Article: Newt the Supply-Side Sizzler

I thought this column by Larry Kudlow was so good that I decided to reprint it here (yellow highlights are my own). Newt's tone comes across as a little bizarre, but the deeper point in my mind is that Newt is looking at a different American future than most of the rest of us. This is a great thing. I think Newt can pick up where Jack Kemp left off in leading us toward an American renaissance:

Say what you will about former Speaker Newt Gingrich. His philosophy, his policy proposals, his track record, his campaign, and all the rest. But the one thing you have to acknowledge about Gingrich is that he’s a sizzler. He has a way with words. And he’s as good a communicator as anyone in modern politics.

In my CNBC interview with Gingrich this week, he slammed President Obama’s tax-the-rich, class-warfare attack on bank’s and businesspeople. He hammered Obama, calling him a hard-left radical who is opposed to free enterprise, capitalism, and “virtually everything which made America great.”

It was a brutal, frontal, hard-hitting attack on the president. He called Obama “the candidate of food stamps, the finest food-stamp president in American history.” He said, “I want to get equality by bringing people up. [Obama] wants to get equality by bringing people down.” He said, “I want to be the guy who says, ‘I want to help every American have a better future.’ [Obama] wants to make sure that he levels Americans down so we all have an equally mediocre future.”

Now, I haven’t heard any of the other GOP candidates offer that kind of response to Obama’s recent class-warfare speech. Maybe I’m missing something. But I haven’t heard it from Mitt Romney or the others in a sizzle fashion, which is the way Gingrich operates.

Frankly, Romney ought to be beating back Obama right now. He should at least be asserting that America’s free-enterprise, capitalist system rewards success, not punishes it, and that free-market economics — including supply-side tax-cut policies, worked in the 1920s under Calvin Coolidge, in the 1960s under Democrat John F. Kennedy, and again in the 1980s under Ronald Reagan.

In fact, Bill Clinton joined with Gingrich in the 1990s to slash the capital-gains tax, cut spending, and enact welfare reform, all of which kept the Reagan boom going. Over 40 million jobs were created in the two decades that followed Reagan’s supply-side tax cut.

Gingrich made a special point during our talk to reestablish his supply-side bona fides. He said to me, “you’re a witness to this. I was part of [Jack] Kemp’s little cabal of supply-siders.” And then came Gingrich’s most sizzling point: “You can make an argument that I helped Mitt Romney get to be rich, because I helped pass the legislation.”

So I asked, “Have you ever made that argument to him?” And Gingrich said, “I am as of right this minute. Just occurred to me.” He went on to say that Romney “should be thanking me because I did the macroeconomic things necessary to make his career possible.”

This is a Gingrich putdown of Romney, is it not? The former Massachusetts governor’s primary attack on Gingrich is that he spent his whole life in professional politics, and therefore doesn’t understand how to grow the economy and create jobs. Romney, of course, had a terrific private-sector career at Bain Capital. And he rescued the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City. But Gingrich’s putdown here suggests that without supply-side economic policies, somehow Romney wouldn’t have succeeded. And that neuters Romney’s attack on Gingrich.

Seems to me that Romney needs to respond to the Gingrich putdown. And he needs to make his case in the Gingrich sizzler context.

Years ago, as a rookie running for the Senate against Ted Kennedy, Romney disavowed Ronald Reagan on a number of occasions. Later on, in 1996, Romney ran ads attacking Steve Forbes’ presidential run and flat tax. Since then, Romney has come into the Reagan camp, and that’s fine by me. He also bills himself as a tax reformer. But outside of a corporate tax cut, Romney has offered no across-the-board tax-reform plan for individuals and small-business owners.

He needs to do this if he’s to fight back against Gingrich. He needs to reassert his supply-side credentials and clarify his policy path to prosperity.

Please make no mistake. I am not endorsing here at all. I have a very high regard for Mitt Romney. What I’m looking for is strong competition for tax-reform ideas. Gingrich has a 15 percent optional flat tax. Rick Perry has a 20 percent plan. Herman Cain had 9-9-9. Jon Huntsman has a strong Bowles-Simpson-type tax reform. But where is Romney?

