By JiJo Chen in One —

MONEY

MONEY

PROJECT 2025 IS A PLAN TO MAKE TRUMP AND HIS RICH FRIENDS EVEN RICHER.

“It will cut taxes for Trump and his rich friends and pad their profits.”
The corporate income tax should be reduced to 18 percent.

• Increased After-Tax Profits for Corporations: Lowering the corporate tax rate from its current level (21% as of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017) to 18% would increase after-tax profits for corporations. This could enhance shareholder returns through dividends and stock buybacks.
• Stimulus for Investment: Proponents argue that a lower tax rate could stimulate business investment by increasing available capital. Companies might invest more in infrastructure, research and development, and expansion efforts.
• Economic Growth: Increased investment could potentially lead to job creation and economic growth. However, the extent of this growth is subject to debate among economists.
• Impact on Federal Revenue: A reduction in the corporate tax rate would decrease federal tax revenues unless offset by other measures. This could contribute to larger budget deficits and increased national debt if spending is not adjusted accordingly.
• International Competitiveness: A lower corporate tax rate might make the U.S. more competitive globally, potentially attracting foreign investment. It could also spark a “race to the bottom” as other countries might lower their rates in response.

“And cut taxes for wealthy families — offset by tax hikes on middle class families.”
Repeal of Tax Increases from the Inflation Reduction Act

• Restoration of Previous Tax Provisions: The IRA included several tax provisions aimed at large corporations and high-income individuals, such as a 15% corporate minimum tax on book income and increased IRS enforcement funding. Repealing these provisions would benefit affected taxpayers by reducing their tax liabilities.
• Impact on Inflation and Economic Policy: The IRA was partially designed to reduce the federal deficit, which some economists argue can help mitigate inflation. Repealing its tax increases without reducing spending could exacerbate deficit concerns.
• Effect on IRS Operations: The IRA provided increased funding for the IRS to enhance tax enforcement and customer service. Repealing these funds could limit the agency’s ability to enforce tax laws effectively, potentially increasing the tax gap (the difference between taxes owed and taxes paid).

Eliminating subsidies and tax breaks for green energy companies in Subtitle D of the IRA

• Impact on Renewable Energy Sector: The IRA included significant subsidies, credits, and tax breaks to promote clean energy technologies like wind, solar, and electric vehicles. Repealing these incentives could slow the growth of the renewable energy sector by making projects less financially viable.
• Job Market Effects: The clean energy sector has been a growing source of jobs. Reducing incentives could lead to job losses or slower job growth in this industry.
• Environmental Implications: Removing support for green energy could hinder efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, impacting national and global climate change mitigation goals.
• Fossil Fuel Industry Benefits: Without subsidies for renewables, fossil fuel industries might experience less competitive pressure, potentially leading to increased production and consumption of oil, coal, and natural gas.
• Investment Uncertainty: Sudden policy shifts could create uncertainty for investors in the energy sector, potentially discouraging long-term investments due to perceived regulatory instability.

Overall Economic and Fiscal Impacts

• Budget Deficits and National Debt: The combined effect of reducing corporate taxes and repealing tax increases without corresponding spending cuts could lead to higher budget deficits and add to the national debt.
• Inflationary Pressures: Increased deficits could contribute to inflationary pressures, although the relationship between deficits and inflation is complex and influenced by various factors.
• Income Inequality Concerns: Critics might argue that tax cuts favoring corporations and high-income individuals could exacerbate income and wealth inequality.
• Political Reactions and Legal Challenges: Such policy changes could face opposition from Democrats, environmental groups, and some business sectors. Legal challenges might arise, particularly if regulatory changes are made without legislative approval.
• International Agreements and Commitments: Rolling back green energy incentives could affect the U.S.’s ability to meet international climate commitments, such as those under the Paris Agreement.

Business Community Response

• Positive Reception from Certain Industries: Traditional energy sectors (oil, gas, coal) and corporations facing high tax liabilities would likely welcome these changes.
• Mixed Reactions: Some businesses value regulatory stability and may have already invested heavily in green technologies based on existing incentives. Policy reversals could lead to financial losses and reduced trust in government policies.
• Supply Chain and Manufacturing Impacts: Industries involved in the production of renewable energy components might experience decreased demand, affecting manufacturing jobs and supply chains.

