Friday December 06, 2019

Latest Poll

strict warning: Non-static method view::load_views() should not be called statically in /home/conserva/public_html/sites/all/modules/views/views.module on line 864.
strict warning: Non-static method view::db_objects() should not be called statically in /home/conserva/public_html/sites/all/modules/views/includes/view.inc on line 1417.
strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_argument::init() should be compatible with views_handler::init(&$view, $options) in /home/conserva/public_html/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_argument.inc on line 744.
strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter::options_validate() should be compatible with views_handler::options_validate($form, &$form_state) in /home/conserva/public_html/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_filter.inc on line 607.
strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter::options_submit() should be compatible with views_handler::options_submit($form, &$form_state) in /home/conserva/public_html/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_filter.inc on line 607.
strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter_node_status::operator_form() should be compatible with views_handler_filter::operator_form(&$form, &$form_state) in /home/conserva/public_html/sites/all/modules/views/modules/node/views_handler_filter_node_status.inc on line 13.
strict warning: Declaration of views_plugin_style_default::options() should be compatible with views_object::options() in /home/conserva/public_html/sites/all/modules/views/plugins/views_plugin_style_default.inc on line 24.
strict warning: Declaration of views_plugin_row::options_validate() should be compatible with views_plugin::options_validate(&$form, &$form_state) in /home/conserva/public_html/sites/all/modules/views/plugins/views_plugin_row.inc on line 134.
strict warning: Declaration of views_plugin_row::options_submit() should be compatible with views_plugin::options_submit(&$form, &$form_state) in /home/conserva/public_html/sites/all/modules/views/plugins/views_plugin_row.inc on line 134.
user warning: Table './conserva_drupal/cache_filter' is marked as crashed and should be repaired query: SELECT data, created, headers, expire, serialized FROM cache_filter WHERE cid = '2:18832c34c88d008c02d5303df44efa6a' in /home/conserva/public_html/includes/cache.inc on line 27.
user warning: Table './conserva_drupal/cache_filter' is marked as crashed and should be repaired query: UPDATE cache_filter SET data = 'LARRY KUDLOW: March 16, 2018\n<img alt=\"\" src=\"http://conservativechronicle.com/sites/default/files/Harsanyi.gif\" />\nPresident Donald Trump will reportedly name Larry Kudlow head of the White House National Economic Council. For fans of pro-growth policies — deregulation, low taxation and open trade — it’s great news for obvious reasons. Kudlow has been a decades-long champion of these ideas, and those with coherent philosophies tend to offer some stability and continuity. This administration could use more of those things, not less.\n KUDLOW IS also a noticeable upgrade over the outgoing Gary Cohn, not only because he has been a far more consistent voice for free markets — Cohn’s support of carbon tax and a value added tax, and rumored moderating disposition on tax reform were all worrisome clues — but also because the syndicated columnist and former TV host is better equipped to sell those ideas to the public and lawmakers. \n Kudlow, it’s been reported, also played a role in persuading senators to support tax reform despite the intense political opposition, and hysterical warnings about the bill’s homicidal intent and supposed enduring unpopularity. His problem with the Trump tax bill was that it wasn’t cut enough on the individual side. \n Of course, the hardest sell might be the president himself. “We don’t agree on everything, but in this case I think that’s good,” Trump said of Kudlow this week. “I want to have a divergent opinion. We agree on most. He now has come around to believing in tariffs as a negotiating point.” Trump hired Kudlow even though he co-wrote a piece for National Review only two weeks ago arguing that imposing tariffs on steel and aluminum imports is tantamount to imposing sanctions on your own country — “a crisis of logic.” Kudlow, a former White House budget aide for President Ronald Reagan, has long held positions on NAFTA and trade in general that are diametrically opposed to the president’s, which undermines the idea that Trump is rigidly opposed to any dissent within the administration. \n And if tariffs are indeed merely a “negotiating point,” that’s good news.