Neither Trump Nor Harris Wants To Drain the Swamp. They Want You To Join It.
Both candidates have promised a litany of special favors to handpicked constituencies. If you don't fit into the right categories, you'll pay the price.

When Donald Trump campaigned for president in 2016, one of his most memorable and oft-repeated promises was to "drain the swamp" in Washington, D.C. This catchy phrase resonated with millions of Americans who felt alienated from their government and frustrated with political favors. However, eight years later, both Vice President Kamala Harris' and former President Donald Trump's campaigns are making it clear that their candidate doesn't want to drain the swamp. They'd like more of us to jump in.
The "drain the swamp" slogan originally meant clearing out the entrenched interests, self-serving practices, rent seekers, and systemic corruption that have taken root in our nation's capital. Well-connected companies scratch the backs of politicians and in return get subsidies, tax breaks, protections, and other special privileges. The rest of us are left to foot the bill.
In addition, there's the revolving door between government and lobbyists. There are career politicians who seem more interested in their own power and income-earning opportunities than in serving the people. There's the influence of big money, whose loudest detractors often fail to mention that an ever-expanding government creates the perfect swamp habitat.
Draining the swap is all fine. As someone who'd like to see all government-granted favors to private businesses terminated either constitutionally or legislatively, I'm for it. How many Boeing-type scandals do we need before legislators are embarrassed to continue passing out subsidies (including through the Export-Import Bank, an agency many of us call "Boeing's Bank")? How many more reports like those showing that most Inflation Reduction Act subsidies went to projects that were already in the works?
These debacles, and others like Solyndra, are cautionary tales about how politicians waste your money to help their friends and political allies—that is, their cronies. Sadly, most Americans don't realize government handouts don't do what politicians tell you they do.
And so, during Trump's first term, we saw him proudly announcing steel tariffs—essentially a tax paid by U.S. consumers—on national television, surrounded by all his steel CEO friends. He distributed subsidies and bailouts to various companies, as well as payouts to farmers who were hurt by his tariffs. Then, with several enormous pieces of legislation like the CHIPS and Science Act and the infrastructure bill, the Biden-Harris administration took corporate welfare to a level unseen before.
The swamp is thriving and the creatures it supports are alive and well. Now both candidates want to add more swamp creatures to the mix: some of us.
Take Trump. During this campaign, rather than touting far-reaching pro-growth policies, he's promised one favor after another to handpicked constituencies, including cutting taxes on Social Security benefits and maybe even lifting all taxes on the police and the military.
Not to be outdone, Kamala Harris promises forgivable business loans for specific minority entrepreneurs, better regulation of cryptocurrency to protect black men, and subsidies for parents needing child care and for working mothers.
Both have promised extensive tax credits to parents, no taxes on tips, and subsidies to first-time homeowners.
If you don't fit into the right categories, you're out of luck. That's because your tax bill will be higher than that of the Americans who receive the better breaks. More will come out of your pocket as the favors extended by pandering politicians take the form of debt and higher future taxes. Inflation, fed by all that circulating handout cash, will eat away at your savings and jack up the price of food and other necessities.
And, as if these consequences aren't bad enough, both Harris and Trump have plans for those they like to blame for America's problems.
Harris is committed to punishing whomever she can for the inflation that happened on her administration's watch and hurt us all. That includes grocery stores and other retailers. When she speaks of taxing the rich, that mostly means innovators, employers, and the highly successful.
Trump, as always, promises to punish with tariffs consumers who feel compelled to purchase affordable goods and services originating abroad. He also promises to deport immigrants, including, it seems, many who work and cause no trouble.
Trump's promise to drain the swamp tapped into a real and justified frustration with Washington. Entrenched corporate interests shouldn't be rewarded by politicians with handouts at our expense. Neither should individuals singled out for favors by politicians on the campaign trail.
COPYRIGHT 2024 CREATORS.COM
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
JD Vance is wrong about boaf sidez
This article is flailing denial but Regime Libertarians (really cocktail democrats in denial).
I can give dozen of links of Trump and his campaign team wanting to fire fed employees with plans to do so. But reason editors are paid to campaign for "boaf sides" no matter what. No matter how disingenuous the comparison.
