To grasp the true value of one party, study its budget. Through the test, Donald Trump's Republicans hate science, medical research, victims of disasters overseas, food stamps, education for all ages, poverty and clean energy health care. Each was severely cut. On the other hand, they like the Pentagon, border security, the rich and the people who allegedly have the skills to leave. They don't want to reduce the U.S. balloon deficit. What Trump wants to make is the most anti-blue collar budget in his memory. Call it the Hunger Games 2025. It's a strange way to repay voters.
Some Republicans, such as right-wing Missouri Senator Josh Hawley, warned that the budget could “end our chances of becoming a working class party.” Steve Bannon, the original concept engineer at Maga, said Medicaid cuts would damage Trump’s foundation. “Medicaid on Maga is because the country doesn’t have a great job,” Bannon said, adding that the affluent system is still running Capitol Hill. This goes against Trump’s commitment to his foundation – a balance of budget, without touching the right. Indeed, these were the only two financial oaths he had during his campaign.
In practice, the Republicans in the lower room wrote a huge blueprint. A handful of conservative defectors temporarily defeated their bill last Friday, who complained that the draft had not cut enough spending. They want to cut health insurance further and end all clean energy incentives. But what they voted for contained most of their priorities. In addition to the regained Trump tax cut, the bill would raise the zero inheritance tax gate to $30 million for a couple. This will also abolish gunfire. These are not cute people.
On the surface, Elon Musk looks like he's out, and Bannon is still around. But rumors about a divorce between Trump and Musk were exaggerated. They are more likely to be resting in marriage. So far, based on the results, Musk's liberal financial instinct surpassed Bannon's.
The two agreed to “deconstruct the administrative state,” which was Bannon’s original phrase, and Musk operated with the so-called government efficiency department. But Musk's liberalism is more ruthless than Bannon's economic populism. Musk believes most federal spending is fraudulent, and he and other corporate giants are victims of deep states. Although his company earned $38 billion in subsidies and federal contracts. Trump's budget is suitable for Musk's taste.
On the other hand, Bannon’s blue-collar agenda took over Trump’s rhetorical center stage, but was the back seat in policy. Bannon and a handful of Maga Republicans oppose Trump's tax cuts on top brackets. He hopes to impose a 40% tax on top earners. He also wants to adjust Musk and other large AI Titans. "The nail salons in Washington, D.C. are bigger than these four people who run with artificial intelligence," Bannon said. But there are no AI regulations.
To be fair, some of Bannon’s agendas are underway. Trump's prosecutors are squeezing Mark Zuckerberg's metadata and trying to break the letters. But tough settlements could conclude with Trump shaking, rather than Silicon Valley’s trust Bannon wants. Vice-Chairman JD Vance seems to be associated with antitrustists, but is also a protégé of Peter Thiel, who advocates a strange corporate monarchy. I bet any adverse ruling on Google or Meta is a trading opportunity for Trump. He has no consistent view on competition policy.
On the core economic issues of the United States - Inequality and the squeeze of the middle class - Bannon talks about the compelling game. But there are two faults. First he is a fan of the internal tax cut service, which collects taxes. There is nothing much more big donors than budget projects that cut IRS funds. Second, Bannon asked Trump to suspend his habeas umbrella so that at least 10 million illegal immigrants could be expelled, which seems to be more likely to be hit than his pro-middle class economics. Trump militaryally agreed to Bannon's dark side. He paid for verbal services to the Lights.
Of course, the Senate could modify any budget in the House. But any change can be trivial. Those who share Musk's interests are feeding Americans in need into well-known wood chips. Is that possible to split the magazine? By the end of Trump’s 200th year, we will find how much populist economics there is for Bannon and the company.
edward.luce@ft.com