From Huffington Post:
At a private meeting of conservatives in Cleveland this summer, Donald Trump’s senior economic adviser, Stephen Moore, said the candidate planned to pay for his costly proposals by eliminating the departments of Commerce, Energy and Education; lifting all restrictions on mining, drilling and fracking; ending Temporary Assistance for Needy Families programs, and offering rust-belt factory workers new jobs on oil rigs and steel mills.
Speaking at the private summer meeting of the Council for National Policy (CNP), a secretive group of powerful conservatives, Moore, a senior fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, also described how Alabama Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions had “infiltrated” Trump’s campaign operation, and how Moore and other supply-side economists were working hard to get Trump to be more supportive of free trade…
Personally, I don’t see Trump as in opposition to free trade – I just see him as reasonably suspicious of trade deals which do always seem to work out to higher profits for American corporations and lower employment rates for American citizens. My views are long known on this – I believe in Freedom Trade…free trade with free, democratic nations which having a free press can ensure against cheating (not perfectly, of course, but much better than China’s tyrannical regime allows).
Also long known is my view that we must reduce the size of government and not so much because of government power, but because the way Big Government works out to be a gigantic subsidy machine for the left. The smaller the government, the less money the left has to pursue it’s Progressive goals (and, of course, less chance for Progressives to use government to oppress us). But I’m doubtful of fighting on the hill of the Department of Education right out the gate – that is too easily painted as being “against education”, even though it is nothing of the sort. Now, someone willing to vigorously attack on the issue can, correctly, make out the case that the Department of Education has been directly destructive of education in the United States, but I still wonder at the wisdom of picking that fight right away. On the other hand, picking a fight where you actually are trying to reduce the size of government is a fight worth having – and I note, with great care, that Trump would be the first Presidential candidate since Reagan arguing for a reduction in the size of government – and he’s already staked out a position of protecting Social Security come what may, so the Democrats can’t really use the charge of “Trump wants to starve seniors” with any great effect.
Now, I don’t know how true this all is, nor how committed Trump is to it…but if it is true, it is a political earthquake.