“No president has had the run we’ve had in terms of creating jobs and bringing down inflation, It was 9% when I came to office — 9%,” he told CNN’s Erin Burnett.
Sorry, Joe. Inflation wasn’t 9% when Trump left office. You’re only off by about a factor of four. Actually, inflation was near a modern-era low of about 1.4% when you took over.
Here’s the Biden record on inflation versus Trump.
Next thing you know he’s going to start shaking hands with invisible people.
We received a tremendous response on our takedown of national conservatism/socialism in Tuesday’s HOTLINE and appreciate all the thoughtful comments from readers.
Many respondents were concerned about our critique of “globalism” – and so we feel compelled to clarify.
Yes, globalization – the free movement of capital, goods, and people across borders (lawfully) – is a positive force for human freedom and prosperity. Few policies have done more to raise living standards and reduce poverty - here and around the world - than the gains from trade. This is close to incontrovertible. The chart below shows that poverty goes down as the volume of trade goes up.
What we MEANT to say is that the move by the left for one-world government - such as globalized regulation, international climate treaties, redistribution of income schemes, and harmonized taxation (such as Janet Yellen’s global minimum tax) - are assaults on national sovereignty and a giant leap toward government tyranny. That is what we and all freedom lovers should resist.
3) MUST-READ: Art Laffer on Monetary and Fiscal Policy
A fantastic interview of our esteemed CTUP co-founder in the Financial Times:
CG: Instead of the monetary base, the Fed thinks that the US economy has been through a whole bunch of supply shocks — there was Covid, then we had an oil price shock and Europe had a natural gas price shock — and these shocks primarily caused inflation. Have they got it wrong?
AL: Yes. I mean, they’re completely correct on the shocks. But they blame anything that’s happened to be nearby for their foul-ups. You know, these people at the Fed — nice people — are not well trained. They’re not Paul Volcker, they’re not McChesney Martin [chair between 1951 and 1970], they’re not Alan Greenspan [chair from 1987 to 2006].
The way I see it, chair Jay Powell’s a fine guy but he asks his staff, “What’s the right policy?” Volcker told his staff what the right policy was. This Fed thinks they control interest rates, and so they use interest rates to change policy. Volcker used interest rates to follow market rates not to lead them...
CG: If we could talk about fiscal policy. The US has been running a deficit of 6 per cent of gross domestic product for quite a long time now. What’s going on?
AL: It’s higher than it should be, but it’s nothing to make you go, “Oh my god, I’m jumping off a cliff.” When you look at public debt, the way I ask the question is, how much would you borrow if I would lend to you at 2 per cent and let you invest at 10 per cent risk free? Or how much would you borrow at 10 per cent, invest at 2 per cent? It depends on the spread and if your spread is positive, debt is great for the country, but if your spread is negative, it’s awful for the country.
CG: One thing the Trump team has said is that you are a candidate to be Fed chair in 2026. What do you think?
AL: I’m 83. Unfortunately, George Shultz talked me into being his right-hand person in 1970 in the Nixon administration’s Office of Management and Budget. I was in the most anti-free market administration on Earth. I found out what I don’t do well. So I made a vow that I would never, ever work for a government again. Ever. And I’m going to stick to that.
Dr. Laffer is still our top pick for the job! Click the photo below to read the entire interview.
We polled swing-state voters earlier this year and found that most were unwilling to spend any significant amount of money to combat global warming.
Well, apparently neither are the Europeans.
The Wall Street Journal reports that the vaunted “energy transition” isn’t going so well throughout the EU, where the fight against fossil fuels has become a holy crusade among the political class.
Consumers are starting to pay for the energy transition, and they aren’t happy about it.
Governments that were among the earliest in the world to adopt climate legislation tried to take the sting out of the transition by motivating consumers with subsidies. Now, however, the same capitals are cash-strapped and many are passing the bill to the consumer. Subsidies are being scaled back, taxes tied to carbon emissions are being phased in, and rules requiring expensive renovations are starting to bite.
In France, consumers and farmers are revolting against rising prices and President Macron has suggested a “regulatory pause” to take the sting out of the costs. All while the EU is easing fossil fuel restrictions, and Germany is transitioning back TOWARD natural gas.
Gee, we thought that the green agenda was going to save consumers money. When? Where?
Governor Mike Parson of Missouri just signed into law a school choice expansion bill. It raises the cap on tax-credit scholarships from $50 million to $75 million, and the maximum eligible income from 200 percent to 300 percent of the federal poverty level. Bravo!
Our school choice coalition with ALEC, Job Creators Network, and a dozen other education freedom groups across the country is delivering. At least 13 states have passed new or expanded parental choice bills in the last two years – now including modest expansions in Missouri, Georgia, and Wyoming that are steps in the right direction, but not enough to declare victory.
We also see tremendous opportunity in Texas, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee.
