We’re in the homestretch now, y’all – only one more post after this, then I can move on to composing some more of my own radical proposals for our federal government (or return to writing books). This is a long one, so get yourself a soothing beverage before you settle in.
Project 2025, Section 4: The Economy “The next Administration must prioritize the economic prosperity of ordinary Americans (p. 657).” HAHAHAHAHAHA yes, by all means, let’s see how an Administration full of the highest-ever number of billionaires does at centering the interests of ordinary, i.e. working-class, people. There’s an unusually detailed introductory essay which tempts me not to read the actual chapters, but no! I’ll be strong!
Chapter 21: Department of Commerce kicks off with a claim that we are in a “precipitous economic decline” thanks to Biden, reversing which should be the department’s primary focus, closely followed by countering China (p. 663). To which I say, what decline? And also, how exactly? Because you don’t counter another strong economy. You compete with it - by doing things better, faster, and/or cheaper.
Next, some recommendations for consolidating and streamlining functions, which might include eliminating some and privatizing others. “[T]his chapter largely accepts the baseline of today’s department” (p. 664). It starts with a call to purge anyone who might be “activist” (progressive) while appointing plenty of political allies. A few pages of fairly rational, actionable suggestions concerning trade and technology follow.
Then we get to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which P25 hates because it furnishes data which support climate change theories. They want to break it up and downsize it. P25 points out that NOAA consumes half ($6.5 billion) of the Dept. of Commerce operational budget and more than half of its personnel.
We may need to look at the value of NOAA’s functions set against the question of can these really only be accomplished by a federal agency at taxpayer expense. The truly essential functions may indeed be better accomplished under other agencies such as Fish and Wildlife, the Coast Guard, and the Geological Survey.
If they’re nonessential? Maybe we should cut them.
Of course, then P25 wants to “Elevate the Office of Space Commerce (p. 677),” and if there was ever a category ripe for privatization, it is that one. Let the billionaires spend their money figuring out how to monetize orbital space; let us not kill the National Weather Service just to spend all that money (or more) on “commercial space activities.”
Then we get to some more mission tweaks in the statistical agencies, including demands to add a citizenship question to the census and reevaluate all the other questions, plus abolish the National Advisory Committee on Racial, Ethnic, and Other Populations (p. 682). Most of the rest of the chapter is minor tweaking which might have some use, except when they get to “big tech’s censorship of speech (p. 687),” in which censorship means keeping people online from spewing hate speech, terrorist threats, disinformation, etc.
Here’s the fact, P25: big tech = private companies; their platforms are their property, not public property. They have the right to control what is published on their platforms. Suck it up.
Chapter 22: Department of the Treasury (p. 691) P25’s priorities here start with tax policy and administration, fiscal responsibility (nice and vague), improved financial regulation, “addressing the economic and financial aspects of the geopolitical threat posed by China and other hostile countries;” reform of money laundering interdiction … and then, alas, “reversal of the racist ‘equity’ agenda of the Biden Administration (p. 692)” plus let’s get rid of any recognition that saving the environment costs money. And right after that, they waste some time inveighing against Biden and his “woke” agenda.
News flash: P25 hates the concept of social justice. P25 really, seriously does not like the idea of helping historically oppressed populations achieve equity in employment, finance, or any other area.
Because P25, at heart, wants straight white Christians to have social and legal advantages over everyone else.
Okay, back to organization, with a note that the IRS consumes about 80% of Treasury’s discretionary funds, followed by a call to lower taxes.
News flash: we cannot lower taxes, without sinking the government further into deficit spending and debt, unless you actually cut spending.
But hey! They say something I agree with here: “simplify the tax code by enacting a simple two-rate individual tax system of 15 percent and 30 percent that eliminates most deductions, credits and exclusions,” unfortunately followed by something I disagree with: “The corporate income tax rate should be reduced to 18 percent (p. 696).” I think the corporate tax rates should be the same as individual rates, actually - 15 or 30 percent, based on income. Gross income, that is.
They suggest creating universal savings accounts for post-tax earnings, comparable to Roth IRAs, which, why? We have Roth IRAs. A different vehicle won’t help people save. A better income to housing expense ratio might help people save. Finding out why so many people spend all their disposable income on gambling and intoxicants instead of saving might also be a good idea.
Then they want to get rid of tax breaks that incentivize employers to offer generous benefits with lower wages. Honestly, which employers are these? Most of the low-wage employers I’ve ever heard of also have shitty benefits.
P25 moves on to suggest that DOD have a hand in monitoring foreign investment (pp 703-704), which seems like extreme mission creep and a generally terrible idea. Then they want to wind down housing finance agencies (agreed; p. 706). On page 708 they have a whole section about stripping DEI from Treasury, with a call for a witch hunt against Treasury employees who worked on equity initiatives. The following page is all climate-change denial.
