the past four years. According to Michael Strain, inflation is “the rate of increase in prices in the general economy.”
Inflation fell from 9% to 3%, a healthy level for a prosperous economy. But that doesn’t mean students here on UT’s campus aren’t seeing visibly higher prices when they go to Target or Publix for their weekly grocery shopping.
Students, as well as their wallets and food accounts, are hoping that price levels will come down and return to pre-pandemic levels, but Iglesias doesn’t think that will happen.
“It’s no exaggeration to say that some of President Biden’s economic policy choices are responsible for the price increases we’ve seen in the past…But the Trump campaign has a compelling strategy to raise price levels. I don’t think we’ve come up with a goal.” Part of the reason is that there’s nothing that can accomplish that,” Iglesias said.
Iglesias did not specifically mention the policies the Biden administration has implemented during its nearly four years in office. Still, while some may say it may have been due to his deficit spending and anti-inflation laws, the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania says that was not the cause of the decline in inflation levels. Still, it is attributed to pumping money into the economy and spurring job growth, which some would say causes further inflation. It’s very controversial and depends on your opinion.
“I would be very surprised if, after some time, we looked back at our anti-inflation laws and concluded that there were any meaningful cost benefits,” Strain said.
affordable housing
The panel switched gears to affordable housing, a burgeoning issue for Americans across the country and especially here at UT’s campus. However, the answers provided by the two experts were not encouraging.
“I don’t think either candidate has a good plan to address the affordability of renting an apartment or the affordability of buying a home. But I think Vice President Harris’ plan will actually make the problem worse. I think so,” Strain said.
He argued that Harris’ plan for a $25,000 tax credit for homes would not help buyers, but would instead help home sellers. It’s the seller who makes the profit, not the person who gets the $25,000.
Iglesias said local governments need to reduce regulatory constraints to open up the market. He highlighted a number of factors contributing to today’s impasse.
“I think it’s literally impossible (to resolve),” Iglesias said.
It is important to note that while Ms. Harris did propose a plan, Mr. Trump’s plan was not mentioned in the discussion nor was it front and center in Ms. Harris’ message.
international trade
Next on the agenda was industrial policy and trade. Strain highlighted negative opinions about President Trump’s tariff plans, policies not normally associated with free trade or the Republican platform. Mr. Strain discussed President Trump’s use of tariffs during the previous administration, and Mr. Iglesias agreed with Mr. Strain’s disapproval of the tariff plan.
“This is a policy that is a loss for manufacturing workers, a loss for the agricultural sector, and a loss for American consumers,” Strain said.
However, it should be noted that the Biden-Harris administration maintained some tariffs during its tenure.
tax
Iglesias said Congress wants to extend Trump’s 2017 tax credit law, which is set to expire in 2025, but does not want to extend Trump’s proposed cuts to other areas. emphasized.
According to the panel, Trump’s proposed tax cuts would cost $9 trillion, while Harris’s tax cuts would cost $5 trillion. Strain believes these tax cuts, specifically the “extension of tax cuts for the bottom 98% of households,” will pass. This means people with incomes of less than $400,000 will receive a tax break. This has been agreed by both teams.
The conversation got pretty deep, but it highlighted President Trump’s 2017 tax cuts and future extensions, as well as Harris’ plan to change the tax bracket to preserve tax cuts for the middle and lower classes.
Both experts believe neither candidate has a great tax plan. They saw the good in some ideas and the bad in others. The balance between who/what should be taxed and what the money should be used for will always affect tax cuts, and there will be winners and losers. Once again, the idea of promise and practice comes into play.
immigration
Both Strain and Iglesias agreed that economies thrive on immigration. However, opinions differed over the number of immigrant cards and green cards that should be distributed. Each emphasized the work ethic and entrepreneurial spirit of immigrants in the economy.
According to Strain, there are two ways to grow the economy.
“You can add more employees, you can make your employees more productive, but it’s very difficult to find ways to make your employees more productive.”
The consensus is that America needs immigrants to build its economy. The question is, how much?
final thoughts
Langley asked both experts which candidate had the best plan. Like many students today, she was looking for straight answers.
“I don’t think we really know what’s going to happen,” Strain said. “I think President Biden has really undertaken some of the most reckless and irresponsible fiscal policy in decades, and Vice President Harris was part of that administration…President Trump’s track record in managing the economy during his presidency has been mixed. I think a lot of what he did was good, but a lot of what he did was really bad. ”
Even if they disagree with many of these platform items, reactions were mixed, seeming to emphasize President Trump’s vision. However, Strain mentioned good things that Trump has done in the past that Trump seems to want to reverse in the next administration. So it was a vague answer.
“I would make the case for Vice President Harris,” Iglesias said, although he was not yet completely confident.
american dream
The night ended with a conversation about the American Dream. Is it still possible, or is it an ancient idea that has been used to encourage Americans to work and strive to advance the economy? Will our students here at UT have a job and a home in the future?
“They’re going to do well. They’re great. America is better than our politics,” Strain said. “And there’s no place I’d rather live than the United States, and there’s never been a better time to be alive than today.”
While his message and hope that the American Dream is still alive is encouraging, many students faced with the economic situation may disagree. But questions remain as to whether the policies enacted by former President Trump and Vice President Harris can restore the spirit and hope that the American Dream embodies.