\n WHILE KUDLOW immediately restores some balance in a White House that has picked up the protectionist rhetoric lately, it’s highly unlikely that the propelling idea of Trump’s electoral success will be shelved simply because he tapped a new adviser, no matter how convincing or compelling his arguments might be. It’s worth considering, however, that Kudlow might mitigate some of the worst inclinations of the protectionist wing. Certainly, his presence doesn’t hurt. \n It’s worth noting that tariffs, though important, aren’t everything. And on most issues, Trump has displayed a surprisingly traditional fiscal conservatism. Cohn, it seems, would have been much more liable to push Trump toward acquiescing on economic issues in pursuit of deals. \n So, the hardest hits by the news have been liberal pundits who are, despite all the talk of the Trumpocalypse, far more predisposed to being fans of the president’s big-government inclinations than that of old-school fiscal conservatism. Many liberal columnists have already lined up to point out that Kudlow has made some bad predictions in the past. It’s worth remembering that this puts him on par with just about every other economist who’s ever appeared on TV or written a column or worked for government. Kudlow’s rosy predictions seem predicated on an optimistic view that fails to consider the unpredictability of markets and world events. Economists — all of them — should stop trying to be seers.\n THE IDEA that anyone who’s failed to forecast a recession but been right about the big ideas should be disqualified from a job in Washington seems to be reserved exclusively for fiscal conservatives. And watching the agitated reaction from proponents of high taxes and highly regulated top-down economics should imbue conservatives with optimism that Trump has made the right choice.\n', created = 1575647031, expire = 1575733431, headers = '', serialized = 0 WHERE cid = '2:18832c34c88d008c02d5303df44efa6a' in /home/conserva/public_html/includes/cache.inc on line 112.
user warning: Table './conserva_drupal/cache_filter' is marked as crashed and should be repaired query: SELECT data, created, headers, expire, serialized FROM cache_filter WHERE cid = '2:11c2e230e3b57d862c30a57f16f24b94' in /home/conserva/public_html/includes/cache.inc on line 27.
user warning: Table './conserva_drupal/cache_filter' is marked as crashed and should be repaired query: UPDATE cache_filter SET data = 'GOP TAX PLAN: December 12, 2017\n<img alt=\"\" src=\"http://conservativechronicle.com/sites/default/files/Kudlow.gif\" />\nRepublicans are supposed to be the party that cuts the job-killing capital gains tax, not raises it. But because of a quirk in the Senate-passed tax bill, the tax on capital gains may go up — and for some types of long-held assets, fairly substantially. \n Most members of Congress don’t even know of this stealth capital gains hike. Here’s the story: At the start of the year, Republicans promised to reverse the near-60 percent rise in the capital gains tax under former President Barack Obama — a hike that helped bring investment rates to historic lows. The GOP plan was to eliminate the Obamacare 3.8 percent investment-tax surcharge on capital gains and dividends?. That repeal never happened. But now, the Senate tax-reform bill proposes to raise several billion over the next decade by changing the rules on how stocks are taxed.\n IT WOULD require shareholders to sell their oldest shares in a company before their newest purchased ones. The older the share, the larger the taxable capital gain. This is called the first-in, first-out accounting system. \n Consider this example: Let’s say you bought 100 shares of Apple stock in 1998 at $100 a share?, and then you bought another 100 shares in 2008 at $300 each. If you were to sell 100 shares at $500 a share, you would have to “sell” the oldest stock and pay a $400 per share capital gains tax, versus $200 a share under the current law. \n Now, this accounting change may actually make sense, except that the gains on long-term stocks are not adjusted for inflation. So on many sales of long-held stock, as much as half of the reported and taxable “gain” is due to the compounding effect of inflation. The actual capital gains tax paid could more than double for many stock and asset sales. \n Therefore, the Senate rules would require millions of Americans to pay taxes on phantom or illusory gains. That is patently unfair and would discourage the very long-term investment that economists and politicians agree that we need.\n IF YOU WERE to give us $1,000 today, we would be glad to give you $1,500 25 years from now, because inflation is likely to run ahead of that pace. Believe us — you haven’t made a $500 profit on this transaction. But the government thinks you have. \n There are other huge inequities in this new policy. Under the Senate bill, there’s an exception for mutual funds, exchange-traded funds and other institutional funds. They would continue to apply the tax treatment under current law. \n So get this: The little guy who wants to buy and sell stock on his own has to pay the higher capital gains tax, but the big investment funds have a more generous set of rules with lower taxes. Huh? \n The mutual-fund industry convinced the Senate that conforming to the new rule would be too complicated. That’s good news for Fidelity Investments and Vanguard. But what about Joe Lunchbucket? This new rule is complicated for him, too. This law is going to nearly force small investors to purchase stock through the big fund managers — and, of course, pay their fees. \n Most important, this is bad for the economy. The higher tax penalty on investment would discourage people from buying stock or investing in small startup companies in the first place. \n This would also exacerbate the lock-in effect of the capital gains tax. History shows that when the tax on gains is higher, Americans are much more reluctant to sell their shares and pay the higher tax. This benefits old, established companies like Boeing and Microsoft but dries up capital for smaller, fast-growing firms that could be the next-generation Apple, Google or Uber.