2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) lowered the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%, significantly benefiting high-income earners and large corporations. Limited Impact for Most Americans: While some middle-class households saw modest short-term gains (mostly through withholding changes), many did not experience lasting improvements. Some even saw increased taxes due to the capping of state and local tax (SALT) deductions.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) infact did lower taxes for most income groups, not just the wealthy. But the scale of those cuts, and especially their permanence, heavily favored corporations and high-income households. Basically this economic policy ties into the Reagan-era “supply-side economics”, which theorized, cutting taxes, especially on businesses and the wealthy, would spur investment, job creation, and ultimately “trickle down” benefits to everyone.

But in 1980, George H. W. Bush, during the Republican primaries, famously mocked this theory as “voodoo economics.” That critique — which many economists still uphold — applies to Trump’s TCJA as well. Bush’s “voodoo” jab remains a historically sharp and accurate label for the long-term imbalance baked into such policies.

Though George H. W. Bush famously criticized Reagan’s policies as “voodoo economics” in 1980, once in office (1989–1993), he largely embraced the same supply-side, trickle-down framework, and his son, George W. Bush (2001–2009), doubled down on it.

Once president himself, Bush kept most of Reagan’s tax cuts intact, including the 28% top income tax rate from the 1986 Tax Reform Act. This forced him, due to ballooning deficits, to raise some taxes in 1990 through a bipartisan budget deal. That move angered conservatives and likely contributed to his 1992 electoral loss to Clinton. Overall, he did not fundamentally challenge the Reagan-era economic model. He called it “voodoo” but governed under its spell.

George W. Bush (2001–2009): His administration pushed supply-side economics even further. His Administration enacted massive tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 (EGTRRA and JGTRRA). Cut the top income tax rate from 39.6% to 35%. The wealthiest 1% gained the most from these cuts, exacerbating income inequality. These cuts were passed during a period of Clinton surpluses turned into deficits, especially after 9/11 and the Iraq War.

Clinton-era Budget Surpluses (1990s Keynesian + centrist policy). George W. Bush ran wars in Iraq/Afghanistan without raising revenue → deficits ballooned. Trump during his first term, the only post WWII US President not to involve the US in foreign wars abroad.

Clinton-Era Economics (1993–2001) as earlier stated embraced more of a Keynesian or center-left fiscal discipline. Supporting targeted investment (Carter’s Federal regulation education, tech, etc. which stripped the States of their Constitutional Rights to bureaucratically regulate intra-State trade & commerce.) This caused the Federal Bureaucracy to become the Government pulling the strings of the puppet 3 Constitutional Branches of the Federal Government consequent to the incest relationship between Government established Corporate monopolies and Federal Bureaucratic non-Constitutional Branches – the largest employer in the US.

The Carter/Clinton policy of expanding bureaucrapic Big Brother bypassed state sovereignty. Using conditional grants (e.g., “Race to the Top” or “No Child Left Behind”) to coerce state compliance. Expanding federal agencies like the Department of Education and EPA into areas historically managed by state governments. Relying on regulatory agencies (ATF, IRS, SEC, etc.) to make quasi-legislative rules outside congressional oversight. This trend built upon the Jan 22, 1973 Nixon Era Supreme Court Roe vs. Wade ruling which stripped the States intra-State commerce rights to regulate the abortion industry.

This trend of governance established the Administrative State wherein unelected bureaucraps wrote, enforce and adjudicated rules — a violation of the separation of powers. Often operate with limited judicial review, under doctrines like Chevron deference (recently curtailed by SCOTUS in 2024).

The corruption of the Obozo Administration which permitted the illegal Forth Branch of the Federal Government to streamline streamlined oversight and reduced judicial review of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) a particular stink in the nostrils of Freedom. In 2015, the USDA introduced a new regulatory framework for GMOs, which included the “Plant Pest Risk Assessment” process. This framework aimed to simplify the approval process for GE crops and reduce the regulatory burden on developers. The changes were part of a broader effort to modernize the regulatory system for biotechnology.

