Mike

By : AIF Staff

Washington, DC – Yesterday, former Speaker of the House and American Idea Foundation President Paul Ryan was a keynote speaker at Axios’ What’s Next Summit, an annual event featuring leaders from government, health care, technology, and philanthropy. At the Summit, which focused on the policies and issues that will dominate discussions throughout 2025, Ryan was interviewed by Axios’ Economics Reporter Courtenay Brown about the major economic debates ongoing in Congress.

To watch the entirety of Speaker Ryan’s session at Axios’ What’s Next Summit, click here. Excerpts of Ryan’s interview are included below.

Video: Ryan: CEOs are optimistic but concerned about tariffs

“Uncertainty is what business leaders don’t like. Teneo just did a survey of 700 CEOs representing $10 trillion in market cap. They do this survey every year and from last year to this year, there was a 32-point swing upwards in optimism, but the one sort of dark spot in it was tariff uncertainty. The survey was done in December and now, tariff anxiety has a higher premium and it has created a little more uncertainty.

Business leaders want to plan, and they want to make sure that the bets they are going to make are going to pay off. If there is a bunch of policy uncertainty, that makes it a little more difficult to predict and that is basically the key story that I hear from CEOs.”

Video: Ryan on the 2025 policy landscape: “Tax and regulatory certainty are coming.”

“If I look at the policy arc right now, I see good things coming. I see good growth levers. I think they’re going to pass the tax bill, and I obviously am for doing that.

I think good tax certainty is coming, once they get that bill passed. Until they get that bill passed, it’s uncertain. We have a one vote margin in the House.

The regulatory certainty – deregulation and a better regulatory footprint– everyone believes it’s coming, but it takes time [because of] the Administrative Procedures Act and putting people in jobs.

The pro-growth stuff that people think is coming and that CEOs tell us in surveys that they think is coming  is sort of in the second half of the year. The uncertain stuff is right now – that’s the tariffs. So, you have the uncertain stuff now and the pro-growth stuff later in 2025, which means it’s a mixed message.”

Video: Ryan details timeline for tax reform & why extending TCJA is essential for growth

“I think they’ll get it passed but with these narrow majorities, you can never take it for granted.

Getting it done by Memorial Day is a really ambitious timeline and I’d be surprised if they meet that deadline. It’s more likely that it will be the end of summer. August recess is a great way to back up legislation as it provides a really, nice deadline. I would realistically shoot for that…. 

But if you let the TCJA expire, the sub-chapter S corporations, the pass throughs, the LLCs – like 65% of our businesses –  will have an average tax rate of 23% to 28% that will go to 44% or maybe even 46.8% That is a huge tax increase on employers and it makes them extremely uncompetitive globally speaking. You have to remember, we’re in a global economy, whether we like it or not, and if we tax our employers a whole lot more than our foreign competitors’ tax theirs, that’s not making us competitive and we’re going to lose jobs. So, it’s really important that they pass this tax reform.

Deficits notwithstanding, you need growth and if you want to get ahead of our debt problems, you have to have your nominal GDP growing at a reasonable rate, especially ahead of your debt-servicing costs. You have got to work on spending — and that has got to be done, but you have to have growth. And if you smack your economy with a huge tax increase because this expires, you’re not going to have growth in my opinion.”

Video: Ryan: “Love the promise of DOGE”

“I love the promise of DOGE but for it to last and be real, you have to get it through Congress…

My hope for DOGE is they digitize government’s payment rails, bring Silicon Valley economics to the defense procurement process, and streamline government using the technology they are familiar with. But to do that, you need to go to the authorizing Committees in Congress, pass those bills, appropriate the money, and that means it has to be bipartisan. I don’t think Chuck Schumer is looking to help them…

I love the idea, but to make it last more than one term, you have to get it into law and that takes 60 votes.”