\n IN OTHER words, this stealth capital gains tax contradicts the entire purpose of an otherwise prosperity-generating tax bill. We want lower business tax rates and investment tax rates to get more growth, more jobs and higher wages. A backdoor capital gains tax would accomplish the opposite.\n', created = 1575647031, expire = 1575733431, headers = '', serialized = 0 WHERE cid = '2:11c2e230e3b57d862c30a57f16f24b94' in /home/conserva/public_html/includes/cache.inc on line 112.
user warning: Table './conserva_drupal/cache_filter' is marked as crashed and should be repaired query: SELECT data, created, headers, expire, serialized FROM cache_filter WHERE cid = '2:be1aabafa0a72ab0f8170aab50940616' in /home/conserva/public_html/includes/cache.inc on line 27.
user warning: Table './conserva_drupal/cache_filter' is marked as crashed and should be repaired query: UPDATE cache_filter SET data = 'TAX REFORM: November 11, 2017\n<img alt=\"\" src=\"http://conservativechronicle.com/sites/default/files/Kudlow.gif\" />\nAs the House and Senate work their way through the tax cut and reform effort, let me make one thing clear: Both plans are pro-growth, with the economic power coming from the business side. And where it comes from the personal side, there will be very little growth. That was always been the bet.   \n During the spring and summer of 2016, economist Steve Moore and I, working with Trump campaign officials Steven Mnuchin and Stephen Miller, saw major tax reductions for large and small businesses as the centerpiece of the candidate’s tax policy. Whatever Congress came up with on the personal side, so be it.\n SO, ONE WAY or another — even with the glitches and differences between the House and Senate tax plans — Congress will come up with a significant pro-growth bill because business tax cuts are still the centerpiece. And they should do it this year.   \n I spoke at a Senate Republican breakfast in Washington, D.C., last Tuesday. The whole leadership was there. And I observed a total commitment among the GOP senators to get a tax bill through by year-end. This will not be another health care breakdown. \n Particularly after recent GOP electoral setbacks, the party knows it needs a strong tax-cut and economic-growth narrative for the 2018 midterms. If Republicans don’t get it, they’ll lose control of Congress. And if they do get it, they may pick up seats. \n The political stakes are high. \n As mentioned, there are glitches in both the Senate and House tax plans. But most of them can be corrected. And the differences between the two plans should narrow in conference. \n The all-important business tax rate will come down to 20 percent from 35 percent. That’s the key to economic growth. And the biggest beneficiaries will be middle-class wage earners. \n The issue of small-business pass-throughs is not completely resolved. It seems the Senate has a better take on this than the House. But there’s a small-business tax cut coming. \n The Senate’s idea to phase in the new corporate tax rate in 2019 is a bad idea. (President Trump agrees.) To be sure, the GOP senators want full cash expensing for capex projects for 2018. Good. But as economist Art Laffer warns, if you hold back the actual rate reduction, you’ll see a lot of tax avoidance and sheltering next year.\n THAT WILL include offshoring. A delay will deter foreign companies from coming to the United States. You may wind up losing revenues — perhaps $100 billion. \n On the House side, the so-called bubble rate of 45.6 percent is also not a good idea. It’s being done to claw back the 12 percent rate high-end earners move through on the way to 40 percent. But why punish success? \n Those upper-end folks are largely investment-oriented. As FedEx CEO Fred Smith says, it’s time to stop punishing investment. That includes businesses and individuals. \n Let the Democrats be the class warriors who tax the rich. The GOP stands for growth. \n I assume this will be fixed in conference. \n There are other issues. The personal side is a mishmash of credits and deductions. This is no Ronald Reagan bill of 1986. Good tax reform slashes individual rates so that reductions and loopholes are no longer necessary. \n But there’s no slashing on the personal side, and it will be a fight over deductions. And, frankly, I’m underwhelmed