Frequently Asked Questions: Addressing Common Concerns

Bold reforms generate legitimate questions. This section addresses the most common concerns about Project 2029’s proposals.

Economic and Fiscal Questions

Q1: Won’t wealthy people just leave the country or hide their assets to avoid higher taxes?

A: Capital flight is a real concern, but several factors mitigate this risk:

Anti-Avoidance Measures in Place:

Exit taxes: 40% tax on unrealized capital gains for individuals renouncing citizenship (already exists in modified form)
FATCA enforcement: Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act requires foreign banks to report U.S. citizen accounts
Beneficial ownership reporting: Corporate Transparency Act (2021) ends anonymous shell companies
OECD minimum tax: Global agreement on 15% minimum corporate tax reduces tax haven advantages

Empirical Evidence:

Limited mobility: Research shows ultra-wealthy have limited geographic mobility due to family ties, business operations, social networks
Historical U.S. precedent: Top marginal rate was 70-91% (1950s-1970s); no mass exodus occurred
Switzerland/Norway success: Both have wealth taxes with exit tax mechanisms; maintain low emigration rates

U.S. Advantages:

Market access: U.S. market of 330 million consumers is irreplaceable for business owners
Political stability: U.S. offers security of property rights unmatched in most tax havens
Size matters: Unlike small European countries, U.S. economy is large enough that global coordination isn’t required for effective enforcement

Contingency: If revenue underperforms due to avoidance (< 50% of projections), administration will propose mark-to-market taxation of publicly traded assets (harder to avoid) or increased enforcement funding.

Q2: Won’t a $25 minimum wage hurt small businesses and cause job losses?

A: This concern is understandable but not supported by evidence from jurisdictions with high minimum wages.

International Evidence:

Australia: Effective minimum wage equivalent to $25/hour (including universal healthcare, pension) has 3.7% unemployment
Switzerland (Geneva): ~$25/hour minimum; thriving small business sector
Germany: Raised minimum wage from €8.50 to €12 (2015-2022); unemployment fell from 5% to 3%

U.S. Evidence:

Seattle: Raised minimum to $15/hour (2014-2021); restaurant employment increased, small business formation increased
Academic research: Meta-analyses of 50+ studies show minimal to no employment effects from moderate minimum wage increases

Implementation Design Addresses Concerns:

Phased rollout: 3-5 year implementation gives businesses time to adjust
Small business tax credits: Offset labor cost increases for businesses < 50 employees
Regional adjustment option: Could vary by cost of living (controversial but addresses concern)
Increased consumer spending: Higher wages = more customers with more money to spend at local businesses

Why It Works:

Productivity increases: Businesses invest in efficiency, technology, training when forced to pay higher wages
Reduced turnover: Higher wages mean less employee churn, lower recruitment/training costs
Monopsony power: In many labor markets, employers have wage-setting power; minimum wage corrects market failure

Real Risk: Some low-margin businesses (certain restaurants, retail) may struggle. Federal Job Guarantee provides safety net for displaced workers; transition support available.

Q3: Can the government really run healthcare efficiently, or will it become another bloated bureaucracy?

A: Government-run healthcare is demonstrably more efficient than the U.S. private insurance model.

Administrative Cost Comparison:

Medicare overhead: 2% of expenditures
Private insurance overhead: 12-18% of premiums (marketing, profit, exec compensation, claims denial)
Potential savings: $200-300 billion annually in administrative waste reduction

International Evidence:

Every developed nation has government-run or heavily regulated healthcare
All spend less than U.S.: 9-12% of GDP vs. U.S. 17%
Better health outcomes: Higher life expectancy, lower infant mortality in countries with public healthcare

*VA Example (Instructive):**

When underfunded: Poor service (2014 scandal)
When properly resourced: VA scores higher than private insurance on quality metrics; lower cost per patient
Lesson: Government healthcare quality depends on political will to fund it adequately

Public Option Design Advantages:

Leverage Medicare infrastructure: Don’t build from scratch; expand proven system
No profit motive: Revenue goes to patient care, not shareholder dividends
No marketing costs: Don’t spend billions on advertising like private insurers
Simplified billing: Single standardized process vs. dozens of different insurer requirements

Choice Preserved:

Public option competes with private insurance; doesn’t eliminate it
If government-run is truly inferior, people will choose private
Let evidence determine outcome, not ideology

Q4: Won’t stock buyback restrictions hurt my 401(k) and retirement accounts?

A: No. Restricting buybacks encourages long-term investment that benefits retirement savers more than short-term stock manipulation.

