by | ARTICLES, BLOG, CONSTITUTION, ECONOMY, GOVERNMENT, HYPOCRISY, LAW
The most recent stimulus package gives money to one segment of the population by taking money from another segment of the population. Since wealth transfers cannot reasonably be inferred as any of the acts allowable by the federal government under the Constitution, the Stimulus Act is blatantly unconstitutional.
The recent stimulus checks from the federal government are a pure, vote buying giveaway. Neither need nor negative impact from Covid are factors in getting these payments. While some people have experienced financial difficulties over the past year, the majority of workers are doing okay or better than they were pre-COVID. Because the economy is in a strong growth spurt, there is really no need for a general stimulus at this point. (It would be reasonable to help those impacted by covid, but this is only a very small portion of the recipients). Yet these stimulus checks are being provided to all taxpayers who earn under the government-defined income threshold ($150,000 married, $75,000 single).
Now in order to pay for the stimulus, Biden is increasing taxes on the wealthy — which includes taxpayers who were above the arbitrary line and therefore ineligible to receive a check. There couldn’t be a more direct relationship of taking money from one group and giving it to another.
This very act is a constitutional violation as the Constitution does not allow for wealth transfer.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, COVID, ECONOMY, POLITICS
Alan Blinder is a distinguished economist who insists on misleading the public about economic matters. The latest affair is found in Blinder’s Op-Ed, “A Speedy Recovery Depends on More Aid: Will Trump Deliver?” wherein Blinder deliberately misleads his readers about the economy and the road to recovery. Here are some of his statements:
- “Mr. McConnell is a roadblock to more relief funds.” It wasn’t McConnell, but Pelosi who refused to talk. McConnell put forth a relief package but because it did not include the extra state and local bailout funds desired by Pelosi, Pelosi would not even consider it. Yet, Blinder omits this. The assertion that McConnell is the one who is a “roadblock” is not only a difference of opinion, it’s an outright lie.
- “Senators and the public need to understand that it was CARES and the rest that propped up the economy “artificially” as the virus was pulling it down.” The economy is not artificially propped up. It is well on it’s way back to where it was prior to COVID. In fact, just a paragraph prior to this one, Blinder notes that the recovery has been V-shaped, yet he suggests here that the relief given by CARES somehow wasn’t real relief. And if relief packages are indeed “artificial props”, why does he want another one? But what’s even worse is that Blinder, an economist mind you, believes so much in the CARES Act, but if anything, CARES restricted economic growth in the economy by paying people not to work and reducing incentives to work, so the recovery that we have experienced is despite the CARES Act, not because of it.
- “Americans are suffering from the tragic results of the Trump administration’s malign neglect of the virus.” Nothing could be more politically upside down. Trump was the first to restrict travel while the Dems screamed it was wrong to do so. Likewise, his vaccine programs have been aggressive enough to produce multiple vaccines that are now being implemented in the public. Blinder puts the blame on Trump, yet it was the states, not Trump, who imposed the lockdowns — many excessive and some still ongoing — that have shuttered industries and businesses. Some of these will never recover, yet the economic consequences of prolonged shutdowns are real, and rest squarely on the shoulders of states.
- “State and local governments, which are on the front lines in the battle against the virus, urgently need several hundred billion dollars in federal aid. They must balance their budgets.” Here’s the biggest falsehood. Blinder fails to mention that many states and local governments were in economic dire straits prior to COVID as a result of profligate spending and fiscal mismanagement, and this irresponsibility directly affects those particular governments’ recovery efforts today. The states with the biggest budget problems pre-COVID are the ones begging for the biggest bailouts. They are also the ones who have implemented some of the harshest and irrational lockdowns that have made things even worse. What’s more, these same governments have steadfastly refused to institute common sense restrictions on themselves such as freezing pay, furloughing workers, etc. It’s egregious, but Blinder just wants to paper over that part by calling for “balanced budgets.” None of these people who spent recklessly never cared for balanced budgets prior to now. And without changing spending habits nor making drastic cuts to the budget in the future will go right back to being in the hole.
- “These folks have pretty straightforward needs: cash income, food, shelter and health care. The federal government knows how to provide these things.” This is cringe-worthy. Blinder forgets that it’s the American people who are the source of economic prosperity and he forgets that it is their taxpayer money earned through hard work and ingenuity.
