Heidi M. Przybyla

USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are making big promises to revitalize the sluggish U.S. economy to a struggling working class that, according to economists, should lower its expectations.

Clinton, who laid out her economic proposals in a Thursday speech in Warren, Mich., wants to build on President Obama’s policies with what she calls the biggest investment in jobs since World War II, saying “America’s best days are still ahead.” But, even under the most favorable circumstances, an acrimonious Congress is likely to circumscribe her to a more modest infrastructure plan paid for by taxing the wealthy.

Trump, who’s pledging to “unleash a new era of prosperity” for depressed areas of the nation, tossed aside his initial tax plan in favor of one tilted more toward the wealthy. He also wants wholesale business deregulation and is pledging to retreat from trade agreements and stem the flow of immigrant labor, which could have a negative economic impact, some economists say.

Clinton pitches economics proposals, blasts Trump in Mich. speech

“Neither of these plans are going to get us back to two cars in the garage and a chicken in every pot,” said Sylvia Maxfield, dean of the Providence College School of Business. “Neither plan is going to make America great and secure again the way they were in the 1950s.”

Many voters have signaled their desire for dramatic change — from the success of Bernie Sanders insurgent challenge to Clinton to Trump's successful bid for the GOP nomination against a host of establishment favorites — in a nation facing stagnant wages, intense anxiety and rising income inequality. An examination of the two plans reveals prescriptions largely in line with traditional party playbooks that reflect a fundamental difference of opinion over what’s causing economic ills.

Trump is espousing traditional Republican orthodoxy regarding the need to cut down on government regulations and overhaul the tax code, pledging an even bigger tax cut than that enacted under President George W. Bush. Clinton says the U.S. tax code is weighted toward the top 1% and pledges to raise taxes on the wealthy, increase spending on job training and lower taxes on companies that hire more Americans.

The thing both candidates seem to agree on is the need for a major investment in infrastructure. Clinton has a $275 billion plan to repair the nation’s roads and bridges and invest in green energy projects like dams and wastewater systems. Trump, who made his fortune as a real estate investor, says his plan would be twice as big, without offering specifics about how he’d pay for it.

The elephant in the room is the likelihood that Congress — which is more gridlocked than ever — will remain divided, making the prognosis for major progress dimmer than either candidate suggests. That includes stiff Republican resistance to increased infrastructure spending.

Still, given this year’s focus on the issue by both candidates, it’s probably “one of the things that is most viable next year,” said James Lucier, managing director of Capital Alpha Partners and an expert on the politics of the economy. “I doubt it will be a large-scale package,” he added.

Is it Trump or Clinton?

Trump's plan

Trump wants to cut personal income taxes by consolidating them from seven brackets to three, while reducing the top rate from 39.6% to 33%. He also wants to slash corporate and small business taxes and eliminate the estate tax, referred to as the "death tax" by its detractors.

The GOP nominee also wants to repeal the Affordable Care Act and place a moratorium on new agency regulations. He says he'll re-negotiate free trade agreements and allow for a child-care tax deduction, proposals setting him apart from other Republicans.

Still, he’s drawn an enthusiastic base of working-class voters not so much because of policy details but by tapping into their anxieties about being on the losing side of a new economy driven by automation and globalization. “He’s a little different than traditional Republican candidates,” said Lucier. Yet “he’s really offering more style than substance.”

The biggest concern with Trump’s plan is that no one knows how he’ll pay for it. The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget says he’d blow a $10.5 trillion hole in the deficit over 10 years. “Trump is basically a throwback to Reagan and an economist named Arthur Laffer, who says government revenue will rise if you cut taxes because there will be more economic activity,” said Maxfield.

But “we do not have evidence that that works, which is why it’s a leap of faith,” said Maxfield. “What we learned from the Bush tax cuts is that it probably doesn’t work.”

Fact check: Trump’s economic speech

Clinton's plan

Clinton is proposing a massive investment in jobs, including a $10 billion manufacturing plan; investments in green energy; fewer small business regulations; and a tax credit for companies that share more profits with workers. She also wants an “exit tax” for companies that move their operations overseas and debt-free college for public universities.

Clinton has offered details on how she’d pay for her plans, including a 4% surcharge on those who earn above $5 million and instituting a 30% minimum tax on those who earn $1 million or more.

While she's broken with the president on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (she now opposes it), Clinton has also made clear she wants to continue Obama's general approach to the economy, creating the image that she’s running for his third term. “She’s trying to say she’s the change agent while pursuing essentially the same policies,” said Lucier.

It’s also unclear whether Clinton would continue current corporate tax policy, which could hinder growth, said Lucier. Yet “Clinton has emphasized she’d be more transactional and do business with Congress in a way that Obama hasn’t, which is a reason major tax reform is possible,” he said.

Regardless of who's elected, the next president will have to scale back his or her ambitions to clear a divided Congress. Most importantly, neither candidate is capable of restoring the American people back to their 20th century manufacturing heyday, said Mark Hamrick, senior economic analyst at Bankrate.com. “It is unrealistic, and even misleading, to suggest their previous manufacturing strength can be restored” due to automation and globalization, he said.

Historians: Clinton, Obama tied together no matter what

What's more likely is the kind of incremental advancement seen since the outbreak of the financial crisis of the last decade.

“I’m not convinced a modest infrastructure plan creates enough jobs to rescue the middle class in this country,” said Maxfield. “It would have to be massive, and we are not in a fiscal situation in this country to support a massive public works project like in the 1930s.”