Why Buybacks Are Problem:

Recent phenomenon: Buybacks were illegal as market manipulation until SEC Rule 10b-18 (1982)
Short-term boost: Buybacks increase stock price temporarily by reducing share count, but don’t create real value
Alternative: Companies could invest in R&D, worker training, capital equipment (creates long-term growth)

What Happens with Buyback Limits:

Companies invest in productive capacity: More R&D, more equipment, better employee skills
Dividends increase: If companies can’t buy back stock, return cash to shareholders via dividends instead
Long-term growth: Productive investment grows company value more sustainably than financial engineering

401(k) Impact:

Most 401(k)s hold for decades: Long-term investors benefit from productive investment over short-term manipulation
Diversification: 401(ks hold hundreds of stocks; buyback restrictions benefit productive companies over financial engineers
Historical comparison: Stock market grew faster 1950-1980 (when buybacks were rare) than 2000-2020 (buyback era)

Empirical Evidence:

Pre-1982: Stock market delivered strong returns without buybacks
Companies still profitable: Limiting buybacks doesn’t hurt profitability; changes how profits are used

Q5: How can you claim this agenda reduces the deficit when it includes expensive new programs?

A: The math works because tax increases and healthcare savings exceed new program costs. See Fiscal Summary section for details.

Key Numbers (Steady-State, Conservative Scenario):

New revenue: $730B-$1.19T annually (progressive taxes, defense cuts, healthcare savings)
New program costs: $395-735B annually (mostly Federal Job Guarantee, which varies with unemployment)
Net fiscal impact: +$320B to +$1.34T annual surplus (depending on scenario)

Why Healthcare Saves Money:

Drug price negotiation: $200-300B saved
Administrative efficiency: $100-180B saved (2% overhead vs. 12-18%)
Preventive care: $50-90B saved (universal coverage reduces ER usage)
Total healthcare savings: $350-570B (more than public option costs)

Counter-Cyclical Design:

Federal Job Guarantee costs are highest during recessions (when fiscal stimulus is needed)
Costs decrease during economic expansions (when stimulus is harmful)
Acts as automatic stabilizer, unlike discretionary spending requiring Congressional action

Comparison to Status Quo:

Current trajectory: $1.7 trillion deficit annually, growing
Project 2029: $320B-$1.34T surplus annually
Net improvement: $2.0-3.0 trillion per year

Conservative Assumptions Built In:

Revenue projections assume significant tax avoidance and behavioral responses
Cost projections assume high enrollment in expensive programs
Even conservative scenario yields surplus

Political and Governance Questions

Q6: Aren’t constitutional amendments impossible to pass? Why propose them?

A: You’re right that constitutional amendments are extremely difficult. Project 2029 acknowledges this and pursues dual strategy:

Realistic Timeline:

Constitutional amendments: 10-20+ year organizing projects (require 2/3 Congress, 3/4 states)
Near-term focus: Statutory alternatives that don’t require amendments

Statutory Alternatives to Amendments:

Instead of abolishing Electoral College:

National Popular Vote Interstate Compact: State-level agreement (209 of 270 electoral votes committed)
Requires no constitutional amendment; takes effect when states representing 270 EVs join

Instead of constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United:

Public financing: Reduce importance of big money
Disclosure requirements: Transparency on donor sources
Shareholder approval rules: SEC can require shareholder vote on corporate political spending

Instead of Senate reform amendment:

DC and Puerto Rico statehood: Adds 4 senators representing millions of currently unrepresented Americans
Requires only Congressional majority, not constitutional amendment

Why Still Propose Amendments:

Aspirational goals: Show long-term vision, build organizing momentum
Shift Overton window: Make statutory alternatives seem moderate by comparison
Historical precedent: Civil rights, women’s suffrage took decades of organizing before success

Lesson: Constitutional amendments are end goal, but administration will deliver concrete progress through statutory changes while building long-term movements for structural reform.

Q7: Won’t this agenda face constant court challenges that block everything?

A: Yes, litigation is inevitable. Project 2029 anticipates this and includes legal risk mitigation. See “Anticipated Legal Challenges” section for details.

Prepared for Legal Battles:

Strongest legal footing first: Prioritize actions with clear statutory authority to build credibility
Robust administrative records: Document policy justifications to withstand judicial review
Legislative backup plans: For executive actions likely to be struck down, prepare Congressional legislation

Judicial Appointments Matter:

Lower court vacancies filled with judges committed to workers, consumers, democracy
Over 4-8 years, transform composition of federal judiciary
Supreme Court composition may shift through retirements

Some Losses Acceptable:

Not every proposal will survive courts: Accept this reality
Focus on winning key battles: Healthcare, voting rights, tax reform are priorities
Learn and adapt: If wealth tax struck down, shift to mark-to-market taxation

Historical Precedent:

New Deal: Many early programs struck down by courts; FDR adapted, won most important battles
Current Court is obstacle but not insurmountable: Legislative changes harder to challenge than executive actions

Q8: Won’t this agenda cause massive inflation?