Romney has a good budget-reform program and has endorsed Paul Ryan’s health-care reforms. He has a sound regulatory-rollback strategy. He has moved towards sound money by saying he will not reappoint Ben Bernanke. But at the top of Reagan’s economic-growth plan was an across -the-board tax cut. And it worked.

Republican primary voters are highly supportive of supply-side tax-reform ideas. If Romney is to stop his slide in the polls, and reposition himself as the GOP campaign’s leader, he must respond to Newt Gingrich with a pro-growth tax-reform plan that sizzles.

– Larry Kudlow, NRO’s economics editor, is host of CNBC’s The Kudlow Report and author of the daily web log, Kudlow’s Money Politic$.

The Tax Debate Our Country Needs

With Chairman Mao, or uh, Obama in charge on the nation, we can expect little in the way of positive tax reform that would relieve the burden on the American population.

Enter the Republican Presidential candidates.  There are many good ideas on the table, and most of them reform the current system.  If we continue to just tinker with the current system, we will continue to get nowhere.  Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, even Jon Huntsman, and now Rick Perry have offered attempts to change the tax system.

The Wall Street Journal has written this piece called The Flat-Tax Sweepstakes.  The column is a good read, but here are three paragraphs that make the case:

Rick Perry joined the GOP's tax reform sweepstakes on Tuesday, proposing an optional flat income tax of 20%, among other fiscal and economic reforms. We'll get to the details, but the larger story is how the drive for a flatter, simpler, more pro-growth tax code is taking center stage in the Republican Presidential contest.

Mr. Perry joins Newt Gingrich, who has proposed a 15% optional flat tax; Jon Huntsman, whose reform proposal would cut the top individual rate to 23%; and Herman Cain and his now famous 9-9-9 plan. House Republicans included a reform with a 25% top rate in their budget earlier this year. All of this ferment shows that whatever one thinks of the candidates as potential Presidents, most of them are trying to meet the political moment with reforms to address our major economic challenges.

------- 

The good news is that Mr. Perry and most of his competitors are thinking big, with proposals that will reverse the U.S. slide to high-debt, slow-growth stagnation. President Obama wants to portray the economic debate as pro-growth government spenders vs. the austerity of budget cutting. But the real debate is over whether government or the private economy is the main engine of prosperity. The flat tax puts Republicans on the side of private growth and government reform, a potent combination. Perhaps Mr. Perry and his comrades can even coax Mitt Romney to join the party.

A Trivial Question About Presidential Candidates

I was talking with a friend a few days ago about the upcoming 2012 Presidential election. As we talked about candidates, my friends list of potential candidates was interesting to me, and one thing stuck out to me: none of the names on the list were people currently serving in Washington DC. As I pointed that out to my friend, the response was, "Exactly".

We discussed this for a while. It was pointed out to me that those in Washington just serve as members of the "peanut gallery". I realized that Obama came from the Senate, and while he was able to criticize President Bush from his then (and current) role as national Commentator-In-Chief, he was never a leader before and that has hindered him from being effective as Marxist-In-Chief.

So, does it help someone like Newt Gingrich who served in Congress, then left Congress to run for President later? What about Herman Cain, a man who has actually run businesses, created jobs, achieved profits and balanced a real budget? What about Governors like Time Pawlenty, Mitch Daniels and Chris Christie?

I'm interested in hearing what you think about this. Should our nominee be from outside of the Congress? What about names like Jim DeMint or Paul Ryan? I used the word "trivial" in the title of this post, I did that because I want a serious national discussion and dialogue about the real questions of our time. If the 2012 election turns into a non-sensical popularity contest, that gets us nowhere.

Nine Words That Could Change The Debate In America

This past week I heard possible Presidential candidate Herman Cain say something a couple of times. I wanted to elaborate on it, and describe what I think it means. Mr. Cain is not shy about taking questions when he is speaking with a group of people, or even while hosting his radio show. People frequently ask things such as "how will you get Congress to pass this bill" or "how do you expect to get this done when other Presidents have failed". Cain is very quick to say nine simple words, "when the people understand it, they will demand it". I think there is great power in those nine words.

