Join UP co-founder Stephen Moore, and other special guests THIS FRIDAY, January 17 at 2 PM EST for the last 2025 Presidential Transition webinar before the Inauguration.
A new study from our friends at the National Association of Manufacturers highlights the enormous stakes of the tax debate, with a massive impending tax hike coming at the end of this year, if Congress fails to act:
We would add to this list that the average household will get stuck with a $3,000 extra direct and indirect tax tab as well, if Congress doesn't act.
Defusing this ticking tax bomb is our top priority at our partner organization, Unleash Prosperity Now. We have launched a nationwide coalition called the Tax Cut Victory Alliance of taxpayer groups, small and large businesses, trade associations, scholars, state leaders, and conservative activists. Our goal - which Trump has endorsed - is to get a full extension and other added tax cuts, such as no tax on tips, on his desk within the first 150 days of his term.
2) The President Shouldn't Be Able to Unilaterally Raise Tariffs
Speaking of taxes, regular readers of the HOTLINE know that we are old-fashioned "strict constructionists" when it comes to the Constitution. And we also like to quote from the Constitution since no one else bothers to do it:
Article I, Section 7, Clause 1:
All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.
This seems pretty unambiguous. Yet, word on the street is that Trump is planning to impose an array of tariffs in his first few weeks in office.
Someone, please explain to us how Trump - or any President - can assert the authority to raise tariffs/taxes without congressional approval? Throughout history, major tariffs have been approved by the House and Senate.
Yes, we know there are laws on the books that delegate this power to the president in some circumstances. We also know that Trump uses tariff threats as negotiating leverage to get other countries to do what is in America's interests.
But our Founders wisely wanted to make it hard to raise taxes. Delegating unilateral taxing power to the president makes it way too easy.
But Harry Enten, CNN's senior data reporter, bluntly reported that searches for "wildfires" are up 2,400% so far this month and are the highest ever. But searches for "climate change" are down 9%, and lower even in fire-stricken California.
Enten says the Gallup Poll reports that the percentage of Americans who say they worry about climate change has barely budged in the last 30 years - "It was 35% according to Gallup in 1991 and in 2023 it's 39% - a statistically insignificant difference."
Enten concludes: "Americans are definitely interested in learning about these wildfires... but they are not making that connection with climate change."
4) Private Firefighters Helping Save the Day But Left Complains this Is Inequitable
It's not well known, but 45% of all firefighters in the U.S. are actually employed by private companies.
LA.'s public firefighters have worked heroically to contain the area's spreading wildfires but private companies are playing a vital role in saving homes and property.
A good thing, right?
Not to the left. They believe that if one person's home is burnt to the ground, it's not fair that other properties are spared.
Rick Caruso, a commercial real estate developer who began his career as a commissioner for L.A.'s city Water & Power Department, is being roasted for hiring private fire crews to save Palisades Village, an outdoor mall of three dozen shops he owns in fire-ravaged Pacific Palisades. It's not FAIR that his property and others have been spared. If one house burns down, every house should burn down.
The unions are griping too. "We consider them a liability," says Brian Rice, the head of the union that represents public firefighters. "Private contract companies are not trained or equipped to operate in this environment." Oh, so that's why everyone is hiring them!
Former UP executive director, Jon Decker, pointed out to us this chart of massive Fed losses on their lending activities.
With the Fed now operating at significant losses it so recently incurred, it strikes one as strange that they would be entrusted to tell profitable banks when, where, and how much, they can lend. It seems a bit like asking MySpace how to run Facebook.
We shouldn't be too surprised. The Fed has a long record of badly mishandling every aspect of its mandate, from maintaining the stability of the dollar, to regulating payments systems, to appropriately supervising banks. It would almost certainly fail a real stress test.
Jerome Powell's term as chairman can't end soon enough.
