That great phrase was coined by the late Jack Kemp, who believed that growth and opportunity for all is the answer to poverty. In fact, Kemp believed it was the answer to all things economic. And he was right. The best anti-poverty program is the one that creates jobs. The answer to large budget deficits? Grow the economy, create jobs, watch incomes rise, and let the tax revenues come rolling in.

Partly from Jack Kemp’s work, and partly from his own experience, Ronald Reagan believed the same thing. He knew that growth is the single best solution for our economic ailments. And neither Reagan nor Kemp saw the world in terms of specific income classes or categories. They looked at the whole economy and realized that everyone is tied together. Dragging down the top earners will not help the middle class. And providing an ever larger safety net will not solve poverty. Reagan believed in the safety net, and maintained it. But he knew it was a stop-gap, not a solution.

Does Mitt Romney understand this?

The worry stems from Romney’s ill-advised statement this week. He said, “I’m not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I’ll fix it.” That raises doubts as to whether he understands the Reagan-Kemp model. Perhaps he does. But he will have to tell us more.

(more…)

From Reuters:

President Barack Obama, in a populist step designed to appeal to voters, will propose a “Buffett Tax” on people making more than $1 million a year as part of his deficit recommendations to Congress on Monday.

Such a proposal, among suggestions to a congressional supercommittee expected to seek up to $3 trillion in deficit savings over 10 years, would appeal to his Democratic base ahead of the 2012 election but may not raise much in revenues.

(more…)

I still find it strange when those who claim they believe in free enterprise, limited government, reducing government intervention in the marketplace and fiscal responsibility, suddenly take an “Everywhere but in my house” approach. I am referring to the more than 80 House Republicans, many of whom claim to be conservatives, who are co-sponsoring H.R. 1380, otherwise known as the Pickens Plan after Texas energy tycoon, T. Boone Pickens.

The bill revolves around several main arguments, the first of which is that America must become energy independent. I fully agree with those sentiments: America only produces 5 million barrels of oil a day, yet consumes 20 million, meaning 75% of our oil comes from other producers, some of whom have no love for this country. The second argument builds off the first: we must tap into American energy sources to gain more independence. Again, I completely agree with that argument. The third argument is that natural gas is one of the best American energy resources, therefore we must tap into it, as we have more than 100 years of natural gas that we can produce domestically. There is of course nothing wrong with any of the above arguments.

But where the Pickens Plan starts to go awry is when you look at the nuts and bolts of how the Plan would work. First, as many know, American cars and big rigs don’t currently run on natural gas, so there would have to be a massive overhaul of vehicles.

(more…)

We thought tax reform meant lowering rates and broadening the base by eliminating or cutting back on various deductions, credits, and loopholes. That’s what the Bowles-Simpson commission proposed. That’s what Paul Ryan and David Camp are working on. And that’s the pro-growth model.

But President Obama unveiled a much different tax-reform vision in his much-anticipated debt speech on Wednesday. He would raise tax rates on upper-income earners and small businesses. He also would eliminate deductions and credits, or so called “tax expenditures.” The president referred to these tax-expenditure reductions as “spending cuts.” In his context, they most certainly are not. They are more tax hikes.

Basically, the president is giving successful earners and small-business filers a double tax hike. That’s what it really is.

Of course, the president’s formula of estimating higher revenues to lower the deficit is completely wrong. The reality is that higher tax rates will slow the economy, inhibit new start-up companies, penalize investors, and may very well lose revenues and increase the deficit.

In the latter part of his speech the president did mention some kind of middle-class and corporate tax reform. But he gave no specifics.

(more…)