I hear the nine words and immediately think back to Ronald Reagan. One could argue that Citizen Reagan made his first big foray into national politics in 1964 when he gave his speech on behalf of Senator Barry Goldwater, a speech dubbed "A choice, not an echo". If one goes from 1964, then counts Governor Reagan's years leading California, his campaign in 1976, his speeches in 1977 and 1978, and then his Presidential run that started in 1979 and ended when he left the Oval Office in 1989, that is 24 years that Ronald Reagan, Governor Reagan and President Reagan was telling the tale of America. I call it a narrative, and I'm not alone.

Many times, Reagan did not just give speeches, he told a story that captured attention, he got people to believe in what he had to say, and he had the citizens of America on his side in many of the policies he pursued. Reagan never really stopped telling the story, as a public figure, he told the story until he left office. Though he may have never actually said the nine words "when the people understand it, they will demand it", Reagan obviously lived by the idea.

In modern day politics there is not much time to explain issues and policies. There is no such thing as a candidate educating the public. Not for lack of trying, but there never seems to be enough interest in it. Political campaigns too often turn into popularity contests and big media wars with tv ads and radio commercials than tell us who they are, but little else. Then, at some point in the campaigns, it becomes time for the ads to turn negative, and at that point, civil discourse turns bad, and we are more likely to hear why a candidate is bad, not why the candidate is worth voting for, and we certainly aren't getting educated about issues and policies.

Enter Herman Cain. A man not willing to let a question go unanswered. If he doesn't have an answer, he'll be forthright enough about that to tell you, and then tell you he will find an answer. He's not about to blow smoke or improvise. Take issues like the Fair Tax, immigration reform or health care. Issues with no easy, simple answers. But they are issues where Mr. Cain is able to really elaborate on specific points, tell us why we should want it, and then rally us to want it for America. If America is understanding and then demanding, a President is doing his job. It will take another great communicator to right the ship as it currently sails.

Voters will eventually go the polls to determine the Republican nominee for President. I hope the voters will get beyond some of the trivial questions we often ask ourselves, and instead will ask themselves which candidate will do the best job of challenging America to be better, which candidate will do the best job of communicating our message to America and which candidate will do the best job of putting "us" back into the process.

For me, these questions trump the questions about which candidate can raise the most money, which candidate can invest the most personal wealth or which candidate looks the best with a rifle in their hands. I want to win. Let's choose the candidate with the best chance to reach, inspire and convince the most Americans. In my opinion, that man is Herman Cain. With nine words in his arsenal, the rest of us can now get to work.

Arizona And Discourse In America

Because of the political nature (by this I mean that a politician was apparently targeted) of the shootings that took place in Tucson on Saturday, I have been thinking about politics for most of the day. As we have learned more and more about the murderer, it has become apparent that he was a very troubled person. One of the things most apparent to me in the aftermath of the shootings is the heated, rhetoric filled dialog from everyone. This has really had me thinking a lot about discourse in this country, and I have taken that a step further in looking at the 2012 Presidential election.

Since July of 2010 I have firmly been supporting Herman Cain for President in 2012. I saw Mr. Cain speak at an event in Austin hosted by American for Prosperity on July 4th weekend. His speech that day from the beginning to the end was filled with hopeful comments. But beyond the "hope" I heard, I heard unconventional rhetoric, new ways of saying sold things. I started following Mr. Cain's radio show and his writings again, as I had in 2004 when he ran for the U.S. Senate in Georgia.

Mr. Cain has said something that has made me a believer of his, and I'll paraphrase, but when he's been asked about his conservative views, he says "Conservative? You bet, I call it common sense." Touche.

Recently on his radio show, Mr. Cain released and read what he called Common Sense Solutions: The People's Platform for America. If you don't know Herman Cain, you have some catching up to do. But Herman is a thinker, it's part of what made him a business success for many years. The People's Platform for America is a well thought out, intelligent list of issues in America, but it's a list with real solutions, smart solutions.

Anyway, I've been thinking a lot about my commitment to Herman Cain during the day today. I believe now, more than ever, that Herman Cain could start a level of national discourse that we need, and a level of discourse that lifts America up, rather than one that polarizes and places blame. If you agree with me, enlist to help Herman if and when he files for Presdident at www.DraftCain.org

Presidential Names For 2012, My Own Speculation

There's a lot of talk about the 2012 campaigns. It's early yes, and as much as I hate the early speculation before we're even at the November 2010 elections, allow me to join in the early speculation and go against my own preferences.

