change in his RNC acceptance speech or his Pennsylvania economics speech. He did say, however, that Hillary Clinton “wants to shut down energy production and shut down the mines” and that he would “do exactly the opposite.”
On the coal question, Trump is in tune with the GOP platform, which says “coal is an abundant, clean, affordable, reliable domestic energy resource.” Unlike Trump, the GOP platform doesn’t come right out and deny the reality of climate change. But it opposes the Paris Agreement as well as any hint of a carbon tax, and it calls the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change “a political mechanism, not an unbiased scientific institution.” In essence, the platform punts the climate problem to the free market, saying, “We firmly believe environmental problems are best solved by giving incentives for human ingenuity and the development of new technologies, not through top-down, command-and-control regulations that stifle economic growth and cost thousands of jobs.”
Democrats: By contrast, the Democratic Party sees climate change as an “urgent threat” and thinks that combating it could actually create “millions of good-paying middle class jobs.” The platform says the federal government should “lead by example” through regulation and R&D investment, with the goal of getting 50 percent of the country’s electricity from clean energy sources by 2026 and all of it by 2050. The platform calls for cutting energy waste, modernizing the electrical grid, adopting electric vehicles, building cleaner-running ships, trucks, and boilers, and imposing prices that reflect the negative externalities of carbon dioxide, methane, and other greenhouse gases. It defends the Clean Power Plan and the Keystone XL pipeline cancellation and says “climate change is too important to wait for climate deniers and defeatists in Congress to start listening to science.”
Internet and Security
Democrats and Republicans tend to agree that broader access to the Internet is a precondition for innovation and economic growth, but they differ somewhat on questions of openness and cybersecurity.
Republicans: The GOP platform calls for faster deployment of wired and wireless broadband connections, especially in rural areas. It says companies offering Internet services should compete “in an open market”—a possible jab at the FCC’s net neutrality ruling. It includes a saber-rattling section promising that cyber attacks on businesses, institutions, and government “will not be tolerated” and that “we are prepared to respond in kind and in greater magnitude.”
Trump’s own views on the Internet seem mired in misconceptions. He suggested that Bill Gates could help censor ISIS recruiting content. He has said that he is opposed to net neutrality, but it’s not clear that he even understands what it is. In a 2014 tweet he called it a “top down power grab” and equated it to the Fairness Doctrine, an unrelated (and defunct) requirement that TV broadcasters present balanced coverage of controversial issues.
Democrats: The party wants every household to have a high-speed Internet connection, and it wants those pipes to be open equally to everyone—so it says it will “oppose any effort by Republicans to roll back the historic net neutrality roles that the Federal Communications Commission enacted last year.” The platform calls for the modernization of federal information technology, and it says that a Clinton administration would implement President Obama’s Cybersecurity National Action Plan, which calls for the appointment of a new Federal Chief Information Security Officer to direct defensive cybersecurity efforts.
Taxes
If there’s one policy proposal that raises hackles in venture-capital boardrooms, it’s the idea of eliminating the carried interest loophole in the federal tax code. Intriguingly, this is one policy on which Clinton and Trump seemingly agree. They both think the loophole should go.
Backing up a bit: private equity and hedge fund investment managers typically follow a “2 and 20” business model, meaning they collect a flat 2 percent management fee each year, in addition to a 20 percent cut of all investment gains. The management fees are taxed like regular income, at a maximum of 39.6 percent. But the investment gains, aka the “carry,” are taxed like long-term capital gains, at a much lower 23.8 percent rate. That translates into a huge windfall for managers, who are rewarded as if they were investing their own capital, and who end up being taxed at a lower overall rate than people who make far less money. It’s an understandably popular provision in places like Greenwich, CT, and Menlo Park, CA.
Republicans: Donald Trump has said that “hedge fund guys are getting away with murder” and called for the abolition of the carried-interest provision and other loopholes. “I’ve used them myself, I think they’re wonderful, but I think they’re unfair,” Trump told Fox News in April. At the same time, however, Trump is proposing a wider tax overhaul that would limit taxes on income from business partnerships to 15 percent, which would amount to a big tax cut for investment managers. The GOP platform says simply that “wherever tax rates penalize thrift or discourage investment, they must be lowered.”
Democrats: In her June economics speech, Clinton said that she agrees with Bernie Sanders and others who say the tax code is “rigged.” “It’s riddled with scams, loopholes and special breaks,” she said, “like the carried interest loophole that lets some hedge fund managers pay a lower tax rate than a teacher or a nurse. That’s not only unfair, it’s bad economics. And we’re going to stop it.” President Obama has tried and failed to get Congress to close the loophole, but Clinton says the president can direct the Treasury Department to change the rule without going to Congress.
In Summary
As difficult as it is to look past the insults, bombast, and lies deployed by Donald Trump throughout this presidential campaign, I’ve tried here to zero in on the man’s innovation-related policy proposals and how they differ from Hillary Clinton’s. There is a horrifyingly real chance that Trump will win—currently as high as 46.5 percent, if you believe the polling nerds at FiveThirtyEight, or as low as 32 percent, if you believe The Upshot. That means all citizens, including members of the innovation community, need to consider what a Trump presidency might look like, and base their voting decisions on the policy positions that matter most to them, as well as their assessments of the candidates’ core leadership qualities.
In my view, even if Trump were not a sociopath, Clinton would be the stronger choice for people who care about entrepreneurship and innovation. Clinton and the Democrats have laid out a thorough, ambitious, fair, and realistic strategy for economic growth that will simultaneously confront our two biggest challenges, economic inequality and climate change. Her party’s platform hits innovation-friendly notes on immigration, education, research, small business, gender equality, the environment, and many other areas. A Clinton administration would likely face strong opposition on Capitol Hill, but could build on the Obama administration’s record of implementing progressive change through executive power.
A Clinton presidency could finally break the last glass ceiling for women. It would help inspire women and girls around the world to seize their rightful roles as entrepreneurs, scientists, professionals, and leaders in business and politics, and it would push us to confront our nation’s ugly legacy of gender bias, in the same way that Barack Obama’s presidency has forced a reckoning with our legacy of racism (though clearly our work is only beginning).
Hillary Clinton is not Donald Trump, and that’s a good enough reason to vote for her. But for anyone who cares about ensuring a stronger future for America and the planet, she also happens to be the best person for the job.
Donald Trump photo by Gage Skidmore, Hillary Clinton photo by Roger H. Goun. Both images used under a Flickr Creative Commons license.