Chapter 23: Export-Import Bank (EXIM) – two essays, Abolish vs Keep. What it is: “[A] federal agency .. established in 1934 to provide export subsidies through taxpayer-backed financing to private exporting corporations, as well as to foreign companies buying US exports … (p. 717).”
Let’s get rid of it. You either want a free market or you don’t. If we’re cutting subsidies to farms in the face of nationwide food insecurity, we should certainly be cutting subsidies to companies that want to ship American goods overseas. The “in favor” essay is all about trying to compete with China on exports by keeping this little agency, which is … kinda ridiculous. China’s government is its economy, and vice versa. Completely different from the relationship between the US government and our national economy. The “in favor” essay claims that EXIM makes a profit, “sending more than $9 billion to the US Treasury for debt reduction since 1992 (p. 727).” Yeah, no. That’s $300 million per year, less than EXIM costs. Here’s a page about spending per agency, for some context.
Chapter 24: Federal Reserve (p. 731). P25 starts off calling for the Fed to get out of the lending business (agreed) and out of the debt market (agreed), but on page 736 they recommend “free banking,” which is basically unregulated finance, based on a model from 1850. No, P25, we’re not going back to 1850.
We most definitely need a central bank which issues a national currency and regulates all the other banks operating in the country, including monitoring their deposit reserves. We need federal deposit insurance so that ordinary people, the kind who keep their money in a bank, don’t get Great Depression-level screwed when a bank fails. We need federal oversight so that when banks fail, the root causes are discovered and if the cause is fraud, the people responsible are put in jail.
P25 goes on to some even fringier suggestions about monetary policy before retrenching with “minimum effective reforms” including the elimination of full employment from the Fed’s mandate (agreed); require a transparent target range for inflation (sounds reasonable); get rid of “environmental, social, and governance factors” (no, that won’t help make or save money); curb last-resort lending (absolutely agreed); appoint a commission to study the Fed, alternatives, and financial regulatory apparatus (no, that’s a waste of money, you just did it in here for free); and prevent creation of a central bank digital currency (p. 741; absolutely agreed).
About an equal balance here between libertarian nuttery and rational suggestions.
Chapter 25: Small Business Administration ( p. 745), summarized: P25 doesn’t like it, especially doesn’t like anything that smacks of equity, but weasels around saying let’s get rid of it. Instead they have a list of goals (pp 750-751), mostly quite vague, aside from calling for an end to direct lending (agreed).
They immediately head into a list of suggested reforms, all of which would cost money, including a targeted attack on Planned Parenthood affiliates that received paycheck protection loans during Covid (p. 753), and letting religious entities receive SBA loans (p. 754; this is if direct lending stands). To which I say NO. No tax dollars to churches, period.
There’s more here, some of which might be actionable about small manufacturing concerns, but as I read it, mostly means bigger companies could get SBA loans (p. 756), which seems well outside the mission.
This is another agency with core functions better accomplished by the states. At $40 billion last year, it’s not a ton of money, but I’d favor winding up its business and shutting it down – especially since in high-spending SBA years, it’s been disaster relief of one kind or another, which was always managed by special appropriations. So let’s do it that way, when needed.
Chapter 26: Trade (p. 765) – two essays, Fair vs Free.
Fair (through p. 795), summarized: economic protectionism (tariffs, onshoring production currently offshored by multinational corporations); World Trade Organization is our enemy and ‘most favored nations’ trade agreements cost us money; close the borders; China is terrible.
When an economic analysis refers to strategic game theory (p. 769), I rear back with a degree of side-eye that is probably physically unsafe.
Free (through p. 817), summarized: “Neither free trade nor protectionism will create jobs. Trade affects the types of jobs people have, but it has no long-run effect on the number of jobs (p. 796).” Keep trade policy separate from everything else; build safeguards against mission creep. “Policies are not likely to succeed when they try to separate an interconnected economy into arbitrary categories. The factory worker who builds a tractor does as much to boost farm production as the farmers themselves … (p. 798).” “[F]ew people ever zoom out to see the big picture, which is one reason why so many people mistakenly believe that US manufacturing and the US economy are in decline. … The transition from farm to factory did not shrink the labor force or farm output. Later, the transition from factories to services did not shrink the labor force, factory output, or farm output. Both transitions affected the types of jobs, not the number of jobs (pp 799-800).” This essay is rational. Their recommendations on pp 800-801 make sense to me.
I fall on the side of free trade. If you really want to reduce our trade deficit, make it unattractive for Americans to buy overseas goods – like the billions of dollars’ worth of plastic we buy and discard every year, to profoundly deleterious ecological effect – with state sales taxes on those goods.
As long as automobiles are the only way for most Americans to get around this massive country, raising the imported automobile tariff from 2.5% to anything higher would constitute a regressive tax as well as make it more difficult for people to access housing (rent vs car payment) or employment (long commutes in old cars). So, P25 “fair traders,” take that suggestion and shove it.