Here are my top contenders, in no particular order:

Congressman Paul Ryan - He has said he won't run and he states that his young children are the reason why. I see no reason not to take him at his word, but it doesn't mean I can't hope he'll run (and there's no reason he couldn't be a contender in 2016 and 2020). Congressman Ryan is pure and simply one of our movement's best idea generators. Ryan created the Roadmap For America's Future, a solid plan which is exactly counter to everything Barrack Hussein Obama has offered in his first 20 months in office. Ryan's congressional website is one of the better house websites around. Recently Ryan delivered the Republicans weekly address. One of my favorite lines from that address: "Let’s make the tough, forward-looking choices that will restore the promise and prosperity of this exceptional nation".

Herman Cain - I personally met Herman Cain in Georgia in 2004 when he was running for United State Senate. What a dynamic and captivating individual. Cain has maintained a public presence in recent years and I think he could be building his national name ID slowly but surely. He hosts a daily radio show on WSB in Atlanta, he writes and he speaks, traveling the country this summer with Americans For Prosperity speaking at the conferences in various states. Cain has a great personal story, growing up the son of a car driver who drove around wealthy business men, then later leading the resurgence of Godfather's Pizza chain.

Governor Mitch Daniels - Governor Daniels was recently told by Newt Gingrich to lead the media to believe he hasn't ruled out a run for President, that they would take him more seriously and give him more national coverage. So, I admit to not being sure what to make of the Governor's words and actions. Either way, Daniels has been an innovator and a real leader in Indiana. Earlier this year, George Will penned a column where he played out a scene in a future President Daniels administration. Mark McKinnon also weighed in with his thoughts on a Daniels candidacy.

Governor Chris Christie - The new Governor of New Jersey is making many friends in conservative circles online. Some of Governor Christie's speeches have been blunt and to the point. He has taken on the media. He visited with citizens at a Town Hall, and his speech became known as the "Day of Reckoning". He even told a teacher who was complaining about teacher pay that she didn't have to teach, this speech also generated a great line when the Governor said "unlike the United States of America, the state of New Jersey can't print money" with regard to people unhappy with certain budget cuts. Pragmatism at its finest. Not sure America is ready for that.

Former Speaker Newt Gingrich - For the record, I don't think Newt will run. I think he will lead people to think he is so that he is taken seriously as he proposes ideas, gives speeches and writes books, employing the strategy he suggested to Mitch Daniels above. Newt's work at American Solutions stands online in the depth and ideas he offers. A recent speech Newt delivered in Detroit could have been seen as a launching pad for anyone else in any given year, but for Newt it was business as usual: Ideas, ideas, ideas.

Liz Cheney - For those not familiar with the former Vice Presidents daughter and her qualifications, a brief bio will enlighten you. Liz Cheney has been a frequent and effective critic of the Obama Regime. Last year, Liz Cheney gave Anderson Cooper an education on CNN when he showed up less than prepared. A google search will reveal any number of great links to Cheney's writing and tv appearances. Cheney's group, Keep America Safe, released an ad earlier this year about Eric Holder and the DOJ. Cheney took some flack, but Erick Erickson at Red State came to her defense, here you can see both the ad and Erickson's response. Finally, in March of this year, Newsweek weighed in on Cheney at 2012. We'll have to wait and see.

I recently heard someone say they were sick and tired of Governors and Senators always being our candidates for President. I can see the sentiment there. I won't work my way down a list and automatically eliminate anyone who is or has been a Governor or Senator, but based on my list, Paul Ryan, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich and Liz Cheney would be good possibilities. I would also argue at this point that Governors Daniels and Christie are not typical of Governors past. Daniels has led Indiana during difficult times, he has made tough decisions and he has done some great things for the state through his leadership. Christie was elected, took office and has begun to act in the age of Obama, in times of extreme difficulty for America and for New Jersey, and for a Republican in New Jersey.

So that's my two cents, I am open to hearing what you think. Much like Obama was a no one in 2004 and got elected President 4 years later, is it possible we have no idea who the people are who will be our candidate(s) in 2016 and 2020?