SYLVIE DOUGLIS, BYLINE: This is PLANET MONEY from NPR.
(SOUNDBITE OF COIN SPINNING)
NICK FOUNTAIN, HOST:
Being vice president is a pretty sweet gig. You get free housing, access to a plane. You get to vote in Congress, but only when the vote really matters. It's kind of like being president but way, way less pressure. And because of that, normally we do not care that much about what any given vice president thinks. But this is not a normal year. There's a vice president running for president, and I don't think I'm going out on a limb here, in this very close race, it just seems like the VP picks, they really matter because their place on the ticket says something about where each party is headed.
Hello, and welcome to PLANET MONEY. I'm Nick Fountain. Today on the show, we're going to dig deep into the economic thinking of both campaigns' vice presidential picks, JD Vance and Tim Walz. Where did they come from economically? Where do they stick to party orthodoxy? And, more interestingly, where do they buck the trend?
(SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC)
FOUNTAIN: All right, so our mission today, should we choose to accept it, is to figure out the economic principles of the two potential vice presidents. For that mission, we have tapped Greg Rosalsky, who writes our newsletter. Hi, Greg. You ready?
GREG ROSALSKY, BYLINE: Nicholas Fountaine (ph).
FOUNTAIN: Not how you say my name. Whatever.
ROSALSKY: (Laughter).
FOUNTAIN: Greg, we're going to talk to you today about some of the reporting that you've been doing for the PLANET MONEY newsletter about these two vice presidential candidates, about JD Vance and Tim Walz, and about how they think about economics. Where do you want to start? You want to start with Vance or Walz?
ROSALSKY: Yeah, let's do JD Vance. Why not?
FOUNTAIN: Advance with Vance. All right. How do we know what JD Vance's economic thinking is? Where did you even begin to look to try to figure that out?
ROSALSKY: You know, JD Vance doesn't have the biggest paper trail when it comes to what he's actually done in government or in politics. He's pretty young. He just turned 40 years old, and he hasn't served in the Senate that long, only about a year-and-a-half, maybe a little bit longer. He was sworn in in January 2023. And he's had this kind of well-documented, self-acknowledged political transformation over the last decade. So a lot of what we know about his economic positions is kind of what he's said and what he's done in the Senate.
FOUNTAIN: Perfect. So today we're going to focus on three policy areas that he has taken a stance on that are a bit unconventional in kind of telling ways - so industrial policy, aka jump-starting American manufacturing, also antitrust, also unions. Which of those do you want to tackle first?
ROSALSKY: Let's start with industrial policy because I think it is illustrative of his kind of break from sort of traditional Reagan-style conservatives. In fact, when Donald Trump was thinking of selecting him, there were a number of notable kind of old-school, mainstream conservatives who were actively lobbying against his selection.
FOUNTAIN: So describe that position. What is traditional mainstream conservatives' views when it comes to using a heavy hand to boost strategic industries?
ROSALSKY: Yeah, like, so traditional conservatives like Milton Friedman or, you know, Ronald Reagan, they kind of were distrustful, for the most part, of the government playing too active a role in the economy. You know, they opposed picking winners and losers. They supported free trade. They wanted to lower taxes on corporations.
Not Vance, though - he's supported higher taxes on corporations, at least before he was selected as VP candidate. He's been a strong advocate of using federal power to sort of revitalize strategic industries, in particular manufacturing. He argued that the government should intervene to boost and protect domestic industries, with policies like tariffs to, you know, rebuild America's industrial base and create more good jobs for American workers. So yeah, in short, Vance believes in a more sort of muscular role for the government in reshaping the economy than conventional Republicans.
FOUNTAIN: So Vance is a little unorthodox when it comes to industrial policy. How about on this topic that you were talking to me about earlier today, antitrust? - which is when the government comes in and says, this company is too big. It's a monopoly. It is bad for consumers.
ROSALSKY: This is another area where he represents sort of a break from not only just traditional conservatives, but also, like, conservatives in Congress right now. So, you know, a lot of conservatives, they really dislike Lina Khan. So Lina Khan is the head of the Federal Trade Commission, a Biden appointee.
FOUNTAIN: Yeah, we've talked to her on the show before. She's maybe the most aggressive antitrust cop we've had, I don't know, in a generation. She's been taking aim at the biggies, at Facebook and Amazon, which we should say is an NPR sponsor.