by the deduction part. \n I keep thinking: Why didn’t the House and Senate simply agree on a three percent growth rate? And why haven’t they embraced the Trump administration’s argument that the business tax cuts will pay for themselves and generate three percent growth over the next decade? \n House and Senate negotiators agreed on a 2.6 percent growth baseline. It’s better than the Congressional Budget Office’s 1.9 percent. But with three percent, they would have picked up $500 to $700 billion in additional revenues from faster growth. \n Unfortunately, no model captures the significant pro-growth effects of international flows, such as repatriation and the possible capital inflow from foreign companies. Is it possible this could be changed in conference? Just a thought. \n Of course, the old Byrd rule bugaboo is back. It annuls tax cuts if they promote deficits after 10 years. \n So here’s another thought: Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell used the nuclear option to end the filibuster on Supreme Court justice Neil Gorsuch. Why not nuclear-option the Byrd rule? Vice President Mike Pence is ready in the wings to override any objection. \n The GOP must not let process stop growth-producing tax cuts. Growth is too important. \n So let’s play hardball, GOP, and do what’s necessary to get these pro-growth tax cuts legislated and signed before year-end.\n THAT WILL move the American economy back to the top of the worldwide heap. As Presidents John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan argued, when we are strong at home, we’re strong abroad.\n', created = 1575647031, expire = 1575733431, headers = '', serialized = 0 WHERE cid = '2:be1aabafa0a72ab0f8170aab50940616' in /home/conserva/public_html/includes/cache.inc on line 112.
user warning: Table './conserva_drupal/cache_filter' is marked as crashed and should be repaired query: SELECT data, created, headers, expire, serialized FROM cache_filter WHERE cid = '2:dde060c749ff565e26d9add132178571' in /home/conserva/public_html/includes/cache.inc on line 27.
user warning: Table './conserva_drupal/cache_filter' is marked as crashed and should be repaired query: UPDATE cache_filter SET data = 'THE DOLLAR: October 28, 2017\n<img alt=\"\" src=\"http://conservativechronicle.com/sites/default/files/Kudlow.gif\" />\nPresident Trump is likely to name a new Federal Reserve chair over the next few days. Speculation is focused on current Fed governor Jay Powell and Stanford University economist John Taylor. The list may be larger; it could still include current Chair Janet Yellen or Kevin Warsh. Trump is soliciting opinions and advice from people inside and outside government. We will see soon enough. \n Unfortunately, so much of the conversation about a new Fed leader is focused on who will be the high-interest-rate hawk or the low-interest-rate dove. But that’s not really the way we should be looking at it.\n HERE’S A point no one has discussed: The fate of the dollar. \n Now, strictly speaking, dollar policy is the purview of the Treasury Department, which has the authority to intervene in exchange markets to buy or sell dollars. By the way, Congress also has a constitutional prerogative to set dollar value. \n During the 1990s, Democrat Robert Rubin was secretary of the Treasury, and he advocated a strong-dollar policy. Just in case markets didn’t believe him, he intervened a couple of times, buying dollars to punctuate his policy. \n But the Fed and its money-creating balance-sheet policies must work with the Treasury to execute dollar policies. In the long run, Treasury interventions don’t really have any clout. It’s the Fed that really counts. \n And yet, we don’t really know what dollar policies the Fed candidates favor. \n So far as I know, Yellen hardly ever mentions the dollar. Nor does Powell, at least not in his very few public speeches.   \n While President Trump sometimes publicly favors a steady dollar, he sometimes warns that he does not want a particularly strong greenback. \n But I think the best policy is a steady, sound, reliable King Dollar. \n If you look at periods of dollar weakness, especially the 1970s but also the 2000s, a sinking dollar is usually associated with rising inflation, higher interest rates and damage to the economy. In these circumstances, investors at home and abroad lose confidence and take their money elsewhere. \n President George W. Bush’s pro-growth tax cuts were partly nullified by a sinking dollar. Yet when Presidents John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan slashed marginal tax rates, they also favored a sound dollar. (I covered this at length with Brian Domitrovic in our book, “JFK and the Reagan Revolution.”) Low taxes and a stable dollar was a winning combination that promoted economic growth without inflation.