Homeland Security Today is the leading source for independent news and analysis on homeland security affairs.
More than 300 leading economists recently called for the rejection of Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s economic agenda. A statement by these leading academic economists “cited an underperforming US economy as vulnerable to stagnation under Clinton’s outdated policy prescriptions” — which could impact both homeland and national defense spending.
“If you look at Clinton’s promises for more debt-financed programs, higher taxes on investments and families, and a continued regulatory assault, it’s clear these ideas would be harmful to US growth,” said former Office of Management and Budget Director James Miller III. “It’s a promise for more of the same harmful policies that have stifled US growth since the recession.”
“In an economy with millions of Americans having dropped out of the workforce, a $12 an hour federal minimum wage and stalling development of American energy are job-killing ideas,” said prominent national economist Larry Kudlow. “The right prescription is limited but effective government, restrained spending and sound money.”
Meanwhile Clinton often cites a single Moody’s Analytics analysis which concluded Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump’s presidency would “significantly” weaken the country, driving the US into a “lengthy recession” with nearly 3.5 million job losses and a 7 percent unemployment rate. The report she cites was overseen by Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody’s Analytics where he directs economic research. He’s also a major Democratic donor, including to Clinton, and a surrogate for her. OpenSecrets.org indicated he’s donated over $20,000 to other campaigns during the past decade, almost all of it to Democrats.
Trump policy advisor and economics professor at the University of California-Irvine, Peter Navarro, rejected the Moody’s analysis.
“In Moody’s world, ‘stronger foreign immigration’ pushes up productivity but doesn’t push down wages, the ‘negative employment affect [sic]’ for a higher minimum wage is ‘modest’ tax hikes do not reduce the spending of higher income individuals, and [Clinton’s] plan will result in only a ‘modest increase in the federal government’s budget deficits.’ No reputable economist would sign on to these fantasies,” Navarro said in a statement.