The field of economics fully developed scientifically in the 20th century. The names John Maynard Keynes, Milton Friedman, and Friedrich Hayek come to mind. However, one additional man became the one most referenced in the last part of the 20th century and continues as such today. That man is Arthur Laffer. The Joint Committee on Taxation of the U.S. Congress recently released a report telling us Laffer is even more accurate than previously thought. Laffer became famous upon his recognition as adviser to President Ronald Reagan before and after the 1980 election. Laffer has a top-notch pedigree, including degrees from Yale and a Ph.D. in economics from Stanford. He then spent time at the University of Chicago. He was a colleague of Friedman, among others, while at Chicago. Most people associate Laffer with Reagan, but he became notable in 1974 when presenting his thoughts to Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld as part of the Ford administration. It was then that he drew his famous thought on a napkin to illustrate his beliefs about government’s raising tax rates. The bell curve drawing was named the “Laffer curve” by Jude Wanniski, who was sitting in on the meeting. The legend was thus born, and the Laffer curve has become one of the most discussed economic ideas related to government levels of taxation. Ronald Reagan used it as his basis for the Reagan tax cuts in 1981 and 1986. The simple idea of the proposal is that higher tax rates are ineffective in creating revenue. Lowering marginal tax rates increases government revenues. If tax rates are raised, revenues will decrease. I have had vivid debates with people on the left about this economic concept. They instinctively think the idea is counterintuitive. As is often the case, these folks have ideas of how government works in theory, but when reality is different they choose to ignore reality. I encourage them to look at the four major periods where rates were cut during the Kennedy, Reagan, Bush, and Trump administrations. Review the records of federal government revenues after the tax rates are adjusted down, and anyone can see that revenues escalate significantly during all four periods. The political left wants to spend oodles on government programs that largely waste money. If reduced tax rates produced more revenue, they should get behind the idea. Empirical evidence does count for something. If a policy produces more tax revenue, can someone characterize it as a “tax cut”? It is a rate adjustment, not a tax cut. A recent study from the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation, authored by Rachel Moore, Brandon Pecoraro, and David Splinter, examined previous studies of the Laffer curve. It found that Laffer’s theory was even better than was previously suggested by those studies. Many previous studies used tax bases either too broad or too narrow, and the new study draws attention to those flaws. “Prior studies, however, largely overlook the Laffer curve’s shape, rely on simplified tax functions, and often omit shifting across business types and tax interactions,” the authors write. “We show that modeling distinct tax bases more accurately and incorporating these interactions lowers the revenue-maximizing top tax rate and the associated revenue gains, yielding ‘flat’ Laffer curves.” When I asked Laffer about the new paper, he stated, “This paper is a huge step in the right direction, and the research is very impressive. But, in the long-term context of settling the academic debate, there is much further to go.” “It’s long been true that the U.S. government could collect all of the revenue it currently collects with two flat rate taxes of approximately 12% each: one on unadjusted gross personal income and the other on value added at the corporate level—no deductions, no credits,” he continued. “Any tax rates beyond this level are, based on research, in the prohibitive range of the so-called Laffer curve.”  “When looking at the world, incentive rates should always be used when deriving behavioral issues, not tax rates per se. The question always to ask is: Where is the tradeoff between giving money to people who don’t work and cutting tax rates on people who do work?” Simply put, the prior studies of the Laffer curve used imprecise tax assumptions. Using more accurate current tax information produces even surer results that benefits decrease when income tax rates are raised. Increased tax rates are less beneficial for creation of tax revenues than previously thought. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post The Laffer Curve Is Even Better Than We Thought appeared first on The Daily Signal.

