The vast majority of the new administration’s avalanche of Executive Orders and proposed legislation is framed as saving money, potentially billions of dollars. Beyond increasing government efficiency, many suggested or already implemented policies are extreme, such as freezing funds already approved for a multitude of agencies and services. Most of the services targeted are programs for social services, and for vulnerable populations.

The throughline of the administration’s narrative is that anything that is cut from government programs is good for the country, when in fact that is often not the case.

My question is, what happens to those savings? Where does the money go? Who benefits, directly or indirectly? Follow the money.

We can object to many of these policies on the grounds of their impacts on social services or being unjust, but I think that when the public feels the actual negative impact of these policies, that will be far more likely to result in resistance to those policies.

The Trump administration claims policies, such as tax cuts and deregulation, are primarily intended to stimulate economic growth and increase disposable income for individuals and businesses. The administration argued that these savings would lead to increased investment, job creation, and consumer spending, which in turn would boost the overall economy.

However, the actual impact of these policies on the economy and government revenue is a subject of ongoing debate among economists and policymakers. Some argue that the savings have contributed to economic growth, while others contend that they have increased the federal deficit without delivering proportional benefits

This is reminiscent of “trickle-down economics” of years past, which was the same idea, that giving tax breaks to the wealthy would result in job creation and improving the economy in other ways. Which did not happen.

The article, “What a Trump Win Means for Your Personal Finances and the Economy by Anna Helhoski lists Trump’s campaign promises, and economic analyst’s views about them.

• Inflation. “Inflation, as measured by the consumer price index, has already slowed to 2.4%, well off its pandemic-fueled peak. Trump promised to lower prices and slow inflation, but whether a president can directly do so is less certain.”
  • Place tariffs on imports
  • Lower gas prices
  • Weaken the power of the Federal Reserve
  • Cap credit card interest rates at around 10%
• Taxes
  • Extend tax cuts in his 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act
  • Replace personal income taxes with tariffs
  • Lower the corporate tax rate from 21% to 20%
  • Implement R & D tax credits for businesses
  • No tax on tips
• Health care
  • Revisit the Affordable Care Act
  • Push for in vitro fertilization coverage
  • Leave abortion laws up to the states
• Housing. “Trump’s plans have been sparse when it comes to housing. However, experts say that his plans to deport millions of unauthorized immigrants could drive up housing prices since the construction industry is reliant on immigrant labor. Here are other proposals:”
  • Open up federal lands for new housing developments
  • Cut red tape
• Student loans
  • Curb debt cancellation
  • Dissolve SAVE
  • Support vocational training
• Mass deportations. “Trump’s plan to deport unauthorized immigrants, en masse, would have unintended, but significant economic consequences including:”
  • Increasing costs economy-wide
  • Driving up food prices
  • Slowing housing construction

The President cannot implement some of those proposals, such as lowering gas prices. Some are good, such as supporting vocational training.

What economists say