ROSALSKY: Yeah. And a lot of Republicans dislike that. They're like, what the heck? Why is the government mucking around with the free market? But JD Vance, actually, he's kind of gone out of his way to sort of praise Lina Khan. A few months before he was selected as a VP candidate he actually spoke at this event, it was called RemedyFest; it was put on by Bloomberg and Y Combinator. And Vance walks to the front of the room. He grabs the mic, and he starts talking about Lina Khan.
(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)
JD VANCE: A lot of my Republican colleagues look at Lina Khan, who I think you either have heard from or will hear from at some point today, and they say, well, Lina Khan is sort of engaged in some sort of fundamentally evil thing. And I guess I look at Lina Khan as one of the few people in the Biden administration that I actually think is doing a pretty good job, and that sort of sets me apart from most of my Republican colleagues.
FOUNTAIN: That is a very unusual thing for a Republican to say right now. Also, it's kind of weird for someone who used to be a venture capitalist, right? Lina Khan is going after Big Tech. What's going on there?
ROSALSKY: Yeah. So Vance does have some pretty strong connections and some benefactors in Silicon Valley. It's no secret he's a big friend of Peter Thiel. Elon Musk, apparently, was one of the people lobbying on his behalf for Trump to pick him as a VP candidate. But yeah, he thinks that Big Tech has gotten out of control.
He talks sometimes about, like, Little Tech versus Big Tech and how hard it is for kind of small startups to challenge the big guys, and how a lot of these startups are operating in sort of a fundamentally noncompetitive market. And how this lack of competition in the tech industry, it's empowering big companies to censor Americans, and it's hurting free speech. He also talks about how it hurts workers. So some people in the media have called him a Khanservative (ph).
FOUNTAIN: What does that mean?
ROSALSKY: K-H-A-N. I don't know if people are...
FOUNTAIN: Oh,
ROSALSKY: Khanservative.
FOUNTAIN: Yeah.
ROSALSKY: Vance, by the way, he didn't just praise Lina Khan. He also seemed to indicate he was against what's sometimes known as the consumer welfare standard. This is the dominant approach that the federal courts and antitrust regulators have used for, I don't know, like, decades now. And in that approach, when they're, you know, looking at whether a company is too big or whether, you know, a merger or acquisition should be blocked, they really focus on price and how corporate decisions affect consumers.
And Vance is saying, actually, there's a lot of other things that should matter. You know, like, it's not just all about price. It's not all just about consumers. Like, what about free speech of Americans? Like, if Google gets too big, then maybe that's a problem for, you know, our rights as Americans. Or what about, you know, the welfare of workers? And he's saying, like, wait a second, there's all these other things that we should be concerned about. And that really kind of puts him on the same page as some progressives, like Lina Khan, who believe that, you know, the government should be playing a more active role to ensure that we have a more competitive economy.
FOUNTAIN: Yeah, amazingly, he has been an ally of Elizabeth Warren, of all Senators. They've done some stuff together in Congress, right?
ROSALSKY: Yeah, that's right. So one bill they worked on together was this effort to claw back executive pay for banks that failed. And then Politico actually dubbed them the new power couple taking on Wall Street. Of course, after he was selected as VP candidate, Warren kind of - I think they sent Warren out to make the media rounds, make it clear that she was not on the same page as JD Vance. But yeah, like, he kind of went out of his way to form an alliance with progressives in Congress. He also - in an interview he gave with the New York Times, he said, quote, "the people on the left, I would say, whose politics I'm open to, it's the Bernie Bros."
FOUNTAIN: All right, so a lot to unpack there, but it seems like Vance is pretty unorthodox when it comes to antitrust, when it comes to sort of taking on Wall Street, as far as conservatism goes. Greg, our final stop on the JD Vance tour today is going to be about unions. So you've mentioned before, he's from Ohio, which is a big union stronghold. I've seen him on the news. I've seen him walking the picket line back during those UAW strikes, I believe. But you have reported that his relationship with the unions is pretty complicated.
ROSALSKY: It is complicated 'cause he certainly talks a lot about the need to help working-class folks, but when it comes to his record in Congress, it's kind of a mixed bag.
FOUNTAIN: OK.
ROSALSKY: I mean, the AFL-CIO has given him a 0% score for his voting record. When he was selected, Liz Shuler, the AFL-CIO president, said, Senator JD Vance likes to play union supporter on the picket line, but his record proves that to be a sham.
