We blogged yesterday on a Washington Post report that Hillary Clinton, who is vowing to create a barrage of new jobs if elected president, failed to deliver on the very same promise as senator from New York.

The seeds of Mrs. Clinton's failure in New York and likely failure if she becomes president can be found in the first paragraph of the Post story–she says she will inspire “the biggest investment in new, good-paying jobs since World War II.’’

You see, Mrs. Clinton believes that jobs are created when the government invests your money in programs that government bureaucrats approve.

Whatever else is said about Donald Trump, who, falling in the polls, limped into Detroit yesterday and  delivered his speech on his economic programs, you can say without doubt that the construction mogul's proposals contrast starkly with Clinton's proposals.

Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard characterized it this way:

Donald Trump's speech on the economy Monday puts him in a strong position on the issue on which Hillary Clinton is weakest and politically vulnerable.

Trump offered a series of initiatives, including cuts in the corporate and individual tax rates, that he said would create a "new future" and a "new history" for the country and "show the world America is back—bigger, better, and stronger than ever before."

The agenda he outlined in his speech to the Detroit Economic Club establishes a dramatic contrast with Clinton's plan for stimulating the economy. Trump called it "a night and day contrast." Clinton would rely almost entirely on higher taxes and government spending to spur job creation, especially by building roads, bridges and other infrastructure. Trump emphasizes the private sector and incentives for private investment. "I want to jump start America," he said.

His speech, read from a prepared text and teleprompter, raises the question of whether it represents a pivot away from his gaffe-rich performance over the past two weeks. He has fallen behind Clinton by 5 to 10 percentage points in polls.

Trump didn't ad lib Monday, except to note occasionally the presence of hecklers. It amounted to the fourth day in a row in which he showed the kind of discipline his advisers have urged him to adopt. For Trump, this represents a distinct change in style.

His address was loaded with language about a fresh and prosperous America. "We will make America grow again," he said. Clinton, on the other hand, rarely talks about economic growth, which dropped to 1.2 percent in the first half of this year.

Trump said his plan would trigger the "biggest tax revolution since 1986," when President Ronald Reagan pushed tax reform through Congress and reduced the top rate on individual income from 50 percent to 28 percent. To repatriate an estimated $2 trillion in overseas profits by American firm, he said he would tax that money at a 10 percent rate. The $2 trillion has already been taxed by foreign government.

A Wall Street Journal editorial characterized Trump's speech this way: progress on regulations and taxes but his trade policy is still a job killer. The editorial went on to say:

Mr. Trump’s biggest news was a proposal for a tax cut aimed at kick-starting the slow business investment that is hobbling growth. He’d cut the corporate income-tax rate to 15%, from the current uncompetitive 35%, and he’d also do the same for so-called pass-through businesses that pay taxes at the individual rate of 39.6% (closer to 44% if you include the Obama bells and whistles).

At a stroke the 15% rate would make the U.S. competitive again with the rest of the industrialized world, and even with Ireland, Singapore and the United Kingdom as a destination for capital. The 15% rate is low enough to end the tax incentive for companies to move their headquarters overseas—so-called inversions.

Mr. Trump also proposed a 10% special tax rate if companies repatriate the $2 trillion they have previously earned overseas. If half that amount came back, the feds would take in $100 billion in new revenue at a 10% rate. That’s better than 35% of zero.

While Trump proposes making the Tax Code so simple that the IRS can be abolished (unrealistic but a step in the right direction), Clinton's new taxes and complicated rules that would make it harder and more expensive for an investor to make quick decisions would increase the IRS' work load.

One of Trump's most interesting proposals would allow families to deduct what they pay in child-care. It is quite different from Clinton's plan: she would set a cap on the percentage of a family's income that goes to daycare and subsidize costs above that with tax credits or direct subsidies–a nightmare of red tape that gets the government even more involved in a family's childrearing decisions.

MarketWatch has a good summary comparing and contrasting the economic proposals of the two candidates. It highlights the following from Trump:

  • Removing all marriage penalties from the Tax Code.
  • Repealing the Affordable Care Act, and the tax increases that it imposed (such as the 3.8% Medicare surtax on net investment income of higher-income individuals).
  • Considering all options to preserve Social Security without tax increases.
  • Reducing the corporate tax rate to be level with or below the rates charged by other industrialized nations.
  • Adopting a balanced budget amendment that would require a super-majority for tax increases.
  • Opposing any carbon tax.

Trump also would like to end the estate tax–the so-called death tax–that prevents families from handing on intact what they have earned during their lives to the next generation.