\n THERE’S A lesson to be learned here. But we haven’t really seen the Fed reference the dollar for many years. It seems not to be part of its flawed and outdated economic models. \n By the way, it’s not just the dollar’s exchange rate with other currencies; the value of our money should also be judged by forward-looking, inflation-sensitive market indicators, such as commodities, gold and Treasury bond spreads. \n Warsh has warned that the central bank should not rely on labor-market indicators to gauge future inflation. He instead advocates a market-based price rule. This is similar to the approach used by Reagan Fed appointees Wayne Angell, Robert Heller, Manley Johnson and, for most of his term, Alan Greenspan. \n And Taylor is working on a study that argues for a return to a rules-based international currency system. Several years ago, former Fed Chair Paul Volcker, who used gold and commodities as leading inflation indicators while appointed, argued for a rules-based monetary policy at home and new international currency cooperation abroad. \n So if President Trump gets his tax cuts and continues his regulatory rollbacks, the economy will return to its historic norm of three to four percent growth. And faster real growth will lead to higher real interest rates and a higher real-exchange-rate value for our money. \n As business anticipates much-needed tax cuts, the dollar is rising; gold is falling; and growth moves to three percent with minimal inflation. \n This is a good thing. We’re not talking about a skyrocketing currency and interest rates but important adjustments to pro-growth economic policies. \n But we won’t get there without a stable dollar. \n If the White House, the Treasury and the Fed try to intervene for a weaker dollar, they will soon run into trouble. The tax cuts could be neutralized. Long, dormant inflation may reappear. And interest rates will wind up going much higher than otherwise would be the case.\n IT’S A SHAME no one has directly asked the Fed candidates about the dollar, because more people working successfully for higher wages in a strong-growth economy do not cause inflation, as Fed models unfortunately predict. But a sinking greenback will.\n', created = 1575647031, expire = 1575733431, headers = '', serialized = 0 WHERE cid = '2:dde060c749ff565e26d9add132178571' in /home/conserva/public_html/includes/cache.inc on line 112.
user warning: Table './conserva_drupal/cache_filter' is marked as crashed and should be repaired query: SELECT data, created, headers, expire, serialized FROM cache_filter WHERE cid = '2:508bc0ddfd696cc91d666b731121f2f1' in /home/conserva/public_html/includes/cache.inc on line 27.
user warning: Table './conserva_drupal/cache_filter' is marked as crashed and should be repaired query: UPDATE cache_filter SET data = 'This Weeks Conservative Focus … Tax Reform\n<img alt=\"\" src=\"http://conservativechronicle.com/sites/default/files/Kudlow.gif\" style=\"width: 300px; height: 116px;\" />\nMuch as he did in his command performance before the United Nations, when he took back control of U.S. foreign policy, President Donald Trump has seized and energized the tax cut issue. Almost daily, he is pounding away on the themes of faster economic growth and more take-home pay, arguing that his plan will make America’s economy great again. \n This is Trumpian leadership at its best. \n “Under my administration,” Trump just told the National Association of Manufacturers, “the era of economic surrender is over.”\n THE TRUMP plan would slash large- and small-business tax rates, double the standard deduction for middle-income folks, make the whole tax code simpler by eliminating unnecessary deductions, repeal the death tax and end the alternative minimum tax. \n As usual, Democrats say the president’s plan is a handout to the rich. But in a recent speech in Indianapolis, Trump asked: Why can’t this be a bipartisan tax cut bill? He even quoted Democrat John F. Kennedy, who said, “The right kind of tax cut at the right time ... is the most effective measure that this government could take to spur our economy forward.” \n He also reminded his audience that President Reagan’s tax cuts were passed with significant bipartisan majorities. \n But today’s Democrats have written JFK’s tax story out of the history books (never mind Reagan’s). \n Key tax-writing committees are now polishing the Trump plan, fine-tuning it to pass the Senate with 51 votes. But there are a couple of key points that need clarifying. \n The argument that the U.S. is doomed to two percent or less growth — “secular stagnation” no matter what we do in terms of tax policy — is nonsense. Across-the-board tax cuts produced five percent annual growth during the JFK period. And after tax cuts were fully implemented in 1983, real growth averaged 4.6 percent for the remainder of Reagan’s presidency. \n Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn are touting the three percent growth scenario, saying it will pay for the tax cuts. But the naysayers refuse to admit that tax rate incentives matter. \n OK, let’s take one example from the Trump tax plan. Corporations today are taxed at 35 percent. That means, for every extra dollar of profit, a company keeps 65 cents. But the president has agreed on a 20 percent corporate tax rate. So, for the extra dollar earned, the private company would keep 80 cents. \n That’s a massive 23 percent incentive reward. Do we really think businesses will not be affected by this? That defies logic.