Republicans’ populism can sound very progressive

Pay attention to an important shift in tone in Washington as Republicans evolve with President Donald Trump’s brand of populism. Some of the president’s goals dovetail with things Democrats have been talking about for a long time. ► Give babies seed money. In Republicans’ tax legislation, there’s a proposal for what they’re calling “MAGA” savings accounts — $1,000 given by the government to each American newborn in a tax-deferred account. The idea of giving American babies money to be grown during their childhoods and then used for college or a home purchase has been percolating for years, with bipartisan support. New Jersey Democratic Sen. Cory Booker proposed “baby bonds” when he was running for president as a way to address inequality. GOP Sen. Todd Young of Indiana has also pushed the idea, and some states are experimenting with it. ► Tax the rich. Trump said he’d be open to raising taxes on the wealthy as lawmakers on Capitol Hill search for ways to offset his tax cuts. He later backtracked, but the idea of a tax-hiking GOP president gave whiplash to old-school Republicans familiar with the not-too-distant era of the no-new-tax pledge. ► Drive down drug costs. Trump promised to cap prescription drug prices in an executive order. The plan will face obstacles in court, but it is the cousin of Democrats’ success under President Joe Biden passing a law to drive down drug prices by allowing Medicare, for the first time, to negotiate the price it pays for some medications. ► Give parents more money. Republicans in the House envision bumping the child tax credit by $500 to $2,500. It’s less generous than moves by Democrats when they were in charge that temporarily gave child tax credits even to parents who don’t pay income taxes. When those ended, the child poverty rate rose. But the GOP proposal does acknowledge the expense of raising children. However, the GOP plan would shrink the number of children eligible by requiring parents have a Social Security number. Immigrants, even those who pay taxes and have children who are citizens, would be excluded. The Trump administration has also toyed with the idea of “baby bonuses” — $5,000 checks to entice parents to procreate. That’s less than the universal child care supports envisioned by some Democrats, but it’s not a trivial sum. ► Invest in manufacturing. Trump’s tariffs — which he’s said will either lead to better trade deals or raise revenue for the government — are also taxes, but they are meant to force a new era of American manufacturing. Building a manufacturing base was also a goal of the Biden administration, but the White House and Congress back then agreed to spend money to seed semiconductor and renewable energy industries rather than hike taxes on imports. ► Change how the Pentagon buys things. In April, Trump signed an executive order seeking to reform Pentagon acquisition — or how it buys things. The Pentagon spends a lot of money, and the system is notoriously bloated. Trump’s order is not exactly meant to cut defense spending — his budget envisions $1 trillion going to the Pentagon in one year — but it is an acknowledgment that American defense spending needs reform, something many progressives would agree with. Bipartisanship is hard in a time of kitchen sink bills None of these points of agreement should lead anyone to think we are on the cusp of a new era of bipartisanship. Plainly, we aren’t. Republicans today, like Democrats during the Biden administration, are pursuing Trump’s goals in a bill designed to sidestep the filibuster in the Senate. Current proposals would slash food security benefits along with Medicaid spending and largely end efforts to address climate change, all while adding trillions to the national debt in the name of tax cuts. The only option for lawmakers is likely to be an up-or-down vote on such a large measure, which means Republicans are having trouble finding enough support in their own party, let alone any help from Democrats. Will Trump make a bipartisan law again? But clearly there are bridges to be built across the American political divide. During his first term, Trump followed up his tax cuts bill with a bipartisan achievement, the First Step Act, which cut extremely long prison sentences, among other things. It’s hard to imagine Trump revisiting that issue given his rhetoric about imposing the death penalty on drug dealers, his endorsement of prisons like CECOT in El Salvador and the fact that he has considered suspending habeas corpus in the US. What Trump ultimately wants is to get wins, however, and passing laws creates more lasting change than his executive orders. Room for agreement I asked the Bipartisan Policy Center, a group that tries to bring Democrats and Republicans together, about which issues might have room for accord. “It rarely gets much attention, but bipartisan cooperation is happening on Capitol Hill because it is the only way to actually get anything done that lasts longer than the next change in majority,” said Margaret Spellings, BPC’s CEO, who was education secretary in the George W. Bush administration. BPC pointed to bipartisan legislation on “permitting reform,” which is Washington speak for making it easier to start building energy and infrastructure products — not the sexiest issue, but one that could make the government work more efficiently. There are also ongoing efforts for legislation to get more Americans involved in retirement savings programs and to reauthorize expiring substance abuse treatment programs. Something sounds different Meanwhile, a shift in tone can offer a brief rest from the normal sniping in Washington. Pushing Trump’s proposal to match US drug prices with Europe’s, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. argued that issue was the “fulcrum” of Sen. Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign. The next day at a hearing on Capitol Hill, Sanders asked Kennedy whether he’d work on legislation — which has more power than an executive order — to further drive down drug costs. “Absolutely,” Kennedy said, although Republicans are currently trying to craft a “big, beautiful” tax cut bill for Trump that does not include any effort to expand drug cost measures. Appearing on CNN’s “Inside Politics” Monday, Republican Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri panned the House version of the tax bill because it would cut Medicaid benefits. Medicaid is the federal program that helps low-income Americans obtain health insurance. “I continue to stand by my line in the sand, which is no Medicaid benefit cuts,” he said. “We’re the party of the working class,” Hawley said, referencing how the parties have realigned in recent years. “We need to act like it.” He also said he’s fine with raising taxes on those making more than $1 million per year. Support vs. SUPPORT Being okay with something is different than fully supporting it, however. After suggesting he could support a tax on the wealthy, Trump said he wouldn’t because he didn’t want Democrats to use the issue against him. “The problem with even a ‘TINY’ tax increase for the RICH, which I and all others would graciously accept in order to help the lower and middle income workers, is that the Radical Left Democrat Lunatics would go around screaming, ‘Read my lips,’ the fabled Quote by George Bush the Elder that is said to have cost him the Election. NO, Ross Perot cost him the Election!” Trump wrote on social media. Trump could stop worrying so much about what Democrats say since he won’t face any more elections. The Constitution forbids him from seeking a third term.