This article reveals that Blinder really is a shill for the Democrats, and used his column to mislead people into believing that bailing out states and local governments is the only way our economy is to be “saved.” But it makes virtually no economic sense to spend massive amounts of taxpayer funds to cover up fiduciary irresponsibility. It would be reckless for Congress to commit any more money to such endeavors. McConnell knows this. We know this. Just about everyone knows this except for those leaders and governments who have never shown themselves to be accountable with someone else’s money — which is how they got in their financial budget shortfalls in the first place.
Those are not leaders. Blinder does a disservice to his readers by espousing some of the worst economic fallacies that will ultimately hurt, rather than help, fellow Americans.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, BUSINESS, ECONOMY, POLITICS, TAXES
Earlier this year, California passed AB5, a measure that would require companies to reclassify independent contractors as employees. The problem is that the government is yet again intruding on employer-employee relationships under the guise of worker protections. Furthermore, it’s an attempt to put unions even more in charge of things in California while also purporting to provide more revenue to a nearly-bankrupt state, all doomed to failure because of its economic ignorance.
AB5 affects those workers who belong to the gig economy. “Gig economy” is the catchphrase for the portion of the economy made up of freelancers and independent consultants. It’s estimated that 1 in 3 workers now, about 55 million, fall into this category. The gig economy has grown to be very good because it provides much-needed work flexibility and independence that many workers prioritize.
The mechanism by which freelance workers are deemed employees is the “ABC test.” This is the court created formula that companies must apply in order to determine if workers are contractors instead of employees, and it puts the burden of proof on employers. A worker is a contractor if he meets the following three criteria:
1) The worker is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the work’s performance, both under the contract for the performance of the work and in fact.
2) The worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business.
3) The worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as the work performed
There is no economic or business rationale to these tests – they were created solely to destroy the concept of independent contractor by making virtually all relationships that of employer/employee. The IRS, on the other hand, has established criteria for what constitutes a real employee based on behavioral control, financial control and relationship of the parties. It should also be noted that if the IRS follows the AB5 definition of employee for Californians, the employees will be devastated! That is because under IRS tax rules, employees may not deduct any business expenses, which is a critical tax benefit to the independent contractor relationship.
It is particularly frustrating that advocates of AB5 purposefully ignore the fact that the gig economy arose during the weak Obama economy, which was littered with ever-increasing government regulations and crushing legislation such as Obamacare. This combination made it difficult to become a business or stay in business. It was certainly no wonder that businesses sought alternative forms of employer-employee relationships, which is their inherent right to do so. AB5 now undermines those relationships.
Furthermore, AB5 essentially picks winners and losers; large swaths of independent contractors are exempt, while others have restrictions, and still others are not exempt at all. Among those exempt include: “insurance brokers, doctors, dentists, lawyers, architects, engineers, private investigators, accountants, investment agents, salespeople, commercial fishermen, and real estate agents.” Among those partially exempt include journalists and freelance media-makers such as photographers, but they are now limited in their number of contributions to 35 items per year. Those industries not exempt at all include Uber and Lyft, companies who successfully arose as alternative transportation options during the rise of the gig economy.
And yet, there are really no winners here. Certain industries are exempt, but there’s no justification to do that from a logical point of view. The sole reason why some have an exemption is because they have too strong of a lobby or union presence — which is an irrational justification. There will also be a never-ending succession of lawsuits, as workers try to avoid being treated as an employee. The only winners will be the lawyers.
The gig economy has proven to be a resourceful alternative for workers who seek a myriad of benefits, including work independence, flexible schedules, side money, and increased quality of work-life balance. Now that the economy has recovered from the anemic and over-regulated Obama years, governments such as California are happy to cash in on its success while strangling its workers and businesses with unnecessary, burdensome measures. AB5 will ultimately weaken the economy and destroy some businesses in its wake.
by | ARTICLES, CONSTITUTION, ELECTIONS, POLITICS, TAXES
On November 3, Illinois residents have a Constitutional referendum to change their method of taxation from a flat tax to a “fair tax.” The current system treats all Illinois taxpayers the same by levying a modest 4.95% rate. Under the proposed change, taxpayers would be divided among multiple tiers with a progression of increased rates based on higher levels of income, and both individual and corporate rates would be affected. By removing the Constitutional provision against graduated-rate taxes, the power of taxation is given to the state lawmakers who can decide varying levels of rates for various groups of taxpayers with a simple majority vote. In contrast, the flat tax provides some protection against outrageously high rates because it is impractical and politically unpopular to do so among certain segments of the population.