Europe boycotted GMO produced from America. President Trump by means of high tariffs seeks to address this issue. Furthermore through Elon Musk, President Trump has sought to massively reduce the size and scope of illegal Federal bureaucraps and restore balance to States Rights intra-States rights to bureaucratically regulate trade and commerce. The Trump Supreme Court annulled the Nixon Era Roe vs Wade abomination.

Trump’s administration aggressively rolled back federal agency overreach by limiting the scope of EPA, Department of Education, and other federal mandates, pushing more regulatory authority back to state governments. His policies encouraged states to develop their own education standards and environmental regulations without federal conditional grants forcing compliance (a reversal of programs like No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top).

Trump-appointed justices on the Supreme Court continued to interpret the Constitution with a strong emphasis on states’ rights and limits on federal power. Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022), which overturned Roe and returned abortion regulation to states. This administration cut back on federal programs that used conditional funding to coerce state compliance, thereby restoring genuine state discretion. This rollback includes scaling back or eliminating strings attached to Medicaid funding and infrastructure grants, enhancing states’ autonomy in spending and policy design.

Promotion of State-Controlled Commerce Regulation. Includes efforts to curtail federal control over intra-state commerce, particularly in sectors like energy and agriculture, reinforced the states’ ability to regulate commerce that does not cross state lines. This challenges expansive readings of the Commerce Clause that federalize many traditionally local issues.

Trump as reduced the scope of Nasa. Collaborations with private-sector innovators (e.g., Musk’s SpaceX, Tesla) fostered public-private partnerships that bypassed large federal bureaucracies, enabling states and localities to take a leading role in technology deployment and infrastructure.

Under Trump’s second term, policies and judicial appointments arguably have reduced federal encroachment on state governance; restored local control over key policy areas; limited bureaucratic overreach; and reinforced constitutional federalism consistent with the 10th Amendment’s original intent.

President Trump’s leadership reject the Bush II to Obozo shoe-shine boy in the White House Neocon war adventurism; together with the utterly corrupt and condemned Administrative-statist capture of local governance. Federal bureaucraps have no authority to regulate how Amish farmers milk their cows!

Trump stands apart from both parties’ post-9/11 Neocon Imperialism military overreach. Agencies like USDA, EPA, and DOJ have no business regulating the daily life of sovereign American communities. The structural logic of the Constitution – President Trump defends the 10th Amendment.

While the Trump administration did aim to reduce regulations and some bureaucratic functions, these cuts did not offset the loss in revenue from the tax cuts. The Congressional Budget Office projected the tax cuts would increase the deficit by nearly $2 trillion over 10 years, even accounting for growth effects.

Trump’s administration cut budgets or attempted to cut budgets for: EPA; Department of Health and Human Services; Medicaid and SNAP (food stamps). However, many of the most drastic cuts were blocked or modified by Congress, so the actual impact varied.

Numerous analyses, including from the Tax Policy Center and CBO, concluded that the TCJA: Disproportionately benefited the wealthy and corporations; widened the income gap, as middle- and lower-income groups received smaller, often temporary, benefits. The TCJA added significantly to the federal debt. The national debt grew from $19.9 trillion in January 2017 to $27.7 trillion by January 2021, with the tax cuts and COVID spending as major drivers.

Cutting taxes, especially for corporations and high earners, encourages investment, business expansion, and job creation. Corporate tax rate cut from 35% to 21% made the U.S. more competitive globally. A surge in corporate earnings, stock market growth, and record-low unemployment (3.5%) pre-COVID. Defenders argue that allowing businesses to keep more of their profits boosts productivity and wages over time. Trump supporters like myself argue a rising tide lifts all boats, and that middle-class incomes did grow modestly.

Rolling back excessive regulations unleashed business activity across key sectors. Over 1,500 regulations were rolled back or weakened, especially in energy, finance, and labor. Businesses faced lower compliance costs, encouraging hiring and expansion.

Ultimately, Trump’s economic agenda prioritized growth and deregulation over fiscal balance and income redistribution. The benefits were tangible: rapid economic expansion, job creation, and restored corporate confidence. But they came with costs: increased debt, rising inequality, and potential long-term sustainability concerns.

For supporters, these trade-offs were justified to revive American industry, enhance global competitiveness, and stimulate short-term prosperity. For critics, they represent a missed opportunity to build a more inclusive and fiscally stable economy.