\n AND AS supply-side mentor Art Laffer points out, the incentive reward of a lower business tax rate will reduce tax avoidance and sheltering. It’s another solid point mainstream economists continue to ignore. \n But the incentive effects don’t stop there. The key to wage growth is productivity. Think of it as efficiency. And large and small businesses need new capital investment to modernize equipment and better train an efficient workforce. \n Yet real wages have barely increased since 2000, alongside virtually no productivity increases and a huge slump in capital formation. That’s the missing link between a two and a three percent economy. \n Rather than punish investment, the Trump plan will spur growth across the board. Everyone will benefit. \n The supply-side incentive effect also includes the repatriation of trillions of U.S. company dollars lodged overseas to avoid taxes, as well as 100 percent expensing write-offs for new investment of any kind. \n Taken together, this plan contains a mountain of incentives. \n On the individual side, the sleeper tax detail is the doubling of the standard deduction. As my CNBC colleague Jake Novak points out, this is a huge positive for young millennials (who don’t own much) and folks with no mortgages or homes. It puts more cash in worker’s pockets, simplifies the code and means that near 80 percent of taxpayers won’t have any deductions. \n Slimming income-tax rates from seven to three brackets and cutting income-tax rates in general add even more supply-side incentives to the Trump package. \n More money for rich people? Well, the not-rich family of four will be a lot better off with a $24,000 standard deduction. And the center-right Tax Foundation calculates that the bottom 80 percent of households get a lower tax burden, while the top 20 percent get a higher burden. \n The Republican Party has got to win this issue, preferably this year. \n So, a warning: The GOP cannot let archaic process rules prevent good policy. Rules can be changed. CBO estimates can be ignored. Parliamentarian decisions can be overridden.\n PLAY HARDBALL, GOP. JFK did it. Reagan did it. And now you have Donald Trump doing it — using all his energy to get a big tax cut that will return prosperity to America’s workers and families and enhance our strength overseas.\n October 2, 2017\n', created = 1575647031, expire = 1575733431, headers = '', serialized = 0 WHERE cid = '2:508bc0ddfd696cc91d666b731121f2f1' in /home/conserva/public_html/includes/cache.inc on line 112.
user warning: Table './conserva_drupal/cache_filter' is marked as crashed and should be repaired query: SELECT data, created, headers, expire, serialized FROM cache_filter WHERE cid = '2:b812320e2e65b31907e15d25576ed793' in /home/conserva/public_html/includes/cache.inc on line 27.
user warning: Table './conserva_drupal/cache_filter' is marked as crashed and should be repaired query: UPDATE cache_filter SET data = 'ECONOMY: July 22, 2017\n<img alt=\"\" src=\"http://conservativechronicle.com/sites/default/files/Kudlow.gif\" />\nI participated in perhaps a bit of radio history last week when Steve Forbes and Art Laffer joined me on my syndicated radio show. It may have been the first time these supply-side economics giants were ever together over the airwaves. \n Forbes, of course, is chairman of Forbes Media, and he twice ran brilliant issue campaigns for president. And Laffer, once a key adviser to President Ronald Reagan, is father to the groundbreaking Laffer Curve, for which he should have won a Nobel prize. In our discussion, they didn’t disappoint. (For a full transcript, visit <a href=\"http://c10.nrostatic.com/sites/default/files/kudlow-transcript_20170715.html\" title=\"http://c10.nrostatic.com/sites/default/files/kudlow-transcript_20170715.html\">http://c10.nrostatic.com/sites/default/files/kudlow-transcript_20170715....</a>.)\n WE STARTED with “one big idea.” That’s how the late Jack Kemp approached economic policy reform back in the 1980s. And his big idea, embraced by Reagan, was a mix of low marginal tax rates to spur economic growth incentives and a sound, reliable dollar to conquer inflation and create confidence. (This duplicated President John F. Kennedy’s prosperity model, which Brian Domitrovic and I wrote about in “JFK and the Reagan Revolution.”) \n But these days, if you adhere to that big idea, you’re ridiculed as clinging to the past. My guests would have none of it. \n “We need it now more than ever,” said Forbes. “To say that just because it worked 40 years ago, therefore it’s old, is like saying the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are old, therefore we can cast them aside.” \n Forbes’ version of “one big idea” is a flat tax and a sound dollar linked to gold. If we have that, we’ll be the “land of opportunity again.” \n Laffer agreed. “Our economic verities have remained forever,” he said. “They go back to caveman, pre-cavemen. Incentives matter: If you reward an activity, then people do more of it. If you punish an activity, people do less of it.” \n But for the tax side of “one big idea,” Laffer would like to see corporate-tax reform. I agree. Reagan used to say, “Give me half a loaf now, and I’ll get the other half later.” Well, I’d take the half-loaf of corporate tax cuts right now. \n And that would work for Forbes, who can see income-tax reform following corporate-tax reform. Of President Trump, he said, “Even if we get to this two years down the road, I think he’d be amenable to doing something radical like a flat tax.”