Who do you want to be president–Elizabeth Warren or Donald Trump? | The Tylt
Who do you want to be president–Elizabeth Warren or Donald Trump?
On poll after poll, Democratic voters say the ability to unseat Donald Trump in a general election is the quality they value most in a Democratic candidate. As of September 2019, the field is lead by former Vice President Joe Biden, Sen. Bernie Sanders, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Sen. Kamala Harris and Mayor Pete Buttigieg. We want to know who you would vote for over President Donald Trump in the general election.
Elizabeth Warren has made a name for herself as a policy wonk, building a platform based on detailed proposals covering a wide range of issues. Politico reports she has made policy a huge part of her campaign, surrounding herself with a group of advisors who come from various fields in academia.
The approach has produced more detailed proposals than any other presidential rival and, to the surprise of even some in Warren-world, become a political asset. Her “I have a plan for that” rallying cry has, improbably, electrified crowds and achieved meme status.
Jacob Leibenluft, who worked on policy on Obama’s campaign in 2012 and Hillary Clinton’s in 2016, said what's unique in Warren's case is her ability to weave her far-reaching policy ideas “into a broader worldview.”
...A prodigious academic in her own right, Warren has long sought out scholarly types as sounding boards. Beyond various academics across the country, she has a kitchen cabinet of sorts of many former students who have gone into academia. She occasionally chats with New York Times columnist and Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman as well.
Warren is putting in the work to find solutions to the myriad issues facing the country.
Warren believes the solution to many issues facing the country is an increase in government oversight. In a profile by the New York Times, Warren delineates how she feels the country is in need of monopoly-busting not seen since the early 1900s.
Warren has plans (about 20 so far, detailed and multipart) for making housing and child care affordable, forgiving college-loan debt, tackling the opioid crisis, protecting public lands, manufacturing green products, cracking down on lobbying in Washington and giving workers a voice in selecting corporate board members. Her grand overarching ambition is to end America’s second Gilded Age.
“Ask me who my favorite president is,” Warren said. When I paused, she said, “Teddy Roosevelt.” Warren admires Roosevelt for his efforts to break up the giant corporations of his day — Standard Oil and railroad holding companies — in the name of increasing competition. She thinks that today that model would increase hiring and productivity. Warren, who has called herself “a capitalist to my bones,” appreciated Roosevelt’s argument that trustbusting was helpful, not hostile, to the functioning of the market and the government. She brought up his warning that monopolies can use their wealth and power to strangle democracy. “If you go back and read his stuff, it’s not only about the economic dominance; it’s the political influence,” she said.
During her few months in the race, Warren has also shown an ability to appeal to more conservative voters. Appearing on campaign stops in West Virginia, Politico reports Warren was able to win over voters with her plan to help deal with the continuing opioid crisis.
It was a startling spectacle in the heart of Trump country: At least a dozen supporters of the president — some wearing MAGA stickers — nodding their heads, at times even clapping, for liberal firebrand Elizabeth Warren.
...About 150 people gathered at the Kermit Fire & Rescue Headquarters Station to hear the Massachusetts senator and former Harvard professor talk about what she wants to do to fight the opioid epidemic. Trump-supporting college students in baggy t-shirts, housewives in pearls, and the fire chief dressed in uniform joined liberal retirees wearing rainbow “Persist” shirts and teachers with six-figure student loan debt.
Warren's supporters are now moving to woo centrist voters from Biden's coalition, believing his support is soft. If Warren can win over these two large swaths of voters, many believe her path to the Oval Office would be smooth.
Trump supporters say Warren's policies are too liberal for the nation. Per Politico:
“There’s no question that Elizabeth Warren is on the move, has momentum and could well end up as our opponent,” said Tim Murtaugh, a Trump 2020 spokesman. “We have to make sure voters know about her proposals for government takeover of health care, free health care for illegal immigrants, radical environmental restrictions, and increased taxes — all proposals that will devastate this country.”
Some experts also worry about the price tag on her myriad policies. In an extensive op-ed for the Washington Post, columnist Max Boot delineates the cost of each of Warren's policies, arguing her proposed tax on ultra millionaires would not raise nearly enough to cover all the initiatives on the table.
It all sounds great — who wouldn’t want a bunch of free stuff? — but there’s a reason it hasn’t been done already: The price tag would be astronomical. Based mainly on her own estimates, I added up the cost of Warren’s commitments so far. The most expensive slice is the Medicare-for-all plan written by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and endorsed by Warren; independent analysts peg the cost at up to $32 trillion over 10 years. Add in Warren’s own programs, and the cost is about $36.5 trillion over 10 years, or $3.6 trillion a year.
That’s a big, big number. Sure, lots of individuals would save money on medical care, child care, college tuition and other expenses — and these new federal benefits could stimulate the economy by freeing more parents to work or more students to go to college. But if all of Warren’s promises were implemented, the federal budget ($4.1 trillion in 2018) would nearly double. Republicans said $940 billion over 10 years for the Affordable Care Act was too expensive — but that’s a rounding error compared with Warren’s agenda.
Warren promises to pay for her promises with a so-called wealth tax on households worth more than $50 million, a surtax on billionaires and a corporate profits tax on companies that earn $100 million or more annually. She claims that they would bring in $3.75 trillion over 10 years. That’s not nearly enough to fund her wish list, however, and even so, her estimates are wildly optimistic.
Fortune reports many economists believe that not only would the ultra-millionaire tax not raise as much money as the Warren camp believes, it would also cause many of America's wealthiest citizens to put their money in places the government cannot tax.
[I]nterviews with a dozen economists and tax experts from across the political spectrum point to divisions about how much money a wealth tax would raise. Some of those who laud the principles behind Warren’s wealth tax questioned whether the IRS could collect the tax as effectively as the campaign projects. That skepticism illustrates the challenge Warren would face in trying to execute on an idea she has called a top early priority if she’s elected.
...The wealth tax’s most high-profile critic is Larry Summers, the onetime economic adviser to former President Barack Obama whose bid to become Federal Reserve chairman collapsed in 2013 thanks to Senate pushback that reportedly included Warren. Summers and Natasha Sarin, an assistant professor at the University of Pennsylvania, used estate tax revenue as a model for a recent Washington Post op-ed that warned “it is likely extremely premature to bank on anything like the $200 billion plus” Warren’s campaign says the wealth tax would raise.
“It’s a failed international model that we’ve decided we’re going to bring to the U.S. without explaining why our version of it is going to be so much better, both from an efficiency perspective but also a revenue-raising standpoint,” said Sarin.
She said top earners will find ways around the levy.
“Whatever resources you have, the ultrawealthy will have more,” she said.