In anticipation of the referendum passing, the Illinois legislature passed a tax plan that would be implemented on January 1, 2021. Although the Illinois governor — like most progressive morons — has assured taxpayers that the change won’t affect most residents, the impact of the new plan will indeed have dire consequences for many individuals. The new tax rates range from 4.75% to 7.99%. While the lowest 20% of earners will see a decrease in rates, that translates into a whopping $6.00 on the median average earnings of $12,400. On the other end of the spectrum, the new plan includes not only higher rates, but also a recapture provision for highest earners, so that not just their marginal income, but their entire income, is taxed at the 7.99% rate. What’s more, the new plan does not index for inflation on marginal income levels which will result in taxes consuming a greater percentage of taxpayer income if income levels do not increase.
Businesses will also be adversely impacted. The base corporate rate will increase to 7.99%.
However, Illinois also has an additional set of taxes (called the PPRT) levied on corporate and pass-through income of 2.5% and 1.5% respectively. Combined with the new business rate, corporate income tax would be 10.49% and pass-through income tax would be 9.49%. At a time when businesses are struggling due to the pandemic, increased taxes only worsen the situation. Additionally, the business rate will be one of the highest in the nation, making Illinois a less competitive state in which to do business.
The new tax plan is intended to be a revenue raiser, originally calculated to be $3.6 billion in the first year — but that was before COVID-19. Yet the fiscal woes facing Illinois are overwhelmingly derived from massive overspending and ballooning pension obligations, and no tax hike will begin to fix it. According to Illinois Policy, the upcoming budget includes nearly $6 billion in deficit spending, with pension costs consuming more than 27% of expected general revenues. Furthermore, Illinois faces a current $4.6 billion shortfall. Without a balanced budget to restrain spending — Illinois has not seen one in 20 years — tax hikes will be inevitable. And by enacting the “fair tax,” Illinois lawmakers have the power of the purse to raise taxes and levy surcharges at their discretion.
According to revised revenue forecasts from the governor’s office, if the fair tax is enacted, the budget gap is approximately $6.2 billion; if the fair tax is not enacted, the estimated budget gap is approximately $7.4 billion. The change from a flat tax to a graduated tax imposed on Illinoisians is simply not worth the $1.2 billion in possible additional revenue when the legislature can’t even be bothered to find a way to cut spending. Governor Pritzker’s attempt to introduce equity in the tax code by making higher earners pay their fair share will hurt all taxpayers and businesses, especially at a time when the effects of COVID-19 on the economy are devastating across the board. The proposed “fair tax” is anything but for the taxpayers of Illinois.
by | ARTICLES, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, LAW
Everyone is aware of the tragic death of Breonna Taylor and its surrounding circumstances. But many are calling for murder charges against the police officers who did the shooting, and are calling the event evidence of systemic racism. Both positions are ridiculously off base.
The grand jury did not charge any officers with the killing of Ms. Breonna Taylor in her home. The mainstream media would have you believe that this means that the grand jury was derelict in its duties. This skewed, biased view from the media is ignorant of the facts. The evidence clearly delineated that no laws were broken in connection with Ms Taylor’s shooting – the officers were acting within the legal confines of a warrant. The blame for this horrible outcome may well have been that the warrant was issued too easily and with terms that might create an unnecessarily dangerous situation. In fact, none of the actions by the police officers could be counted as homicide or murder nor could they be chalked up to systematic racism. Don’t let the media blind your vision as to where the real injustice is occurring: police warrants.
As Americans who have agreed to live within a republican system of justice, we have no right to contest the grand jury’s decision. However, we do have every right to contest the laws that created this situation. Laws can be flawed and as thoughtful citizens of a republic we have every right to go through the proper channels and request a change of law where we see fit. If the problem is a too aggressive approach by law enforcement, maybe No-Knock warrants should not be allowable, or at least much more restricted. The way to fix the problems that gave rise to the Taylor tragedy is not societal upheaval over racial injustice, as the grand jury found no clear racial motivation involved in the case. No – the answer is criminal law reform, specifically in relation to laws surrounding warrants.
