On economic plan, Trump’s full of it. Dems have no answer | Friendly Fire

Julie Roginskya Democrat, and Mike DuHaime, a Republican, are consultants who have worked on opposite teams for their entire careers yet have remained friends. Here, they discuss the week’s political events with Opinion section editor Enrique Lavín.

Q: There’s too much to unpack from President Trump’s long-and-winding speech to Congress in this space so I’ll touch on his economic plan, particularly the tariffs. The president tried to downplay the fallout of imposing the tariffs on our trading partners, saying “It will cause a little disturbance. We’re OK with that.” Leading economists have said these would lead to higher consumer prices, inflation and recession risks as well as trade wars. This doesn’t sound like it’ll help bring the price of eggs or groceries down. Why will Americans be OK with that?

Julie: You cannot have a stable economy — or a stable country — when Americans face constant whiplash.

Are there tariffs on Mexico and Canada? Yes! But let’s suspend them for 30 days. A month later, let’s bring them back, but then suspend them again on cars coming from Canada. Wait, wait, we are also suspending them on Mexico for another four weeks.

This is no way to run a country or an economy. Meanwhile, the consumer confidence index dives to an eight-month low, one-year inflation expectations are the highest in over one-and-a-half years and groceries, including apples, bacon and eggs, which Trump swore to lower on Day 1, are higher than they were when he was sworn in. The market is tanking every time he talks about tariffs and with it, your 401k. So no, I don’t think Americans are OK with any of it.

Mike: Voters don’t care what economists think might happen. Voters care about the price of groceries and gas. They care about their kids’ college funds retaining or increasing value. Trump is still in a honeymoon phase where Biden can be blamed for the bad, and he can take credit for the good.

Once summer hits, Trump will own the good or bad of the economy.

Q: In his tax plan, he outlined proposals to cut taxes on tips and overtime, and eliminating taxes on Social Security benefits. He also wants to reduce taxes on corporations and U.S. manufacturers. What do you see here?

Julie: You forgot how he pledged to do all this while not touching Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security, while balancing the budget. Come back to me when we can talk math and not fantasy.

Mike: The tax cuts keep the Republicans in line and even excited. No one likes taxes, so on its face, this will be a hit. There are some fairness issues that need to be discussed on tips (like a waiter at a fancy restaurant can make a ton of untaxed money in tips, but the low-wage busboy and dishwasher pay full taxes).

I never understood Social Security taxes anyway. The government takes money in taxes and gives it back, and taxes it again. Don’t tax it on the way back. Double grab by the government.

As far as tax cuts on businesses and manufacturers, that’s smart. Those are the job creators.

Q: What do you want to point out about Tuesday night’s historic speech?

Julie: Three things struck me.

One, is that the entire speech was the best example of gaslighting I have ever seen.

Two, is that every single Republican member of Congress (yes, even Marjorie Taylor Greene) knows that he is absolutely full of it, but much like the courtiers in the “Emperor Has No Clothes,” they refuse to acknowledge it, to the detriment of their own constituents.

Three, is that Democrats have no clue how to message properly against this phenomenon. Color coordination and holding up Bingo paddles ain’t it, my friends.

Mike: Trump poses a conundrum for so many Republicans.

Many Republicans love the tax cuts, are uneasy about the tariffs, and downright scared about the Putin-appeasing foreign policy.

The Nanny State-government approach to issues of health care for trans kids is purposely divisive. While some Republicans go along, many others are uneasy with the notion that the government should make decisions instead of parents. Democrats seem to hate all of it.

This is Trump in a nutshell. He throws so much at you, that you are bound to think he makes sense on one issue, but enrage or confound you on another. (Unless you are knee-jerk hater or sycophant, of which there are many.)

Q: Michigan Sen. Melissa Slotkin delivered the Democratic response, poking holes at many of the Republican’s agenda. Was she effective? Is she the rising star she’s being made out to be?

Julie: I thought Sen. Slotkin was phenomenal, but she would have benefitted from the Democratic Party agreeing on a thematic and pushing it relentlessly. Calling out one-offs in Trump’s assault on the country gets too difficult when he is flooding the zone with so much awfulness.

Democrats need an overarching narrative to push, with each of these individual criticisms as proof points. I have yet to see that.

Mike: Not really because somewhere near 0% of Americans paid attention to the response or has any idea who she is. She did fine and is someone the Democrats want to promote; but no one is talking about her response at the coffee shop.

Q: In the Republican gubernatorial primary, Mercer County Republicans have allowed three candidates (state Sen. Jon Bramnick, former Assemblyman Jack Ciattarelli, and former radio host Bill Spadea) to use their slogan on the ballot. Is this unusual or will we see more of this?

Julie: With the end of the line, county organization slogans don’t mean much. What matters is whether county parties have the ability to organize and get out the vote.

At one point when Mike and I were much younger, the Mercer County Republican Organization was a powerhouse. Republicans had the county executive, commissioners, legislators and some critical mayorships. Slogans don’t matter when you can’t elect people.

Mike: It’s smart. This is not unusual for the Mercer County GOP, and likely a good idea when you have multiple credible candidates.

Back in the day of the line, the Mercer GOP was unique in their bylaws in that they created a lower threshold at the county convention vote for candidates, often allowing a shared spot on the line.

This is a good model going forward for county organizations who see a good deal of support for multiple credible candidates.

Q: In an interview with Brent Johnson for his newsletter, “What Makes Jersey Run,” Gov. Phil Murphy said Bramnick would be the toughest candidate for Democrats to beat in a general election. Does that sound right, given how much the Trump brand of politics has influenced the GOP here?

Julie: Gov. Murphy is right, provided Trump does not jump in to trash Sen. Bramnick in a general election. No Republican can afford to have Trump supporters stay home on Election Day, which is the peril for a senator who has been highly critical of the president.

Mike: I agree with Gov. Murphy here and, disclaimer: I support Bramnick, though I respect Ciattarelli and Spadea, as well. The reason Murphy says Bramnick would be the toughest Republican to beat is that he is the only candidate who wins repeatedly in a district with many more Democrats than Republicans.

Bramnick wins in a district where Harris just beat Trump by 12 points, where Clinton won by 10 points. Murphy won the district, Menendez won it, Booker won it, and Obama won it. Yet Jon Bramnick found the formula for success, being true to conservative principles on lowering crime, stopping overdevelopment, fighting for lower taxes and reduced spending while championing freedom from government overreach, all while maintaining respectful and civil discourse with those he disagrees with on policy.

That’s why he gets votes from the right, the center-right, and even the center-left. The far left doesn’t vote for him, but that’s OK. He gets plenty of votes to do something very few people in American politics can do – win again and again and again in a district where you need votes from the other side to be successful.