FOUNTAIN: Is that true? What is his record on union stuff?
ROSALSKY: So one of the big things that organized labor has been pushing for is this legislation called the PRO Act, the Protecting the Right to Organize Act, and this would have various provisions that would enhance the ability of workers to unionize. And Vance, he's actually opposed the PRO Act. So there's kind of this contradiction in many people's minds who - like, why are you saying you're pro-worker, but you're opposed to, like, one of the biggest legislative goals of organized labor?
And pretty interestingly, he gave this interview to Politico earlier this year, where he sort of tried to square that circle. And one reason was basically, and maybe I'll just quote him, "I think it's dumb to hand over a lot of power to a union leadership that is aggressively anti-Republican." So there's kind of like the meat or potatoes...
FOUNTAIN: Sure.
ROSALSKY: ...Like, hey, if we empower unions...
FOUNTAIN: Political calculus.
ROSALSKY: ...This is going to hurt us politically, which is maybe a little cynical. You be the judge. But he also provided a more sort of intellectual argument, which I thought was pretty interesting - basically that it would further ensconce the existing system of bargaining in this country, which happens at the establishment level as opposed to the sectoral level.
FOUNTAIN: Let's just explain what that means. What we have here in the U.S., unions have to work hard organizing individual workplaces, individual establishments. You got to go Starbucks by Starbucks or auto factory by auto factory. And there's this other thing, sectoral bargaining. That is what they have in many countries in Europe, and that's where there's this national union that comes together, meets with industry and hammers out a deal that covers all baristas or all autoworkers.
ROSALSKY: Yeah, that's right. So actually, a year or so ago, I spoke with Suresh Naidu, who's one of the foremost scholars of unions in America, and like Vance, actually, Naidu expressed support for sectoral bargaining. He thinks it's, like, a better system. It makes more sense. And it removes incentives for firms to fight unions because, all of a sudden, your competitor is subject to the same union rules that you are. And another thing, when a whole sector is unionized, it means even new companies that form in that sector are subject to the same union contract. In the system we have here in the United States, Suresh said, unions have to work just a lot harder to bring new employees into unions.
SURESH NAIDU: So what I'm sort of talking about is just, like, this hamster wheel, where to keep union density up, you need to be - you know, every time there's a new employer, you've got to be, like, there, trying to organize it, and just an incredibly slow and costly process to be engaged in.
ROSALSKY: But, you know, interestingly, Suresh, while he thought that sectoral bargaining was a much better system than the one we have in America, he also supported the PRO Act. So he didn't see them as contradictory.
FOUNTAIN: And JD Vance supports sectoral bargaining but not the PRO Act, even though sectoral bargaining isn't happening in the U.S. anytime soon.
ROSALSKY: Probably not. I mean, who knows? Maybe. I don't know - probably not, though.
FOUNTAIN: So, tie it up for us, Greg. What is JD Vance's view on unions? On worker power?
ROSALSKY: I would say it's a mixed bag. He's a bit of a wild card, Nick. Like, he's talking a lot about supporting American workers. At the same time, he is not really on board with some of the big goals of organized labor. So this is something that's evolving. It will be interesting to see going forward, if he were to win, how this would shake out.
FOUNTAIN: All right, so JD Vance, unorthodox views on how to revitalize American industry, on breaking up big corporations, and he says he is a fan of European-style sectoral bargaining.
Greg, you are a gentleman and a scholar for bringing us on this journey through the economic mind of JD Vance. Thank you for that.
ROSALSKY: Well, Nick, it's been a pleasure, you know. Oh, there's still one other VP candidate, isn't there?
FOUNTAIN: (Laughter) That's right, you're not off the hook yet.
ROSALSKY: Dang it.
FOUNTAIN: After the break, we're going to journey to the other side, into the economic mind of Tim Walz.
Greg, what do we need to know about the economic mind of Tim Walz? And again, how do we know it? What's his track record?
ROSALSKY: Well, he's older. He's about 20 years older than JD Vance, and he has a much longer record, 'cause he's served as governor of Minnesota. He was also a congressman for a long time. So he's got much more of a paper trail of things he's actually done than JD Vance.
FOUNTAIN: Walk us through what he's done as governor.
ROSALSKY: So, Walz did a lot of things, but if I were to single out, you know, one big thing, Nick, it would probably be his work to increase the economic security of kids. He did this through tax policy, through education policy, and through other types of legislation.