\n BUT WHY IS it that our Democratic friends in the economics profession and politics work so hard to discredit the idea of lowering marginal tax rates on the extra dollar earned to spark the positive incentives that lead to prosperity? \n “Let me put it just succinctly,” answered Laffer. “These people are willing to rebut arguments they know to be true in order to curry favors with their political benefactors.” \n To which Forbes added: “A lot of these far-left ideologues would rather have a smaller economy and more government power than a bigger economy and a smaller government.” \n From that sad truth, we moved to prosperity killers — trade protectionism in particular, about which there is still much talk within the Trump camp. Where, I asked, does trade protectionism — including tariffs on China — fit into the low-tax-rate, strong-dollar prosperity model? \n “It doesn’t,” said Forbes, who offered an alternative: “The smart approach is get this economy moving through these tax cuts and deregulation ... and then having a stable dollar, and then you sit down with country by country and remove trade barriers.” Anything but the trade protectionism that blew up the stock market in 1929. \n To which Laffer added the great line: “Don’t just stand there; undo something!” \n “Cut taxes, stabilize the dollar, reduce tariffs, reduce regulation,” he said. “Undo, undo, undo and undo the damages these other guys have done.” \n One of those damages is Obamacare. And the fear now is that it will never get undone. \n But my guests were optimistic, if philosophical. How will we get true free-market health care reform? \n “You do this often, sometimes with great leaps but sometimes step by step,” said Forbes, to which Laffer added: “With any type of change that we can make in the right direction ... never let the best be the enemy of the good.” \n Finally, I asked, “Is the free-market model losing ground?” We’ve seen its decline in Europe, Latin America and elsewhere. \n “This thing always ebbs and flows,” said Laffer. “Reagan, at first, was dissed by all the foreign leaders, except for Thatcher. And once our success story came in, he’s now virtually a god. That’s going to happen again, believe me.”\n THE LIMITS of this space have forced me to drastically abbreviate what I do believe was a historic radio event. Two economic giants met and discussed the big ideas that will restore growth and prosperity. They offered the “how” and were confident that the “when” is near.\n', created = 1575647031, expire = 1575733431, headers = '', serialized = 0 WHERE cid = '2:b812320e2e65b31907e15d25576ed793' in /home/conserva/public_html/includes/cache.inc on line 112.
user warning: Table './conserva_drupal/cache_filter' is marked as crashed and should be repaired query: SELECT data, created, headers, expire, serialized FROM cache_filter WHERE cid = '2:1cd77f7184da2bafaa6a089469bc2384' in /home/conserva/public_html/includes/cache.inc on line 27.
user warning: Table './conserva_drupal/cache_filter' is marked as crashed and should be repaired query: UPDATE cache_filter SET data = '<div id=\"fb-root\"></div>\n<script>(function(d, s, id) {\n var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];\n if (d.getElementById(id)) return;\n js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id;\n js.src = \"//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1&appId=452921018151594\";\n fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);\n}(document, \'script\', \'facebook-jssdk\'));</script><div class=\"fb-like-box\" data-href=\"http://www.facebook.com/conservativechronicle\" data-width=\"275\" data-colorscheme=\"light\" data-show-faces=\"true\" data-header=\"true\" data-stream=\"false\" data-show-border=\"true\"></div>\n', created = 1575647031, expire = 1575733431, headers = '', serialized = 0 WHERE cid = '2:1cd77f7184da2bafaa6a089469bc2384' in /home/conserva/public_html/includes/cache.inc on line 112.
strict warning: Non-static method view::load() should not be called statically in /home/conserva/public_html/sites/all/modules/views/views.module on line 906.
user warning: Table './conserva_drupal/cache_filter' is marked as crashed and should be repaired query: SELECT data, created, headers, expire, serialized FROM cache_filter WHERE cid = '5:26776aa5ca60f6f8eb4e7f92178ff26e' in /home/conserva/public_html/includes/cache.inc on line 27.