A: No. In fact, some proposals are anti-inflationary. Here’s why:

Inflationary Risks Are Overstated:

Federal Job Guarantee:

Counter-cyclical: Expands during recessions (when inflation is low), contracts during booms
Sets wage floor, not ceiling: Private sector can still compete by paying more
Increases supply: More workers producing goods/services increases supply, offsetting demand-side pressure

Healthcare Cost Controls:

Directly reduce prices: Drug price negotiation, hospital rate regulation lower prices (deflationary)
Administrative savings: Reduce wasteful spending without reducing care

Progressive Taxation:

Reduces excess demand: Taxing ultra-wealthy (who save, not spend) and redistributing to working families (who spend on necessities) doesn’t increase net demand much
Wealth tax: Takes money out of asset markets (stocks, real estate), reducing asset price inflation

What Could Cause Inflation:

Too much demand, too little supply: Minimum wage + job guarantee increase demand, but also increase supply (more workers, more production)
Supply shocks: Energy prices, pandemics (not caused by this agenda)

Mitigation if Inflation Occurs:

Federal Reserve still controls monetary policy: Can raise interest rates if needed
Automatic stabilizers: Job guarantee enrollment declines during hot economy (reduces fiscal stimulus)
Tax increases: Progressive taxes are contractionary, offsetting spending increases

Historical Evidence:

1950s-1970s (high top tax rates): Moderate inflation, strong economic growth
2021-2022 inflation: Caused by pandemic supply shocks, not fiscal policy per se
Current inflation (2024): Declining toward 2% target despite continued federal spending

Implementation Questions

Q9: How quickly can these policies actually be implemented? The timelines seem unrealistic.

A: You’re partially right. The 180-day timelines are ambitious. The document includes “Strategic Implementation Sequencing” and “Legal Authority Framework” sections that provide realistic timelines:

Realistic Timeline Summary:

Immediate (Days 1-90):

Enforcement priority shifts (IRS, DOJ, DOL) - existing authority
Initiate rulemakings (not complete them) - 12-18 months to finalization
Policy studies (public option design, wealth tax analysis)

Year 1:

Some executive actions complete (after rulemaking)
First priority legislation (healthcare public option, voting rights)
Pilot programs begin (Job Guarantee in 5-10 communities)

Years 2-3:

Major legislation passes (tax reform, workers’ rights)
Programs scale from pilots to regional rollouts
Healthcare savings begin to materialize

Years 4-5:

National program rollouts complete
Fiscal surplus emerges as revenue measures fully phased in
Measurable impact on inequality metrics

Years 10+:

Constitutional amendments still in organizing phase (realistic about multi-decade timeline)
Full effects of healthcare, job guarantee, tax reform visible in economic data

Key Insight: Document now clearly distinguishes between initiating actions (fast) and completing implementation (slow). Early timeline confusion is corrected in recent updates.

Q10: What if Congress is controlled by Republicans? Can any of this happen?

A: Some can happen via executive action; rest requires winning elections. See “Risk Mitigation and Contingency Planning” in Implementation Sequencing section.

Executive Actions Don’t Require Congress:

IRS enforcement shifts
Antitrust investigations and prosecutions
Drug price negotiation (under existing IRA authority)
Transparency and digital government improvements
Trade agreement reviews
Union rule reforms (via DOL rulemaking)

Budget Reconciliation Bypass (Simple Majority):

Tax legislation (including wealth tax, capital gains parity, top rate increases)
Some healthcare reforms (public option could use reconciliation)
Requires 50 Senate votes (+ VP tiebreaker), not 60

Legislative Agenda Requires Winning Elections:

Voting rights, antitrust, constitutional amendments: Need 60-vote Senate majority or filibuster reform
Realistic strategy: Focus Years 1-2 on executive actions and reconciliation-eligible legislation, then campaign on results to win larger majorities in 2026/2028

Building Public Pressure:

Transparency initiatives build trust
Early wins (healthcare enrollment, IRS enforcement on wealthy) demonstrate commitment
Use bully pulpit to pressure Congress with popular reforms

Bottom Line: Unified Democratic control makes agenda achievable; divided government limits to executive actions and reconciliation bills; Republican control dramatically limits scope but some actions still possible.