DeRugy is proving to be a real disappointment.
Not to be outdone, Kamala Harris promises forgivable business loans for specific minority entrepreneurs, ..
Skin color is the most important thing.
In that case, she's white.
The guy facing 300 years in prison because of the swamp loves the swamp.
I think drinking bleach should be more popular.
Metric: Which side does the swamp support?
By the way, love the article, love what you've done with the place... but this isn't really 'swamp' stuff you're describing. It's just pandering stuff.
To drain the swamp, we MUST stop rewarding the panderers who build and support the swamp! Shit's that simple! Vote for Chase Oliver already!
Tax breaks = spending. At least to New Reason.
Well, Joe Biden was out there today suggesting that:
1. DJT wants to fire every 'civil servant'.
2. DJT needs to be 'locked up'.
https://twitter.com/CollinRugg/status/1848852112613998846
"This is a guy who also wants to replace every civil servant."
"I mean, so I know this sounds bizarre... We gotta lock him up."
Firing a significant portion of DC federal civil servants is what I would call a jolly good start.
Of course Biden's side is the one actually conducting ideological purges of government service jobs with the only regard to whether there's enough pro-globohomo staff to fill them being 'However many conversion seminars it takes for non-believers to submit." But, you know, if Trump were elected tomorrow, he's got a standing army of civil servants all aligned in lock step with, uh, performing, uh, real estate transactions and, uh, letting states decide abortion policy and, uh, letting their elected representatives get away with declaring payments to porn stars on their tax forms...
It sounds like exactly the sort of thing that Reason would "boaf sidez" under the silent presumption of Joe's intentions.
Which side does the swamp support?
I know! I know!
https://ballotpedia.org/Presidential_election_in_Washington,_D.C.,_2020
Huh, I'm hearing that while Kamala's NBC interview was kind of a mess, she actually resisted the NBC ReporterBot's pushing of her identity as a woman... three times. Kamala may not be as dumb as I thought.
I had low estimates, and I don't think they were low enough.
She could not be any dumber.
She could be Joe Biden. It's a near thing.
It could be she's smart enough to listen to her handlers. The fact of the matter is, identity politics is now widely considered concentrated-acid-as-blood toxic.
I can sleep better at night knowing that one of my culture war battles is taking a double-u.
I can sleep better at night knowing that one of my culture war battles is taking a double-u.
Sure. From the constant, waking terror of watching beloved friends and cultural hallmarks be reduced to husks as identity politics vectors burst from their bodies-as-incubators, to bouts of sleep interrupted by the intermittent flashes of horror of watching them melt as the corporate handlers try to figure out if they can recoup the investment. Sleep "better".
Happy Halloween.
Taxation is theft
BOAF SIDEZ!!!!!!!!!! /s
Only for those with TDS. Trumps (reason described) housing subsidies are 100% just DE-Regulation. Only a person with TDS starts describing Tax-Cuts as Subsidies and that's a new BS game by Reason and Libertarians that just started with Trump.
The most Libertarian President ever in the last Century got the presidency and all Reason Libertarians want to do is BASH him and try to twist all of his De-Regulation and Tax-Cuts (Once prided principles of Libertarians) into some sort of 'Democrat' subsidies.
Only a person with TDS starts describing Tax-Cuts as Subsidies
Can you explain to those of us with TDS what is the difference between a subsidy for a specific entity and a tax break for that specific entity?
There are no tax breaks without spending cuts, otherwise someone, sometime pays.
One gets paid for with fed money. One gets paid for by keeping their own money. This used to be common knowledge for actual libertarians.
The only ones who seem to confused are those who believe all money is fed money and they are generous in giving you money to keep at times.
So you're saying an actual libertarian understands the difference between the feds stealing 30% of income and giving 10% back vs. stealing 20% of income?
Giving 10% back is fed money from millions so not everyone gets 10% back many get 110% back.
On top of that look at effective rates.
Having money cycle through Feds skims some off the top redirects to others, etc.
It also convinces idiots of a government that cares for them, breeding dependency. Keeping your own money when earned can actually, shockingly, motivate people to make more for themselves.