State and Local Government Effects

• Shift in Energy Policies: States that have their own renewable energy mandates or incentives might continue to support green energy, leading to a patchwork of policies across the country.
• Economic Disparities: Regions dependent on renewable energy industries might face economic challenges, while areas focused on fossil fuels could see economic benefits.

Environmental and Public Health Outcomes

• Potential Increase in Emissions: A slowdown in the adoption of clean energy could lead to higher greenhouse gas emissions, contributing to climate change and associated environmental impacts.
• Public Health Considerations: Increased reliance on fossil fuels might lead to higher levels of pollution, affecting air quality and public health, particularly in vulnerable communities.

Long-Term Strategic Implications

• Global Leadership in Clean Energy: Reducing support for green technologies could cede global leadership in this sector to other countries investing heavily in renewables, such as China and members of the European Union.
• Technological Innovation: Cuts to incentives might slow innovation in emerging technologies like battery storage, hydrogen energy, and carbon capture, potentially impacting future economic competitiveness.

Consumer Impacts

• Energy Prices: Changes in subsidies and tax incentives could affect energy prices. The elimination of green energy incentives might lead to higher costs for renewable energy, impacting consumer choices and utility bills.
• Availability of Clean Energy Products: Reduced incentives for products like electric vehicles and energy-efficient appliances could decrease their affordability and adoption rates.

Social and Political Dynamics

• Public Opinion: These policy shifts could influence public opinion on environmental issues and economic policies, potentially becoming focal points in future elections.
• Advocacy and Activism: Environmental groups and climate activists might intensify efforts to oppose such changes, leading to increased activism and potential protests.

In summary, the implementation of these policies by a conservative administration would have wide-ranging effects on the economy, federal budget, energy sector, environment, and social landscape. While some industries and stakeholders might benefit from lower taxes and reduced regulations, others could face challenges due to decreased support for renewable energy and potential increases in deficits. The long-term implications would depend on various factors, including the response of businesses, consumers, state governments, and the international community.

They’d line Big Pharma’s pockets by ending prescription drug price caps for seniors, and banning Medicare from negotiating for lower drug prices.
Repeal harmful health policies enacted under the Obama and Biden Administrations such as… the Inflation Reduction Act.
This ‘negotiation’ program should be repealed.

If a future conservative administration aligns with the objectives outlined in “Project 2025” and decides to repeal certain health policies enacted under the Obama and Biden administrations—specifically the Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) and the drug price negotiation program established by the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA)—several significant changes could occur in the U.S. healthcare system.

Repeal of the Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP):

Reduced Care Coordination: The MSSP encourages healthcare providers to form Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) to coordinate patient care, aiming to improve quality and reduce unnecessary spending. Repealing the MSSP could lead to decreased coordination among providers, potentially affecting patient outcomes.
Increased Medicare Costs: Without the incentives provided by the MSSP for reducing costs and improving efficiency, Medicare might experience higher expenditures due to fragmented care and redundant services.
3.Impact on Providers: Healthcare providers participating in ACOs may lose shared savings opportunities, which could affect their financial planning and investments in care coordination infrastructure.

Repeal of the Drug Price Negotiation Program under the IRA:

Higher Prescription Drug Costs: The IRA allows Medicare to negotiate prices for certain high-cost drugs, aiming to lower expenses for beneficiaries. Repealing this program would likely result in higher drug prices for Medicare recipients.
Increased Out-of-Pocket Expenses: Beneficiaries might face higher out-of-pocket costs for medications, which could lead to medication non-adherence and adverse health outcomes.
Pharmaceutical Industry Impact: Drug manufacturers might benefit financially from the absence of price negotiations, potentially leading to increased revenues but also drawing criticism over drug affordability.

Overall Implications:

• Budgetary Effects: The federal government’s Medicare spending could rise due to higher drug costs and less efficient care delivery, impacting the national budget and possibly leading to cuts in other services or increased deficits.
• Policy Shift: The repeal would signify a shift toward market-driven healthcare solutions, reducing government intervention in efforts to control costs and regulate the healthcare industry.
• Beneficiary Impact: Seniors and other Medicare beneficiaries might experience increased financial burdens, which could exacerbate health disparities among low-income populations.
• Healthcare Market Dynamics: The changes could alter the dynamics of the healthcare market, potentially leading to increased competition but also the risk of monopolistic practices without regulatory checks like price negotiations.