Larry Kudlow

Larry Kudlow is a big upgrade for the White House

03/16/2018 - 1:45pm

Larry Kudlow

LARRY KUDLOW: March 16, 2018 President Donald Trump will reportedly name Larry Kudlow head of the White House National Economic Council. For fans of pro-growth policies — deregulation, low taxation and open trade — it’s great news for obvious reasons. Kudlow has been a decades-long champion of these ideas, and those with coherent philosophies tend to offer some stability and...

Republicans’ tax plan takes a quirky swipe at the little guys

By: Larry Kudlow 12/12/2017 - 9:17am

GOP TAX PLAN: December 12, 2017 Republicans are supposed to be the party that cuts the job-killing capital gains tax, not raises it. But because of a quirk in the Senate-passed tax bill, the tax on capital gains may go up — and for some types of long-held assets, fairly substantially. Most members of Congress don’t even know of this...

A pro-growth tax bill is on the way

By: Larry Kudlow 11/11/2017 - 7:42am

TAX REFORM: November 11, 2017 As the House and Senate work their way through the tax cut and reform effort, let me make one thing clear: Both plans are pro-growth, with the economic power coming from the business side. And where it comes from the personal side, there will be very little growth. That was always been the bet. During the...

President Trump needs a stable dollar along with tax cuts to maximize growth

By: Larry Kudlow 10/30/2017 - 12:58pm

THE DOLLAR: October 28, 2017 President Trump is likely to name a new Federal Reserve chair over the next few days. Speculation is focused on current Fed governor Jay Powell and Stanford University economist John Taylor. The list may be larger; it could still include current Chair Janet Yellen or Kevin Warsh. Trump is soliciting opinions and...

President Trump’s incentive-packed tax plan

By: Larry Kudlow 10/04/2017 - 10:26am

This Weeks Conservative Focus … Tax Reform Much as he did in his command performance before the United Nations, when he took back control of U.S. foreign policy, President Donald Trump has seized and energized the tax cut issue. Almost daily, he is pounding away on the themes of faster economic growth and more take-home pay, arguing that...

Big economic ideas from Art Laffer and Steve Forbes

By: Larry Kudlow 07/24/2017 - 8:48am

ECONOMY: July 22, 2017 I participated in perhaps a bit of radio history last week when Steve Forbes and Art Laffer joined me on my syndicated radio show. It may have been the first time these supply-side economics giants were ever together over the airwaves. Forbes, of course, is chairman of Forbes Media, and he twice ran brilliant issue...

Skip to Main Content Area

Latest Poll

Larry Kudlow

Conservative Chronicle

User Menu