What might have happened had Vice President Kamala Harris—or by extension, the Biden Administration—doubled down on Obama-era economic policies during a time of post-COVID inflation and global disruption?

Obama-Era Economic Trajectory focused on stimulus and recovery post-2008 financial crisis. Emphasis on fiscal restraint post-2010 (due to Tea Party pressure), leading to a slow but steady recovery. Heavy reliance on monetary policy (Federal Reserve) rather than major structural tax or welfare expansions.

Biden Administration Economic Trajectory broke sharply from Obama-era caution. Passed the American Rescue Plan ($1.9 trillion) in 2021. Advanced massive spending via Infrastructure, CHIPS Act, and Inflation Reduction Act. These policies resulted in a strong job growth, fast GDP rebound; but also significant inflation (peaking at 9.1% in June 2022).

Had the Biden-Harris administration followed a more restrained Obama-style approach, the recovery would have been slower, especially for lower-income households. Inflation may have been lower, but the labor market might not have recovered as fast. In short a sluggish recovery similar to 2010–2013… a blue collar worker horror story.

A return to Obama-era economic orthodoxy—may have left millions of working-class Americans behind with persistent underemployment in many sectors, especially blue-collar and service jobs. President Biden, with Kamala Harris as Vice President American Rescue Plan ($1.9 trillion), providing direct aid to families, expanded unemployment benefits, and child tax credits; massive public investment through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, CHIPS and Science Act, and Inflation Reduction Act resulted in the treat of a 1789 French Revolution based upon the 35 trillion dollar Federal bankrupsy. The absolute corruption of the illegal forth Branch of the Federal Government – the Corporate monopoly/Federal bureaucrap con-job—combined with global supply chain disruptions and the Russia-Ukraine war—contributed to the highest inflation spike in 40 years (peaking at 9.1% in June 2022). Critics blamed “Bradon-nomics” for overheating the economy.

The Trump administration pursued an economic strategy focused on growth through tax reform and deregulation, but it came at a cost. While it successfully reduced regulatory burdens and cut corporate tax rates—sparking investment, job creation, and record-low pre-COVID unemployment—those policies did not offset the revenue loss, leading to a projected $2 trillion increase in the deficit over a decade, per the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

The Trump Administration 2nd term rolled back more than 1,500 regulations, especially in energy, finance, and labor, lowering compliance costs and unleashing a pro-business climate unseen since Reagan.

When Joe Biden and Kamala Harris took office, they broke sharply from Obama-era caution. Rather than limit stimulus and prioritize austerity—as Obama did after 2010—the Biden administration opted for massive fiscal expansion. Which resulted in significant inflation, peaking at 9.1% in June 2022, the highest in 40 years! Critics of “Bidenomics” blame it for overheating the economy, worsening deficits, and triggering a cost-of-living crisis that especially hurt the very working-class voters it claimed to protect. The DemoCRAP Obama-era orthodoxy betrayed the blue-collar labor and turned it into a Jaws horror story. Hence the major labor union threw their support to Trump against Biden!

Biden’s spending spree and the resulting $35 trillion national debt have shaken public confidence in the long-term viability of the federal government. The rise of what some call the “Fourth Branch” of government—a bloated, unelected federal bureaucracy intertwined with corporate monopolies—has created the conditions for public outrage. Combine that with corrupt administrative overreach, broken supply chains, and the economic strain of the Russia-Ukraine war, and you have the makings of a 1789-style populist backlash. This time, not in Paris—but across Middle America.

Inflation, inequality, and institutional decay are no longer just policy problems—they’re existential threats. And if not addressed, the result may not be another Great Depression… but another Revolution. God Bless the leadership of President Trump.

President Trump’s economic strategy wasn’t perfect—but it worked. It prioritized growth, jobs, and American competitiveness. It challenged the grip of unelected regulators and gave working families a real shot at rising.

For those who believe in restoring America’s economic sovereignty, defending the middle class, and dismantling the corrupt alliance between Washington bureaucrats and multinational monopolies—Trump’s return is not just preferred, it is necessary. Trump make America Great Again.