Conclusion:

In the next conservative administration, if these policies are repealed as per Project 2025’s objectives, the healthcare landscape could shift significantly. While the intention might be to promote free-market principles and reduce government involvement, the immediate effects could include increased costs for both the government and Medicare beneficiaries, decreased care coordination, and potential challenges in maintaining quality healthcare outcomes.

All while Trump’s administration guts Medicare and Social Security. 

If a future conservative administration shares similar views to those expressed by former President Donald Trump regarding Social Security and Medicare, several policy changes could potentially be considered:

Cuts to Entitlement Programs: The administration might propose reductions in spending on Social Security and Medicare. This could take the form of reducing benefits, modifying cost-of-living adjustments, or altering payment formulas to slow the growth of future benefits.
Raising the Eligibility Age: There may be initiatives to increase the age at which individuals become eligible for Social Security and Medicare benefits. Proponents argue that this reflects increased life expectancy and could help sustain the programs financially by reducing the number of years benefits are paid out.
Privatization Efforts: The administration might explore options to privatize parts of Social Security. This could involve allowing individuals to invest a portion of their Social Security taxes into private retirement accounts, with the aim of potentially yielding higher returns but also introducing market risks.
Recharacterizing Social Security: Labeling Social Security as a “Ponzi Scheme” could be used to build a narrative that the current system is unsustainable, thereby justifying significant structural reforms or overhauls.

Potential Impact and Considerations:

• Political Feasibility: Historically, attempts to significantly cut or privatize Social Security and Medicare have faced substantial political resistance, not only from opposition parties but also from the public, particularly older voters who rely heavily on these programs.
• Legislative Challenges: Implementing such changes would require congressional approval. The extent to which these policies could be enacted would depend on the composition of Congress and the level of support among lawmakers.
• Public Opinion: Social Security and Medicare are widely popular programs. Any efforts to reduce benefits or alter the structure could lead to public backlash, affecting the administration’s broader agenda and political capital.
• Economic Implications: Changes to entitlement programs could have significant effects on income security for retirees, poverty rates among the elderly, and overall consumer spending, which in turn could impact the broader economy.
• Alternative Proposals: Some conservatives advocate for reforms aimed at ensuring the long-term solvency of these programs without necessarily cutting benefits, such as adjusting payroll taxes or implementing means-testing for wealthier beneficiaries.

Conclusion:

While the statements suggest a willingness to consider cuts and structural changes to Social Security and Medicare, the actual policies implemented by a future conservative administration would depend on a variety of factors. These include political dynamics, economic conditions, public opinion, and the specific priorities of the administration and Congress at that time. Any proposed changes would likely spark significant debate and would need to balance fiscal objectives with the potential impact on beneficiaries.

They’d let employers drastically cut overtime — or eliminate it outright. 

If a future conservative administration implements the policies outlined in Project 2025, several significant changes to labor laws and overtime regulations could occur. Here’s what might happen:

Reduction in Overtime Eligibility for Middle-Class Workers:
• Policy Change: Reverting to the Trump-era overtime rule would lower the salary threshold under which salaried workers are automatically eligible for overtime pay.
• Impact: Approximately 4 million middle-class workers could lose their overtime protections. These workers would no longer receive additional pay for hours worked beyond the standard 40-hour workweek, effectively reducing their overall compensation.

Extended Work Hours for Remote Employees Before Overtime:
• Policy Change: Requiring remote employees to work 10 hours in a day instead of 8 before earning overtime pay.
• Impact: Remote workers could face longer workdays without additional compensation until they surpass the 10-hour threshold. This may lead to increased fatigue and decreased work-life balance, affecting productivity and employee well-being.

Exclusion of Benefits from Overtime Calculations:
• Policy Change: Preventing benefits such as bonuses, commissions, and other incentives from being included in the calculation of overtime pay.
• Impact: Workers’ regular rate of pay, used to determine overtime compensation, would effectively decrease. This would result in lower overtime pay rates, reducing overall earnings for employees who work extra hours.

Overtime Calculated Over Four Weeks Instead of One:
• Policy Change: Allowing employers to average overtime over a four-week period rather than calculating it weekly.
• Impact: Employees might work more than 40 hours in some weeks without receiving overtime pay if their hours average out over the four weeks. This could significantly reduce the amount of overtime compensation workers receive, even if they have periods of intense work.

