Clinton & Trump Unveil Very Different Economic Plans

1. Atlanta Fed’s GDPNow Forecasts Growth of 3.5% in the 3Q

2. What Could the Fed be Seeing to Make It So Optimistic?

3. Clinton Economic Plan: Higher Taxes, Spending & More Government

4. Trump Economic Plan: Looks a Lot Like Reagan’s Tax Reforms

5. Which National Economic Plan is Better? Kudlow Weighs In


Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and New York billionaire Donald Trump both announced their major plans for the economy last week, if elected president in November. As you might expect, the two plans are very different. I will summarize both as we go along today, and you can draw your own conclusions.

Before we get to that discussion, I want to bring to your attention the fact that the Atlanta Fed is forecasting a significant improvement in the US economy for the current 3Q. As you may recall, the Atlanta Fed produces a real-time estimate of the US economy which is called “GDPNow.” As of last Friday, theGDPNow is forecasting a jump to 3.5% in GDP in the 3Q.

Keep in mind that US GDP was only 0.8% in the 1Q and 1.2% in the 2Q. A strong jump to 3.5% in the 3Q would be almost triple the anemic 1.2% in the 2Q. The obvious question is, what is the Fed seeing so far in this July to September quarter that is making it so confident? That’s what we’ll talk about just below.

Atlanta Fed’s GDPNow Forecasts Growth of 3.5% in the 3Q

Historically, we had to track gross domestic product by waiting a month after the end of a quarter for the Commerce Department to give us a preliminary estimate followed by two more revisions in the second and third month after the end of a quarter.

However, starting in mid-2014, the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta began producing a more time-sensitive estimate of gross domestic product which it aptly-named GDPNow. This rolling estimate takes into account the latest economic data in an effort to give us a snapshot of where the economy is today. The estimate is updated at least once a week.

The presentation of the GDPNow report is a little odd if you ask me. As you can see in the chart below, the recent GDPNow forecasts are shown in the green line above right. These forecasts are shown compared to the best and worst recent forecasts from independent contributors to the Blue Chip Economic Indicators, a digest of economic prognosticators.

The Atlanta Fed GDPNow forecast has been above the Blue Chip consensus this year. Both forecasts took a turn higher beginning in late July. The Blue Chip consensus has improved to a reading of apprx. 2.8%, while the GDPNow forecast has jumped even higher, currently at 3.5%. It was up to 3.8% earlier this month.

GDPNow forecast

What Could the Fed Be Seeing to Make It So Optimistic?

The obvious question is, what is the Atlanta Fed seeing in the data to make it confident that GDP growth will almost triple (3.5%) in the 3Q from the weak 2Q (1.2%)? And why is GDPNow so much stronger than the Blue Chip consensus of 2.8%? FYI, the last time we saw GDP growth of 3.5% or higher was in the 3Q of 2014.

The Atlanta Fed’s Pat Higgins, an economist and the creator of the GDPNow forecast, does not offer much in the way of analysis of the numbers week in and week out. What he has shared since late July is that he’s seeing a strong rebound in business inventories this year.

Business inventories have been contracting since early 2012. Falling inventories count as a reduction to GDP, while rising stockpiles are an increase. As you’ll see in the chart below, business inventories have turned higher so far this year, but not sharply higher.

US Business Inventories

Business inventories rose only modestly in June (latest data available) and in May. The Atlanta Fed must believe this trend toward rising inventories is going to accelerate in the weeks and months ahead. That remains to be seen, of course.

Therefore, it also remains to be seen whether the Atlanta Fed’s GDPNow forecast will remain at the current 3.5% level for the 3Q, or if it will have to be revised lower in the weeks ahead. We won’t see the Commerce Department’s first estimate of 3Q GDP until the end of October.

Based on all the economic reports I review each week, I don’t see the economy rebounding to 3.5% GDP in the current quarter. Again, that would be almost triple what we saw in the 2Q. We’ve had two stronger than expected jobs reports in a row, but that is hardly enough to justify a GDP jump to 3.5% from 1.2% in the 2Q and 0.8% in the 1Q.

Finally, I hope this is not a case of the Fed making the economy look stronger than it really is just ahead of the election, only to revise it lower afterward. Call me cynical, but it has happened before. We’ll see.

Now let’s move on to our main topic today, Trump and Hillary’s latest economic plans.

Clinton Economic Plan: Higher Taxes, Spending & More Government

Last Thursday, Hillary Clinton laid out her ambitious plan to jump-start the economy but upon examining the plan further, it may do just the opposite.

Her plan includes raising income taxes by $1.2 trillion over 10 years with over 90% of the burden on America’s top 5% highest earning households. The top 1% of households, for example, would see their tax burden go up by $78,000 a year on average according to the non-partisan Tax Policy Center.

But there’s more. She would also impose the so-called “Buffett Rule,” requiring those with adjusted gross incomes over $1 million to pay a minimum of 30% of their income in taxes. On top of that, she would impose a 4% surcharge on adjusted gross incomes over $5 million.

Clinton also plans to make it harder to claim capital gains, which today are taxed at 20% on realized gains from investments held for more than one year. She would require investments to be held for more than six years to qualify for that same rate. Anything less would be taxed on a “sliding scale.” Investors would pay the “ordinary income” tax on capital gains from investments held less than two years.

The “Death Tax”: Clinton would tax estates worth more than $3.5 million ($7 million for married couples.) That’s below today’s estate tax exemption level of $5.45 million ($10.9 million for couples). She would also raise the top estate tax rate from 40% to 45%.

