Michelle Obama recently declared that women who voted against Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election voted “against their own voice” and that any woman who felt better voting for Donald Trump “doesn’t like her own voice.”
Oddly enough, we did not hear this type of gender-identity politics when Ms. Obama’s husband defeated Ms. Clinton for the Democratic nomination.
Her condescension toward millions of her American sisters is remarkable, considering that, as a candidate, Trump won 47 percent of married women and 32 percent of unmarried women despite “folklore that they all were lined up like Rockettes behind Hillary.”
Obama cannot understand that millions of American women actually care about right-sizing the tax-and-spend entitlement state that experienced unprecedented metastasis under her husband’s administration.
For those women and others who supported Trump, the White House’s release of its new tax plan this week speaks with their voice.
The economic policies of the prior administration harmed women with job losses and an inability to obtain newly created jobs in proportion to their overall labor force participation. The prior administration railed against the so-called “wage gap” while paying women less than men and giving women fewer of the higher paying jobs. It also pushed for job-killing minimum wage increases.
An anemic national economy hurts women.
Our corporate tax policy is an impediment to creating American jobs and growing our economy. Cutting the corporate tax rate will raise the wages of millions of American women. Lower tax burdens allow businesses to deploy capital toward growth and hire more workers. Greater return on capital increases investment and contributes to job growth. The result is a virtuous cycle of economic growth in which more Americans can succeed.
Individual women and families will also see saved time and money from a new “postcard” style filing and an impressive near doubling of the standard deduction to $24,000 for married couples and $12,000 for individuals which will result in a larger zero tax bracket.
The marriage penalty will be eliminated and a new $500 credit for non-child dependents would help many women who care for elderly parents or family members. Dropping the number of tax brackets from the current seven brackets to 3 brackets will simplify our tax system.
Many itemized deductions for the wealthy will be phased out, but the popular home mortgage and charitable deductions will remain. Also, the proposal will keep taxpayers’ incentives for education and retirement.
The new tax plan also creates rewards for returning business capital held overseas back to the United States. Both sides of the aisle have long agreed that corporate tax inversion transactions signify incentives that are severely out of whack. A one-time tax rate on moving accumulated wealth from overseas back to the United States would make more capital available at home for job growth and economic activity.
Eliminating the death tax is another positive proposal in this tax plan. The death tax has nothing to do with raising revenue, less than 1 percent of federal revenue annually. Instead, the tax is a full employment act for lawyers, accountants, insurance agents and other professional advisors who work to craft tax avoidance strategies.
Female entrepreneurs who spend a lifetime building small businesses must devote time and energy to limiting their estate and gift tax liability with no societal benefit. Instead of allowing their children to benefit from the sacrifices made to build the businesses, the government appropriates the fruits of many decades of hard work for which female entrepreneurs often pay a disproportionately high price in personal sacrifices.
Questioned by an attendee about her favorite Lemonade album song, the former first lady picked Love Drought. “Ten times out of nine, I know you’re lying,” sings Beyoncé. Perhaps women who voted for Trump thought the same about Hillary Clinton.
Some women “understand the voice within, and feel the changes already beginning,” as the Moody Blues would say. Contra Obama, it is their authentic voice. And they like that voice.
First published in The Hill in September 2017