President Donald Trump has said he wants Congress to send a reconciliation package funding Immigration and Customs Enforcement to his desk by June 1, spurring a debate among Republicans about whether to expand the package to include other policy priorities. The Senate’s process of reconciliation allows for the chamber to pass budget legislation with a simple majority vote, with limits on what can be included. Although Republican leadership has decided on a narrow bill to fund border security efforts, House conservatives fear the reconciliation package is their last chance to secure policy wins ahead of the midterm elections without needing Democrat support.  Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., has said that the second bill must be as “narrow” as possible in order to meet Trump’s deadline. “They’re gonna have to limit the scope,” said Rachel Bovard, Conservative Partnership Institute vice president, “because, if they open it up, it’ll become a Christmas tree.” Leadership’s approach is likely to run into trouble with the conservative Freedom Caucus, which has several priorities for the second reconciliation bill: completely fund the Department of Homeland Security, defund Planned Parenthood, pass the SAVE America Act, and reform the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.  Speaker Mike Johnson has discussed the possibility of a third reconciliation package after that to accomplish other priorities.  Some conservatives say a third reconciliation bill could succeed if funding of the Iran operation is withheld until then, making its passage essentially mandatory. However, most of the caucus lacks confidence the Senate will succeed in passing a third bill with the other priorities included. “This is the last train leaving the station,” Bovard said of the second reconciliation bill. We cannot leave ICE and CBP hanging with nothing but hopes and prayers that reconciliation 2.0 comes together.That’s why we must use reconciliation to fully fund ALL of the Department of Homeland Security!We can tightly control this process with strict instructions to the…— House Freedom Caucus (@freedomcaucus) April 7, 2026 “I really need it all to be together,” Rep. Marlin Stutzman, R-Ind., told The Daily Signal of an expanded package. “You can’t depend on the Senate on issues like declining Planned Parenthood and other pieces. I think it has to all be together.”  Unless the president asks for something different, Stutzman said Congress should follow the same map as the first successful reconciliation package, the One, Big Beautiful Bill.  The One Big, Beautiful Bill restricted Medicaid reimbursements for Planned Parenthood for one year, but that provision expires on July 4, 2026. A major priority for the pro-life movement is extending that policy so the abortion giant doesn’t get a renewed cash flow on America’s 250th birthday.  “The strategy of a second, big, beautiful bill is the way that I would see it getting across the finish line,” Stutzman said, “because I just don’t trust the Senate to keep the priorities in a third bill that would go over there.” Bovard said Freedom Caucus members don’t have much incentive to support a narrow reconciliation bill without their desired provisions on voter ID, reforms to FISA, or defunding Planned Parenthood. However, she sees the potential for a deal with limited FISA reform being added into reconciliation 2.0.  “But right now, there’s nothing to come to the field for,” she said.  Stutzman fears the Senate’s failure to expand the reconciliation package could cost Republicans the midterms.  “My biggest fear is that the Senate is going to cost us the election in 2026 if they don’t pass some of this policy that our base is expecting us to pass,” he said. “Our voters are already deflated because they feel like we’re not doing what we said we were going to do all because of a filibuster rule.” The post ‘Last Train Leaving the Station’: GOP Push for Narrow Border Bill Sparks Backlash Over Missing Pieces appeared first on The Daily Signal.

FIRST ON THE DAILY SIGNAL—Sen. Rick Scott is urging the White House to end the Optional Practical Training work permit program, which incentivizes employers to give jobs to foreign students. “The OPT program should not exist; it is a purely regulatory creation with no statutory basis,” the Florida Republican wrote in a letter obtained by The Daily Signal. The Optional Practical Training (OTP) program, created in 1992, allows foreign students to remain in the United States to work for nearly four years after graduation. Scott says this takes jobs away from U.S.-born college graduates. Employers receive a tax break for hiring foreign graduates under the program, giving foreigners an advantage over U.S. citizens, Scott argues. 260410 Letter to Trump OPTDownload “The jobless rate for recent graduates with computer engineering degrees is nearly double the general unemployment rate,” the letter says, “and the unemployment rate for recent computer science graduates is over 50% higher than the general jobless rate.” More than half a million student visa holders currently have OPT work permits, the letter says. Scott argues this creates a national security risk by bolstering China. “Many OPT recipients from Communist China have jobs in universities and Big Tech firms, giving them access to sensitive technological information and intellectual property,” Scott wrote. “We cannot continue opening the door to an enemy nation that will happily use our own research against us.” The Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman warned in a 2020 report that the OPT and STEM OPT programs “have remained a source of concern in recent years due to their vulnerability to fraud and indicators that they are being leveraged by foreign governments as a means of conducting espionage or illicit technology transfer in the STEM areas.” More than 33,000 Chinese nationals hold special STEM work permits under the program that allow them to stay in the U.S. Scott cited reports that the Trump administration planned to end the program. The Department of Homeland Security has said it “will amend existing regulations to address fraud and national security concerns, [and] protect U.S. workers from being displaced by foreign nationals.