On the Big Government side, she wants to increase federal spending by $1.4 trillion over 10 years. She says she wants to give tax cuts to lower income Americans but lacks specifics on how to pay for it. Her plan would require companies with 50 or more employees to offer 12 weeks of paid family or medical leave per year, at a minimum of two-thirds of their current salary.

Her Expanded Childcare Plan and Early Education Plan would spend $275 billion over 10 years for states to make pre-school available to all four-year olds. The government would fund a new National Infrastructure Plan to spend $275 billion over 10 years to repair or expand roads, bridges, public transit, airports, etc.

Hillary wants to spend another $350 billion over 10 years for her “debt-free college plan” – which I suspect is another empty promise to the Left that she knows she can’t deliver on. These are just the highlights of Clinton’s spending plans.

Ms. Clinton would raise the minimum wage to $12-$15 per hour in stages, increase workers’ benefits, expand overtime and encourage businesses to share profits with employees. Remarkably, her economic plan includes no corporate tax reform, even though we have the highest federal corporate tax rate (35%) in the developed world.

Trump Economic Plan: Looks a Lot Like Reagan’s Tax Reforms

Trump outlined his national economic plan in Detroit on Monday of last week. Much of his program consists of powerful pro-growth, supply-side policies that have worked before – and could work again, if given a chance. They include:

Across the board income tax cuts, helping especially those with middle incomes. Tax simplification, with a reduction in the number of tax brackets from seven to three – 12%, 25% and 33%. The plan also states,“For many American workers, their tax rate will be zero.”

Tax cuts for US businesses, which today face the highest rates in the industrial world. Trump would cut business taxes from 35% to just 15% of income, a move that would instantly end most “corporate inversions” – companies relocating headquarters overseas.

His plan would also unlock as much as $2 trillion in corporate cash now held by companies abroad by taxing it at just 10% when it’s returned from overseas. The US would instantly become one of the most business-friendly countries in the world.

Deduction of child care spending from taxes – a move that will help many middle-income families and boost the US labor force, which has seen 14 million people depart since President Obama took office.

End the Death Tax. Today, taxes on estates often keep entrepreneurs and small business people from passing their businesses on to their survivors. Often in the case of farms and small businesses, the tax forces a sale of the assets merely to pay the estate taxes.

A regulatory moratorium and, ultimately, a regulatory rollback to shrink the 80,000+ pages now in the federal register and the $2 trillion in annual costs imposed on the economy by out-of-control regulation.

“Unleash the energy revolution by lifting restrictions on all sources of American energy,” including the vast energy resources held by the federal government, to make the U.S. the world’s No. 1 energy powerhouse. Trump cites estimates from the respected Institute for Energy Research that opening up federal lands for energy exploration would lead to a $127 billion a year increase in GDP, over 550,000 new jobs a year and a $32 billion hike in annual wages over the next seven years. Trump also vows to resurrect the Keystone Pipeline.

As with the discussion of Hillary’s economic plan, the highlights of Trump’s plan above are also not complete.

Which National Economic Plan is Better? Kudlow Weighs In

Most of my clients and readers already know which economic plan I think is better. So rather than give you my opinions, I will reprint some comments from CNBC’s popular host Larry Kudlow who compared and contrasted both plans in a RealClearPolitics article last week:

“[Trump] wants to lower taxes across-the-board for individuals and large and small businesses, significantly reduce burdensome regulations, and unleash America’s energy resources. (Hillary would end coal and oil-and-gas fracking.)

Trump’s corporate tax reform would restore America’s position as the most hospitable investment climate in the world. For a change, businesses and their cash would come back home.

Clinton derides Trump’s plan as more ‘trickle-down economics.’ But she forgets something. Post-war economies prospered most following the JFK and Ronald Reagan tax cuts. In fact, in his second term, her husband followed the incentive-model of growth by reducing taxes and reforming welfare, with excellent economic results.

The contrast between the two economic-policy strategies couldn’t be clearer. Clinton has a recession strategy. Trump has a recovery strategy.

So why not give tax and regulatory relief a try. It’s been missing for seven-and-a-half years. Why not try something different for a change?”

Obviously, I agree with Larry. A link to his full article is included in SPECIAL ARTICLES below. As usual, both Clinton’s and Trump’s economic speeches last week were lacking in detail, especially when it comes to paying for their plans. I’ll have more to say when those details are available.

There are also two other articles below that offer unbiased summaries of both Clinton’s and Trump’s national economic plans. Hopefully, today’s E-Letter and the articles below will prove helpful, whether you are a Republican, Democrat or Independent.

Hoping you’re having a great summer,

Gary D. Halbert

Forecasts & Trends E-Letter is published by ProFutures, Inc. Gary D. Halbert is the president and CEO of ProFutures, Inc. and is the editor of this publication. Information contained herein is taken from sources believed to be reliable but cannot be guaranteed as to its accuracy. Opinions and recommendations herein generally reflect the judgement of Gary D. Halbert (or another named author) and may change at any time without written notice. Market opinions contained herein are intended as general observations and are not intended as specific investment advice. Readers are urged to check with their investment counselors before making any investment decisions. This electronic newsletter does not constitute an offer of sale of any securities. Gary D. Halbert, ProFutures, Inc., and its affiliated companies, its officers, directors and/or employees may or may not have investments in markets or programs mentioned herein. Past results are not necessarily indicative of future results. Reprinting for family or friends is allowed with proper credit. However, republishing (written or electronically) in its entirety or through the use of extensive quotes is prohibited without prior written consent.

© Halbert Wealth Management


© Halbert Wealth Management

Read more commentaries by Halbert Wealth Management