The claim of systemic racism also has no basis. The police entered the home due to a narcotics case with a legally valid warrant to do what was necessary within the home to complete their objectives. The wrongdoing in this case is rather coming from why policemen are busting in in the middle of the night – who gave the order to do that, why is that allowed, and so many other questions that the media should be focusing on. If anyone is really looking to see where the problem was in the Taylor case, it was not the policemen executing a warrant nor the boyfriend who was shooting back in self-defense. Nothing in all this reflects anything about race. The media and demonstrators were charging racism long before the details of the case were known. That alone is clear evidence of the dishonesty of those claiming racism was the cause.
Criminal law reform is where the focus must be if we are actually going to create a better America. Someone’s head should roll. Not the policemen but those who set the dominos in motion. Maybe it’s not a particular person that needs correction but a whole system created by a host of people. The system is the problem. Let’s focus on fixing that.
by | ARTICLES, BIDEN, BLOG, COVID, ECONOMY, ELECTIONS, OBAMA, TAXES
As Biden is gaining closer to winning the upcoming election, his economic plan deserves more scrutiny. So far, Biden is clearly looking to Obama for his policy aspirations. Unfortunately, Obama was following FDR’s playbook to the detriment of our economy. Let’s take a look:
Obama’s policies resulted in the poorest recovery since the New Deal, just as FDR’s meddling only prolonged America’s longest depression ever. Obama followed FDR’s failed playbook – he raised taxes, over-regulated businesses, gave organized labor excessive power, instituted policies that discouraged people from working, and hurt international trade.
Firmly entrenched in Keynesian economics, Obama believed in government spending while wholeheartedly crowding out private spending; he substituted inefficient political and crony-based spending for free-market, give-the-public-what-they want spending.
This week in the WSJ, Jay Starkman issued a warning on Biden’s plans, in “Bidenomics May Repeat FDR’s Blunder.” He notes, “Today the U.S. economy is recovering from a great crash, as it was before Roosevelt’s tax onslaught. Unfortunately, Mr. Biden doesn’t seem to have learned the right lessons. Should he win in November, he proposes to cancel the Trump tax cuts, raising the top federal income-tax rate back to 39.6%, and raise the corporate income tax from 21% to 28%. He also promises to limit low capital-gains tax rates to the first $1 million in profits and extend the full Social Security tax to income above $400,000.” With Biden also promising to increase regulation and institute energy policy that will produce less energy at a much higher cost, danger is in the wind.
Why go back to the policies that have so clearly failed us before. After three years of robust economic activity during Trump’s administration before the onslaught of COVID, this country can neither risk nor afford Biden’s plans.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, ELECTIONS, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, HYPOCRISY, LAW, POLITICS
With Kamala Harris as the Democrat’s Vice-Presidential candidate, it’s important to know that she has committed some rather egregious trespasses as a prosecutor. Just as disturbing is her fluctuating policy positions, calling into serious question her attempt to presently appear as a criminal justice reformer. Instead, Harris should be known for 1) her criminality and very poor judgement as a prosecutor 2) her hypocrisy, and 3) her opportunism.
One of the biggest areas of concern is her prosecutorial misconduct. In many instances, she basically acted as a rogue prosecutor who should have possibly been charged criminally for her own actions in some of the following incidents:
*During a case in 2015 in which a prosecutor concocted a confession from the defendant, thereby leading to the case being dismissed, Harris’s Attorney General’s office appealed the dismissal.
*During a case in 2015 in which a prosecutor in his case fabricated information to a jury relating to compensation to an informant, Harris’s Attorney General’s office fought the defendant’s appeal.
*During a case in which the entire Orange County DAs office was removed from the trial for failure to turn over evidence, Harris sought to block the removal.
*During a case in which a man was wrongfully imprisoned for 13 years, Harris’s office attempted to keep him locked up.
*After a crime lab technician purposefully tainted evidence in a vast amount of cases, Harris hid his actions while acting as a San Francisco DA.
Furthermore, Kamala Harris has worked on rebranding herself from previously being tough on crime to more sympathetic to justice warriors. For instance:
* Until 2014, Harris was against the legalization of marijuana while acting as the Attorney General of California.