One thing I do want to provide a little context for, because, you know, I reported on this in the PLANET MONEY newsletter - if you were to compare the United States to almost 40 other countries in the OECD, only Turkey spends less per child as a percentage of their GDP. It's a significant reason why the United States has a much higher rate of childhood poverty than other rich nations, an even higher rate of poverty than, like, some not so rich countries.
And just a little bit more context, so we have this policy in the United States, it's a child tax credit. Right now, it's about $2,000 a year. During the pandemic, though, thanks to the American Rescue Plan that was passed under President Biden, there was this expanded and enhanced child tax credit. And that expanded the child tax credit to much higher, and scholars have, you know, credited it for reducing child poverty by about 30%. Some say it reduced it by half.
Then in 2021, this provision, it expired. Tim Walz did not like that, and he passed his own version of the child tax credit at the state level instead of the federal level. And according to the Tax Policy Center, it was one of the largest in the country. So, starting in the tax year 2023, every Minnesotan taxpayer with kids can claim $1,750 per qualifying child, with no limit on the number of kids they can claim. And because the credit is fully refundable, it means that even low-income Minnesotans, who don't pay much or anything in state taxes, are eligible for it.
Another thing that Walz did was this universal meal program for K-12 students. So breakfast, lunch, you get it free at school, you know. Everyone.
FOUNTAIN: I know about this school lunch thing because, oddly enough, it's become controversial. Can you explain the controversy here?
ROSALSKY: Well, there were a number of Republicans in Minnesota who were like, what the heck? You're giving free breakfasts and lunches to rich kids? Like, they don't need this. This is a waste of taxpayer money. And it kind of illustrates this tension for, you know, social welfare programs, between making something that's means tested and making something universal.
FOUNTAIN: Means tested means you qualify usually based on income. Universal means everybody gets it.
ROSALSKY: Exactly. So means tested, at least hypothetically, it's going to be cheaper, because you're not giving the benefit to everyone.
FOUNTAIN: Sure.
ROSALSKY: But at the same time, it means there's got to be a lot of bureaucracy involved. Parents, all of a sudden, you know, got to fill out paperwork. They got to prove that they're at some income level. And Walz actually specifically has talked about that as something he didn't really like.
Something, you know, you should know about Walz, he was a teacher for a long time, and he says he actually used to monitor school lunch rooms. He gave an interview to Ezra Klein at the New York Times, and he talked about this issue.
(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)
TIM WALZ: That lunch room then became a very clear have and have-nots. And in fact, until, you know, some schools maybe still do it, you had a different colored lunch ticket if you're on free and reduced lunch.
FOUNTAIN: Yeah, I remember this from my school. If you were on free or reduced lunch, you had to, like, type in a little code at the cash register when you were getting your free lunch. And if you didn't, you weren't, and there was a sort of stigma around it. And so he's saying, let's get rid of that stigma.
ROSALSKY: And he says, additionally, you know, beyond just the stigma that means-tested programs have for, you know, poor kids who need assistance, he was also saying that, you know, by making it universal, it kind of takes a lot of labor off the plate of, you know, hard-working middle-class families.
(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)
WALZ: The most feedback on this was families, and it's especially mothers, because of the inequal distribution of domestic labor, it still falls heavily upon women. And these were women who said, look, we didn't qualify before, we do now. It's an absolute tax cut for us, but it's an absolute lifesaver for me that I don't have to get up in the morning and either make breakfast, or send one to school for this. So it's a double benefit for us - I have less work, my kids eat. So it was actually middle-class folks who were most jazzed about this.
ROSALSKY: Jazzed. I love - that's a very Midwestern dad word to use.
FOUNTAIN: Such a dad phrase. All right. Lot of economic policies to support families. What else did he do as governor?
ROSALSKY: He also signed legislation that gave Minnesotan workers up to 20 weeks of paid family and medical leave. In addition, he also passed paid sick leave for Minnesotans. And as I've reported before in the PLANET MONEY newsletter, the United States is the only rich country without a national paid leave program. So this was, you know, Walz showing his priorities again, sort of helping families, increasing the economic security of kids, that sort of stuff. And he also did a bunch of stuff on tax policy.
FOUNTAIN: Yeah, let's talk about that for a second. Tax policy is our wheel house. Tell us about the tax policies of Walz.