Overall Consequences:

• Reduced Earnings for Workers: Many employees would see a decrease in their take-home pay due to reduced overtime eligibility and compensation.
• Cost Savings for Employers: Businesses could lower labor costs by paying less in overtime wages, potentially increasing profit margins.
• Employee Morale and Retention Issues: Reduced compensation and longer work hours without additional pay could lead to decreased job satisfaction, higher turnover rates, and challenges in attracting talent.
• Economic Impact: Lower earnings for workers might lead to decreased consumer spending, which could have a ripple effect on the broader economy.
• Legal and Regulatory Challenges: Such changes might face opposition from labor unions, worker advocacy groups, and could result in legal challenges or calls for legislative action to protect worker rights.

Political and Social Reactions:

• Supporters’ Viewpoint: Proponents might argue that these changes increase business flexibility, reduce regulatory burdens, and promote economic growth.
• Opponents’ Viewpoint: Critics would likely contend that these policies harm workers, exacerbate income inequality, and undermine labor protections that have been in place for decades.

Conclusion:

Implementing these policies could lead to significant shifts in the labor market, affecting millions of workers’ livelihoods. While businesses might benefit from reduced costs, the negative impacts on employee earnings, morale, and overall economic health could present substantial challenges that would need to be addressed by policymakers, employers, and society at large.

And they’d reinstate crippling student debt payments.  
The new Administration must end abuses in the loan forgiveness programs. Borrowers should be expected to repay their loans.
The Secretary should phase out all existing [income-driven repayment] plans by making new loans (including consolidation loans) ineligible…. If new legislation is possible, there should be no loan forgiveness, but if not, existing law would require forgiving any remaining balance after 25 years.

Based on the excerpts from Project 2025, a future conservative administration would likely implement significant changes to federal student loan programs, particularly focusing on loan forgiveness and income-driven repayment (IDR) plans. Here’s what could happen:

Ending Loan Forgiveness Programs:
• Stricter Eligibility: The administration might tighten the criteria for loan forgiveness, making it harder for borrowers to qualify.
• Reducing or Eliminating Forgiveness Options: There could be efforts to scale back or completely eliminate existing loan forgiveness programs, such as Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF).
• Emphasis on Repayment: Policies would encourage or require borrowers to repay their loans in full, without expecting forgiveness.

Phasing Out Income-Driven Repayment (IDR) Plans:
• Ineligibility for New Loans: New federal student loans, including consolidation loans, would become ineligible for existing IDR plans. This means future borrowers wouldn’t have the option to adjust payments based on income.
• Legislative Changes: If possible, the administration would seek new legislation to eliminate loan forgiveness after a certain period (e.g., 25 years), even for those in IDR plans.
• Compliance with Existing Law: If new legislation isn’t feasible, they would adhere to current laws requiring forgiveness after 25 years but might not extend or promote these provisions.

Policy Shifts Emphasizing Personal Responsibility:
• Reduced Government Involvement: The federal government’s role in subsidizing or forgiving student loans would diminish.
• Increased Borrower Accountability: Borrowers would bear more responsibility for repaying their educational debts without relying on government programs for relief.
• Potential Impact on Higher Education Accessibility: These changes might affect individuals considering higher education, particularly those from lower-income backgrounds who rely on such programs.

Possible Administrative Actions:
• Regulatory Adjustments: The Secretary of Education could modify regulations to limit or end certain programs without needing congressional approval.
• Budgetary Measures: Funding for loan forgiveness programs could be reduced or reallocated.
• Communication Campaigns: The administration might promote the importance of financial literacy and responsible borrowing.

Implications:

• For Current Borrowers: Those already enrolled in forgiveness or IDR programs might be grandfathered in, but future benefits could be uncertain.
• For Future Borrowers: Prospective students might have to consider private loans or other financing methods, potentially at higher costs.
• For the Education Sector: Colleges and universities might experience shifts in enrollment patterns, especially among students who depend on financial aid and loan forgiveness options.

Conclusion:

The next conservative administration, guided by the principles outlined in Project 2025, would likely move toward policies that reduce or eliminate federal loan forgiveness and income-driven repayment options. The focus would shift to ensuring borrowers repay their loans in full, decreasing reliance on federal assistance programs, and emphasizing personal financial responsibility in higher education financing.

AND IF YOU WANT TO STOP PROJECT 2025?