“ Before President Donald Trump’s inauguration in 2025, Forbes reported that the “upcoming Trump administration rule is expected to end or restrict Optional Practical Training.” The post EXCLUSIVE: Senator Urges Trump to End Program That Gives US Jobs to Foreign Graduates appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Remarks from a virologist calling out former National Institutes of Health leaders—Dr. Francis Collins and Dr. Anthony Fauci—have sparked renewed interest on Capitol Hill about the government’s handling of COVID-19. Virologist Simon Wain-Hobson, a professor at the Paris-based Institut Pasteur, accused Fauci and Collins of “professional failure” in the COVID-19 pandemic and the lead-up to it when speaking in March to more than 100 NIH officials. “Anthony Fauci and Francis Collins are guilty of offenses far worse than ‘professional failure,’” Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., the chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, told The Daily Signal. “They were clearly involved in a purposeful cover-up of their support for and funding of dangerous gain-of-function research that more than likely produced the coronavirus and allowed them to unleash their mRNA injection on an unsuspecting global population,” Johnson added. Fauci, Collins, and other NIH officials have denied conducting gain-of-function research or that such research led to the COVID-19 pandemic. The term “gain-of-function” describes a risky research process of making a pathogen more dangerous or contagious for the purpose of studying a response. Paul D. Thacker, an independent journalist and former Senate staff investigator, first reported on his Substack, The Disinformation Chronicle, on the private remarks by Wain-Hobson to NIH officials. 1) EXCLUSIVE: Virologist Simon Wain-Hobson spoke w/ over 100 NIH officials in a private talk, berating former NIH officials for obfuscating about dangerous gain-of-function studies."Scientists have to be educated because they are totally out of touch.”Fauci regime is erased. pic.twitter.com/7HzeqqxfjS— Paul D. Thacker (@thackerpd) April 9, 2026 The virologist’s remarks should be reviewed, Rep. Rich McCormick, R-Ga., a doctor who was a member of the former House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic, said. “I’ve continually said that questions regarding the origins of COVID-19 and gain-of-function research should always be addressed with transparency and seriousness,” McCormick told The Daily Signal. “If a respected virologist like Simon Wain-Hobson raises concerns about past leadership at NIH, those concerns should be carefully reviewed.” “Early publications associated with NIH leadership, including Dr. Fauci, shaped the initial narrative and may have limited broader scientific debate,” McCormick continued. “Transparency and accountability at the NIH are essential for public trust. The whole point of science is to have robust debate, and the minute you sterilize that debate, it is no longer science.” Collins is the former director of the National Institutes of Health. Fauci is the former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. During his remarks, Wain-Hobson pointed to a 2011 Washington Post commentary by Fauci and Collins that defended controversial research. “We can’t have the safety of society being dictated without discussion,” Wain-Hobson said. “I think that was a professional failure.” He further accused the American Society for Microbiology of “obfuscating” how dangerous gain-of-function research is. The society did not respond to inquiries for this story. After retiring, Fauci became a professor at the Georgetown University School of Medicine and a professor at the McCourt School of Public Policy. The Daily Signal contacted the media relations office at Georgetown University to seek comment from Fauci. The Daily Signal also contacted Leading Authorities Inc., a speaking bureau that books Fauci for public speeches. No one responded by publication time. The Daily Signal also reached out for this story to the Harry Walker Agency, which books Collins’ speaking engagements; to AAE Speakers, which lists Collins as one of their speakers; and to an email address still listed for Collins on the NIH website. No one responded by publication time. The post What Lawmakers Say About Virologist Calling Out Fauci, NIH on COVID appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The three-way Louisiana GOP Senate primary is at a standstill. Even with President Donald Trump’s early endorsement, a runoff looks likely. The president passed over two-term incumbent Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., and gave his coveted endorsement to Rep. Julia Letlow, R-La. The Louisiana primary is set for May 16. A crowded ballot makes it likely the election will go to a runoff slated for June 27. Sitting Sen. Cassidy is going up against Letlow and former U.S. Rep. John Fleming, R-La., who currently serves as the state treasurer. Letlow came into the race late but quickly received the sought-after endorsement from President Donald Trump. The president noted in his endorsement video that Letlow had been a “friend” and had been “as loyal as can be.” ?NEW VIDEO?I am honored to have President Trump’s complete and total endorsement for U.S. Senate.Louisiana Republicans have a clear choice in this race: a Trump-endorsed conservative who will fight for our state, or Bill Cassidy, who voted to convict President Trump.… pic.twitter.com/iCFIIiycut— Julia B Letlow, Ph.D. (@jbletlow) March 24, 2026 Cassidy was unlikely to receive any support from Trump after he voted to impeach the president for the events at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. At a recent campaign stop, Cassidy told NBC that the 2021 vote “might be” a liability for his campaign and acknowledged it is a vote “people will remember” him for. “Bill Cassidy is collapsing under the weight of his anti-Trump record,” a Letlow campaign spokesperson, Katherine Thordahl, told the Daily Signal. “While Julia Letlow is building an insurmountable lead thanks to President Trump’s complete and total endorsement.” ‘If the Data Exists, Why the Delay?’: Sen. Bill Cassidy Demands Answers on Abortion Pill Safety@SenBillCassidy is “one of the leading members of Congress who has been calling” on FDA Commissioner Marty Makary to conduct a “thorough safety review on the abortion pill.”If the… pic.twitter.com/4BQZbgfGqk— The Daily Signal (@DailySignal) January 14, 2026 Cassidy did not respond to a request from The Daily Signal for comment. However, neither candidate looks likely to cross the 50% vote threshold needed to win the primary and avoid a runoff. Fleming’s entry into the race has siphoned conservative votes from both Cassidy and Letlow. Fleming was a founding member of the House Freedom Caucus. Fleming told Punchbowl that the White House has twice offered “anything they could” to get him to step out of the race. “I said no, of course, and diplomatically said no,” Fleming told the outlet. The White House has denied these claims. Letlow’s Trump endorsement could also provide a boon to her campaign financially in the future. The president’s super PAC, MAGA Inc., has more than $300 million in its war chest. She has been backed by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s aligned super PAC, Make America Healthy Again. The group pledged $1 million to Letlow, likely due to Cassidy’s lack of support for the secretary and skepticism of his health policy. Cassidy ultimately voted to confirm Kennedy, but sparred with Kennedy over the efficacy of vaccines and other health-related issues. The Senate Leadership Fund and the National Republican Senate Committee have both pledged their support to Cassidy. The post Louisiana Senate Primary Tests Power of Trump Endorsement appeared first on The Daily Signal.