ROSALSKY: So, to set the scene a little bit, according to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, most states in our country actually have somewhat regressive tax systems. They tax the rich at lower rates, and therefore are tax systems that aren't progressive at all. Walz helped make Minnesota one of the few tax systems in the country that is progressive. And he did this through a series of tax cuts and rebates and credits for low- and middle-income Minnesotans, and a series of moderate tax hikes on the rich.
FOUNTAIN: I feel like when we were talking about JD Vance, Greg, you kept being, like, this is where Vance goes against the traditional conservative norms. But these Walz things, helping out families, you know, making tax systems more progressive, they seem like, sort of, standard Democratic fare. Where has he differed with his Democratic colleagues?
ROSALSKY: Yeah. As a congressman, he actually represented this rural conservative district in Minnesota, and while he was there, he supported a bunch of stuff that kind of was against what most Democrats support. So he was a big supporter of gun rights - he actually had a A rating from the NRA. He supported the creation of the Keystone XL Pipeline, which was broadly opposed by progressives and environmental groups.
FOUNTAIN: Sure.
ROSALSKY: He also opposed the bailouts of the big banks, and also the auto companies, under both President Obama and President Bush. And he also opposed most free trade agreements that he had the opportunity to vote for, including ones that were being pushed by President Obama. Like, he opposed free trade deals with Peru, Panama, Colombia.
In one 2015 statement he made as a congressman, he said, "Trade can be a powerful tool for good, but as we've seen in the past with agreements like NAFTA, sometimes these agreements work against the American worker." So he's built this populous record over the course of his career that has opposed more centrist, moderate Democrats.
FOUNTAIN: So, like his competitor on the other side of the aisle, and the other side of the debate stage, pretty soon, he's a complicated character. Greg, you have spent hours and hours reading every statement you can by these guys. I guess my question for you is, what does it tell us about both of these campaigns, that both of these, sort of, heterodox thinkers were chosen to be on their respective parties' tickets?
ROSALSKY: I mean, one thing I will say about the selection of both of these candidates, which I find really interesting, is it seems like neither of them were selected for some, like, you know, narrow electoral strategy reasons, you know?
FOUNTAIN: That used to be why you picked your VP, because they would help you win over Florida, or Pennsylvania or whatever.
ROSALSKY: Yeah. Even in Vance's case, like, Ohio used to be a swing state, doesn't seem to really be a swing state anymore. It seems like the Republicans got that on lock. In both cases, they seem to be more of a signal to working-class folks that, hey, look, we got people on the ticket who are going to support you.
And it's kind of like they're both white dudes from the middle of the country who have staked out these sort of heterodox positions that buck a bipartisan consensus that had taken over in this country for a long time. They're skeptical of free trade. They're saying a lot of things about helping American workers. And what I'm going to be looking at, when I'm watching this debate that's coming up, it's almost like this populist showdown. That's how I guess I'm looking at it these days.
FOUNTAIN: I like that. So both an embrace of populism, which we've also seen at the top of the ticket, but also a rejection of whatever you want to call it, the dominant free-market-friendly approach to the economy that has become the norm.
All right. Greg, thank you for doing this, for bringing your newsletter reporting over to the podcast. If someone were to make the wise choice of signing up for the newsletter right now, at npr.org/planetmoneynewsletter, what sort of stuff would they find?
ROSALSKY: Well, in addition to, you know, deep dives on wonky econ subjects, like the, you know, economic minds of Tim Walz and JD Vance, I've been covering, you know, more fun stuff, like this downturn we're seeing in music festivals. I dubbed it the "music festival recession." Check that out. I've been covering AI. I recently covered how it's important to pay attention to unit prices when you're grocery shopping.
FOUNTAIN: We give this thing away for free, y'all. You can find it at npr.org/planetmoneynewsletter.
ROSALSKY: Listen, I wouldn't call it a gift to humanity, but, Nick, if you wanted to say that, that would - you know.
FOUNTAIN: (Laughter) Sure. It's a gift to humanity. All right.
This episode was produced by James Sneed and Emma Peaslee. It was edited by Meg Cramer. Sierra Juarez fact-checked it, and it was engineered by Valentina Rodríguez Sánchez. Alex Goldmark is our executive producer. I'm Nick Fountain.
ROSALSKY: And I'm Greg Rosalsky. This is NPR. Thanks for listening.
(SOUNDBITE OF JACQUES CAMUS' "WHAT YOU LIKE")
Copyright © 2024 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.
NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.