* Harris declined to support criminal justice sentencing reforms that were on the ballot in California in 2012 and 2014.
* Harris’s office opposed an order to lessen the amount of prisoners in California, while supporting the use of prisoners as laborers due to the low cost.
* During her time serving as the Attorney General in California, Harris supported the dubious practice of civil asset forfeiture under the guise of going after drug operations.
Additionally, Harris was eager to be in the spotlight while moving up the political chain in California; two ridiculous incidents in particular come to mind.
*While running for US Senate, Harris’s office arrested the owners of Backpage, a site for classified sex workers, after publicly declaring that they “were protected from prosecution under federal speech law.” The case was promptly thrown out by a judge.
*While running for US Senate, Harris’s office went after for-profit colleges in California as part of an Obama initiative, while subsequently refusing to release any buyer of potential future liability– meaning anyone purchasing would be under constant threat of a lawsuit. Subsequently, no buyer would accept the terms. The Corinthian college system therefore shuttered 23 schools, putting people out of work and education.
Kamala Harris has repeatedly shown to have no moral compass. Her actions as a prosecutor should be alarming, as well as her hypocritical flip-flopping of positions. She has shown to be a mercurial political opportunist and has no business being a Vice-Presidential candidate.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, ECONOMY, ELECTIONS, POLITICS
I was shocked to read “Get Ready for the Biden Stock Boom” in the pages of the Wall Street Journal, written by a former editor of Barron’s, no less. Ed Finn really, really wants you to support Joe Biden and his article is full of so much wishful thinking that it reads like a Disney Fairy Tale — except in reality, there will be no happy ending.
To be fair, Ed Finn does acknowledge that the stock market will certainly experience some turbulence if Joe Biden is elected — but that’s because smart investors know that socialist policies are coming in the form of higher taxes, strangling regulation, and ridiculous legislation such as the “Green New Deal.” You think Obama was bad for the economy? Wait until Biden gets in there.
Yet after laying out the coming economic reality, Ed Finn still wants you to believe in Joe Biden, and the rest of his analysis is basically dependent on the word IF. You can’t make this up:
“IF a President Biden can control the federal budget deficit, IF he can forge better relationships with America’s trading partners, IF he can reverse some of President Trump’s anti-immigration policies, IF he can bring a less combative atmosphere to Washington and the nation, there is no reason to think that during his term average annual stock returns, including dividends, can’t be in the 10% range, as they have for the past 95 years.”
It should be noted that even with all the “if’s” coming true, they have no positive economic consequence. They would be nice, but not economically powerful.
How does he spell out how Joe Biden’s going to improve the economy: “Given Mr. Biden’s ambitious plans to use increased tax revenue to fund more spending on green energy, health care and infrastructure, it’s conceivable he could spur the U.S. economy enough to push annual stock returns to 15%.” Ed Finn must think that the readers of the Wall Street Journal are stupid. To think that anything relating to “green energy” isn’t detrimental to the economy is economically illiterate. We already have efficient fossil fuels, but the Democrats would happily pay three times as much for less energy to be environmentally woke — and that’s supposed to improve the economy? That’s either ignorant or socialist or both. And see how Finn continues to use wishful language: “it’s conceivable he could spur the U.S. economy enough to push annual stock returns to 15%.” That’s because neither Finn’s analysis nor Biden’s policies are actually grounded in any sort of economic reality, only fantasy.
On the other hand, what we do know is that there are multiple policy proposals that WILL have negative economic consequences, none of which will come close to offsetting any of the rosy positives that Finn is pinning his hopes on. The main threats Biden poses to the stock market are increased regulation and higher taxes. Increased regulation will inevitably result in slowed economic growth, and with that decreased profits and a less robust stock market. But that’s not even the worst of it. Two specific initiatives will affect the stock market both in the short- and long-term: 1) Raising taxes on corporate profits from 21% 28% and 2) Nearly doubling the capital-gains tax from 20% to 39.6% on income over $1 million/year — and don’t forget the investment-tax surcharge of 3.8%! Of course, Biden plans to raise taxes on nearly every taxpayer regardless.