You are a fucking ignoramus, ain't you?
Well some of us are so deranged when it comes to Trump that we seem ignorant to others with different opinions.
Some of us will parse minutia to defend Trump and avoid looking foolish, while others do the same to criticize him.
I mean, there’s a quantitative difference between letting me keep 10% more of my income vs. giving me 10% back in April after collecting from millions of fellow tax payers.
Hi DesigNate,
Please don't lose the forest for the trees. If you look back at where the conversation started for targeted tax breaks vs. subsidies, it was how one fits within (conservative?) principles and the other doesn't.
Obviously there are technical and accounting differences, like one may lose investment opportunities during the time the government holds your money, but they are fundamentally the same thing: less taxes for favored groups. I'd say they only become fundamentally different when the subsidy exceeds the tax collected from that entity.
This catchy phrase resonated with millions of Americans who felt alienated from their government and frustrated with political favors.
Given the intervening 8 yrs., I'm inclined to believe you have no idea why it resonated.
Please, tell us more about how Public Enemy #1 really supports the swamp.
https://media1.tenor.com/m/DpewrsIklMoAAAAC/tell-us-more-please-tell-us-more.gif
Trump, as always, promises to punish with tariffs consumers who feel compelled to purchase affordable goods and services originating abroad. He also promises to deport immigrants, including, it seems, many who work and cause no trouble.
Higher prices and fewer workers is the path to prosperity!
IDK, I live in NYC and the immigrants the Trump is referring to, and it’s not the legal ones, do not have jobs and NYC is paying millions to support them.
Despite the lies told by certain liars in these comments, asylum seekers are not illegal aliens. They are not legal residents, but they are legal immigrants. And those aren't the people the author is referring to anyway.
They’re illegals. That the Harris/Biden administration let them in anyway doesn’t make the illegals legal. It just makes the Harris/Bidem administration lawless criminals.
Except the people being sent by Abbot and DeSantis aren’t asylum seekers…
Trump did remove some regulations...so there's that.
The swamp likes only one of the candidates.
This article is another lie from the regime mouthpiece.
Funding slop is never going away and is not what is meant by "draining the swamp". That's stating the obvious, but regime bots like this female are incapable of truth.
In alternate-reality Reason's news from the swamp:
If you didn't know that the current CEO of Sig Sauer, which controversially won the US's NGSW *and* the MHS system contracts, is actually a criminal convicted of trafficking international arms, raise your hand.
Plaintiff Lawyers: OK, the gun was in your holster when it went off. There is no way your finger could’ve actuated the trigger or the hammer. And despite the fact that for some unknown reason DHS destroyed your holster before anything could be tested, video evidence and eyewitness account demonstrate and attest that no reasonable or even unreasonable action on your part could’ve caused the weapon to discharge and that only a manufacturer defect, on a weapon previously demonstrated not to be drop safe, could’ve worked.
Sig Lawyers: Is that an *expert* conclusion?
Court: Good point. No it’s not. Case dismissed!
Sig PR: Zero malfunctions! Zero manufacturer defects!
…
Plaintiff expert: OK, the gun was in your holster when it went off. There is no way your finger could’ve actuated the trigger or the hammer. Eyewitness accounts and attest that no reasonable or even unreasonable action on your part could’ve caused the weapon to discharge and that only a manufacturer defect could’ve worked. Unlike the previous case where the holster was destroyed, this holster was in tact with the bullethole in the bottom and jammed casing and powder marks on the interior showing that the gun was fully seated and the trigger could not be accessed. An expert even tested to confirm that the parts weren’t within any sort of specification and that the holster could’ve reasonably caused the discharge.
Sig Lawyers: Did the expert test just one weapon for defect or many weapons?
Court: Good point. Sig sells thousands and thousands of weapons with the price buoyed by government contracts, the expert didn’t test enough product to know whether one gun or the entire line is defective. Case dismissed!
Sig PR: Zero malfunctions! Zero manufacturer defects!
According to Angela McArdle, Michael Heise, and the rest of the Mises Caucus, Trump really really really means it this time.
GFY