Household incomes set to substantially rise in coming years thanks to Trump’s deregulation, report finds

WASHINGTON, DC - DECEMBER 14:<br /> President Donald Trump cuts the red ribbon across two stacks of paper depicting regulations in 1960 and today as he walks into an event regarding deregulation at the White House in Washington, DC on December 14, 2017. (Photo by Carolyn Van Houten/The Washington Post via Getty Images)
(FILE PHOTO by Getty)

It’s official: Despite claims from Democrats that President Donald Trump’s policies have only benefited the wealthy, his policies are in reality slated to benefit every American household to the tune of $3,100 annually, minimum, starting sometime after five to 10 years.

“Since January 2017, there has been a historic effort to reduce costly regulation, while protecting workers, public health, safety, and the environment,” a report published by the White House Council of Economic Advisers last month reads.

[The council] estimates that after 5 to 10 years, this new approach to Federal regulation will have raised real incomes by $3,100 per household per year.

The report adds that Trump’s approach to regulations — which can best be summed up with the words “cut every useless thing in sight” — has reduced government overhead; “significantly” reduced consumer prices for prescription drugs healthcare, etc.; prevented price increases in other markets; kept more small lenders in the marketplace and boosted jobs.

“These deregulatory actions are raising real incomes by increasing competition, productivity, and wages and by reducing the prices of consumer goods, while maintaining regulatory protections for workers, public health, safety, and the environment,” the report reads.

Some have pushed back on this report, citing its source — an agency within the White House — as proof that its conclusions shouldn’t be trusted.

“I read the report and am suspicious of the estimates, though it would take more work than I’ve done to be sure,” economist Jared Bernstein of the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities said to The Washington Post at the start of this month.

“The tricky part in this work is placing a realistic monetary value on existing [regulations] against which to weigh cost savings. . . . I’d hesitate to endorse the results until such digging is completed.”

The left’s concern is that the Trump administration’s hasn’t weighed the alleged benefits of regulations (“cleaner air or safer drugs,” as the Post put it) with the costs (a “significant drain on America’s productive sector,” as the Mises Institute puts it).

To be clear, the air is already clean. And in regard to “safer drugs,” the problem is that overburdensome drug regulations have prevented victims like Jordan McLinn, a 9-year-old boy who’s battling muscular dystrophy, from trying experimental treatments that could potentially treat their conditions.

Recorded last year, the video below shows McLinn hugging Trump in gratitude after the president signed into law a bill that allows patients with terminal illnesses like Jordan to bypass America’s strict regulations and try potentially life-saving experimental treatments.

“Patients with terminal conditions should have access to experimental treatments that could potentially save their lives,” the president had said at his State of the Union address earlier that year. “It is time for Congress to give these wonderful Americans the ‘right to try.’”

It’s not clear whether the Post opposed this bill’s passage and signing. The Post does seem to take issue with the CEA’s claim that every family will make $3,100 more after the next five to 10 years.

“In practice, it seems doubtful that typical families would receive anything close to a $3,100 windfall. One reason is that some of the savings occur from an assumption of what regulatory costs would have been under a Democratic White House — that is, the ‘savings’ involve costs that were never incurred, says economist Benjamin Page of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center,” the Post reported.

Among those “costs that never incurred,” however, were likely costs that were prevented specifically because Trump rolled back last-minute Obama-era regulations that a Democrat president would have allowed to take effect.

“Another reason is that Trump’s higher trade tariffs would add to consumer costs and, thus, offset some of the savings from deregulation,” the Post continued.

That’s an assumption — likely a bad one too, at that — and data shouldn’t be based on assumptions. If the president is successful in his ongoing trade wars, Americans could, in fact, wind up with even more savings than before.

“People say nobody wins trade wars. Yeah, in the short-run you don’t, but in the long-run…the U.S. will be better off,” economist Gary Shilling reportedly predicted in an interview with Business Insider two months ago.

“When you’ve got plenty of supply in the world, and I think you do. It’s the buyer that has the upper hand not the seller. The buyer has the ultimate power and who’s the buyer? U.S. is the buyer, China is the seller.”

According to Shilling, it’s most likely that Trump will triumph in his battles with China.

“They [President Xi of China and President Trump] could go to the mat and you could get a really nasty, all-out trade war and a serious global recession. I’m not predicting that. I think they probably will settle and China will begrudgingly give ground,” he said.

“They’ll import more U.S. goods, they’ll ease up on required tech transfers, steal less of it. They’re not going to change their views entirely, but I think under pressure, they probably will give way and we’ll end up winning the trade war.”

HERE’S WHAT YOU’RE MISSING …

Comments

Latest Articles