A Different Look At Trump’s Economic Plans

A Different Look At Trump’s Economic Plans

By John Huppenthal |

This analysis looks at President Trump’s first three years in office—2017, 2018 and 2019, the pre-COVID era—to get a more unbiased view of the policy impact of his approach.

In Trump’s first three years:

Trump extended economic growth to achieve the longest economic expansion in the history of the U.S.: 10.5 years.

Trump had the largest single year increase in 2019 median household income in history, increasing income by $5,420 to a level, $81,210, that Biden/Harris still haven’t reached. 

To do this, Trump created 7.1 million full-time jobs in his first 3 years as president, the jobs that count: full-time jobs, in the pre-COVID era. This is more than an amazing feat because Trump only created 6.7 million total jobs. How did Trump increase full-time jobs by more than his total job increase? By making every job he created a full-time job, and, most importantly, converting 400,000 of Obama’s part-time jobs into full-time.

By comparison, Harris/Biden only created 1.0 million full-time jobs in the last two years, September 2022 to September 2024, the post-COVID era. Most of their job creation has been part-time jobs.

Trump created so many jobs that job openings exceeded the number of unemployed for the first time in history, not only exceeded but went on to double the number of unemployed.

The open job force was so strong under Trump’s first three years that he was stripping 160,000 people per month out of welfare for a total reduction of welfare recipients of 8.5 million, 19% of the total recipients.

The open job force was so strong that, for the first time ever, a million people left Social Security Disability and went from consuming Social Security tax dollars to paying into the system.

Trump pushed the bankruptcy date for the Social Security system back by years through welfare enrollment reduction and increased employment and wages.

Trump’s lowest unemployment rate of 3.5% was the lowest level since Eisenhower, just 0.1%, a tenth of a percent from its lowest level ever.

When Trump’s USMCA treaty was put in place, it created the world’s largest international trade confederation.

Trump set 12 all-time records for Black employment, pushing Black unemployment to its lowest level in recorded history, 5.3%, far below Obama’s lowest rate of 8.0%.

Trump reduced the personal income taxes for all families of four or more making $53,000 or less to zero. In the other 150+ countries of the world, such families are considered rich and pay tens of thousands in taxes. Economists have not begun to understand the full ramifications of this feat. In chess, it’s called checkmate. No other country can get the upper hand.

As a result, the wealth of the bottom 50% of the U.S. increased by $1.4 trillion under Trump. Under Obama’s last four years? 0.8 trillion

In a sane, rational world, Trump would have earned three economics Nobel prizes, setting records for trade, unemployment reduction, economic growth, and achieving economic equality. (That’s equality, not equity).

Trump’s strategy for his second term: the roaring 20s, where growth was 40% as compared to Obama’s 11%. The 1922 Fordney-McCumber tariffs of 40% were combined with a reduction of the personal income tax rate from 76% to 25% under Calvin Coolidge.

I am confident that Trump is eyeing a massive trade deal with China, just like Trump’s USMCA, which has shifted the trade balance of the world.

If Trump is successful at combining a modest and carefully designed broad tariff of 20% or less with equal or greater business tax rate reduction, we are likely to have the roaring 20s all over again. Hard to believe that the U.S. economy of $28 trillion could grow another 40% in the next four years but hold on to your hats.

John Huppenthal was the Arizona Superinterndent of Public Instruction from 2011-2015. Prior to this role, John served as a member of the Arizona State Senate and the Arizona House of Representatives. You can follow him on Twitter here.

Cost Analysis Shows AZ Green New Deal Energy Mandates Will Cost Ratepayers Over $6 Billion

Cost Analysis Shows AZ Green New Deal Energy Mandates Will Cost Ratepayers Over $6 Billion

By the Free Enterprise Club |

It turns out that upending Utility energy production and mandating “clean” energy by an arbitrary date costs money. A lot of money actually—to the tune of over $6 billion according to a new study commissioned by the Corporation Commission.

This study comes over a year after the Commission first announced its Green New Deal Energy Rules. Many votes have taken place since then, votes that would impact ratepayers, yet no independent cost analysis had been done until now.

The green energy lobby repeatedly told the Commission that the mandates (which were rejected by a margin of two to one on the ballot in 2018), would actually save ratepayers money and have an economic benefit of $2 billion. Seemingly everyone in the Corp Comm echo chamber and the media actually believed these suspicious figures. Everyone except Commissioner Justin Olson. He introduced an amendment last April to ensure that costs incurred by Utilities to comply with the mandates aren’t passed onto ratepayers. The amendment failed. It turned out that the same people claiming that energy mandates save people money didn’t believe their own hype and fought to kill this ratepayer protection.

We already know that previous mandates have led to higher utility bills and boondoggle projects. The Renewable Energy Standard and Tariff adopted by the Commission in 2006 (requiring 15% renewable energy by 2025) resulted in APS signing a 30-year contract for solar energy costing 400% above market rates. All passed onto the ratepayer.

Thankfully prior to leaping before they looked, the Commission agreed to conduct a study with an independent firm to identify the potential cost of additional mandates. The firm they hired—Ascend—compares 3 different portfolios of energy production: “Least Cost” which relies on utilities pursuing the lowest cost option for consumers, an 80% clean energy mandate by 2050, and a 100% clean energy mandate by 2050. In order to hit the 80% or 100% mandate requirements, utilities would need to phase out all fossil fuels, purchase more solar and wind generation, expand lithium-ion battery storage and convert natural gas generation to green hydrogen…

>>> READ MORE >>>