Ed Finn ought to be ashamed for penning such an unrealistic economic outlook with Joe Biden at the helm. Increased taxation, crushing regulation, and impudent legislation never improves the economy or the lives of the American people.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, BUSINESS, ECONOMY
I was disappointed to read “How the Bidens Dodged the Payroll Tax” last week in the WSJ, not because Biden is a good guy, but because the author of the screed, Chris Jacobs, gets it all wrong. Those of you who read my columns regularly know that I’m no fan of Biden, but in this case, Biden is in the right. There is nothing legally wrong with how he structured and paid his taxes – to the contrary, it elucidates an ongoing tax inequity that was completely missed in the article.
In order to understand what Biden did and didn’t do, you need to understand a little bit about s-Corps, LLCs, partnerships, and Social Security taxes. Foremost is that Social Security taxes are imposed on individuals’ earned income – salaries for employees and earned business income for independent earners. It is a tax on earned income — and only earned income. It’s money contributed from your work that goes into your retirement social security pension, not your business profits, interest and dividends income, capital gains or anything else. Social security is calculated from your working history, because you are taxed only on your earned income. That’s why it’s dubbed the payroll tax.
So now let’s look at some different scenarios. Say you work for a business operated as a C corp or S corp, and you also are a stockholder in that business. The money you get as a stockholder — such as dividends–is not working income so you do not pay the Social Security tax. But the money you earn on your labor for your work in this company – salary – up to $137,700 (for 2020)- is subject to the social security tax.( Amounts earned over the $137,700 is still subject to the much smaller Medicare Tax).
But it gets more complicated when you consider partnerships (or LLC’s which are taxed as partnerships). If you work for and are also an owner of a partnership, your share of the partnership income – both for your labor and share of profits are included in one number reported to you on a K-1 form. And the full amount is subjected to the social security tax. For instance, say you are a 50% owner of an architecture partnership and the firm makes $2 million, you would get a K-1 form showing $1 million. Though that would be for both labor and profit, you would have to pay Social Security tax on the full amount.
But if you are structured as an s-Corp, you pay yourself a salary. If the architecture firm were an s-Corp and it earned $2 million and each shareholder received a $400K salary and netted $600K in profit, they only pay the Social Security tax on the earned income, the $400K. And this is exactly what Biden did. He paid tax on his earned income.
So with an S-corp, you have cleared defined salary and (hopefully) profits. It is conceivable that, in Biden’s case, his salary was too low. That is a bit unclear. But what is absolutely clear is that the business is not all labor and therefore he should not be paying Social Security on the full amount. The problem, therefore, isn’t that Biden did something wrong or that he used an S-Corp “loophole” to “get away with” only paying tax on some portion of the business. The problem is that just because someone is a business owner should not mean that he has to pay social security tax on his business profits. Remember Social Security is a tax only on earned income and thus Biden rightly paid the Social Security tax only on his salary. The real problem is that partnerships, unlike their C-corp and S-corp counterparts, have to unjustly pay the full Social Security tax on both their labor and profits. This is the real problem with the tax code that has needed reform for many years. Biden and Trump would do well to address this inequality in the future.
by | ARTICLES, BUSINESS, ECONOMY, FREEDOM, POTUS, TRUMP
When I read commentary by people associated with the Club for Growth — known for promoting the rule of law, low taxes, small government, low tariffs, economic growth, etc. — I expect to find analysis consistent with their principles. Therefore, the recent CNS News article on 8/10, “American Manufacturers Come Back, Thanks to Trump,” took me completely by surprise because it was essentially the rantings of someone who is economically ignorant. Ken Blackwell, former elected official in Ohio and current member of the Board of Directors for the Club for Growth advocates for protectionism, pure and simple.
Blackwell praises how Trump instituted “strategic counter-tariffs on bad actors such as China to combat the effects of illegal and abusive trade practices that previously put companies like Whirlpool at an unfair disadvantage.” But this pro-tariff position runs counter to any competent economic analysis. Tariffs clearly and consistently hurt the consumer and taxpayer by driving costs up to everybody in amounts far in excess than any benefits given to those crony beneficiary companies. To call a tariff a “pro-growth economic policy” as Blackwell does is utterly ridiculous, and his entire article reads like a cheap campaign ad.
Tariffs don’t “strengthen” American manufacturers as Blackwell believes; it is cronyism of the highest order. How the Club For Growth — as well as the National Taxpayers Union — can have someone on the board with views that are economically ignorant and destructive to our economy is beyond comprehension.