Ryan on the April 2^nd tariff deadline

“I hope on April 2^nd, we will see more of a comprehensive world view instead of this on/off, this tariff or that tariff. I think that’s in the offing…. But President Trump is sincere in his belief on these things. He really believes in these [protectionist] policies and believes they will make a positive difference. I just have a different view on that.

When I studied economics growing up in the 1990’s and 1980’s, free trade was a good thing. Pax Americana was good for everyone — for the world and for America. I think there’s a view now that it wasn’t good for America, like it was for the rest of the world. I don’t share that view, but that’s the consensus view right now.”

Video: On leading in Congress & Senator Schumer’s navigating a possible government shutdown

“I am probably hurting [Chuck Schumer] by saying this, but he did the right thing. He made the smart move for his party. He really did.

You always do that as a leader. You are a heatshield for your members. You take the bullets so that your members can survive. That’s what Chuck Schumer just did.

He was a heatshield for his party and for his members. Otherwise, he would have walked his party into a ditch and they would have had a government shutdown. The last time they did this; it was called the “Schumer Shutdown.” I was Speaker at the time. It wasn’t a good look, and Democrats pulled out of it. Whoever starts the shutdown, they lose the exchange.

To be a good leader, you have to be a heatshield for your members. You have to get consensus with your members and get them to buy into a plan and then go execute the plan. And Chuck, I am sure he has a plan… But as a leader, you take the tough votes. You make the tough decisions. You take the flack. You’re not that popular when you’re a leader.”

##

By: AIF Staff

Washington, DC – Last week at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), former Speaker of the House Paul Ryan led a conversation with House Ways and Means Chairman Jason Smith (MO-08) and facilitated a panel with policy experts on the future of the U.S. tax code. In both discussions, Ryan extolled the need to extend the Tax Cuts and Job Act of 2017, making the case that pro-growth tax policy will promote economic opportunities and upward mobility for millions of Americans.

Video of the event is accessible here and excerpts of Speaker Ryan’s opening remarks, as prepared for delivery, follow.

“Our goal with the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) was simple: Improve the competitiveness of the United States internationally, spur economic growth and provide tax relief for hard-working Americans. I think the TCJA succeeded with accomplishing these goals. We saw robust economic growth since its passage and, at least prior to the inflationary policies of President Biden, strong wage growth for all Americans, particularly lower-income Americans….”

“I know from experience how difficult [Chairman Smith’s] job is. Frankly, with such a slim majority, his job is much more difficult than ours was when we originally passed the TCJA. Beyond the tight margins you face, a majority of House Republican Members were not even in Congress when we were doing TCJA, so here is a huge education gap to make up…”

“No pressure, but I truly believe that your success will be determinative of America’s continued leadership of the world as we progress through the 21^st century.”

This event was the latest in a series of quarterly policy discussions hosted by Ryan’s American Idea Foundation. He is also a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

##

By: Paul Ryan & Matt Weidinger

The buck never stops with either political party. That has to end

America’s political leaders have a spending problem. 

They know entitlement programs feature benefit promises far exceeding their tax base, but have done nothing to make them sound. Meanwhile, both parties demand more spending increases — despite the national debt soaring to $35 trillion, or more than $100,000 for each American, rich and poor alike. Under rosy assumptions, over $20 trillion in debt is projected to be added over the next decade.  

Yet despite the foreboding outlook, the major presidential campaigns have no plan to deal with current structural deficits and are outbidding each other to make them worse. For them, the buck stops elsewhere. That may be good short-run politics, but it will only make the inevitable bill bigger and even harder for everyday Americans to pay. 

Some argue tax cuts are to blame for the soaring debt. But as data from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office shows, revenue has remained largely stable while spending has grown significantly above prior levels.

Much of the growing debt is baked into the budgetary cake, and experts have long warned about rising costs when the Baby Boom generation retires. But growing Social Security payouts — long ago engineered to rise faster than prices — are only part of the problem. Soaring health spending, driven by the same demographic factors and compounded by exploding medical costs, is an even bigger challenge. 

America’s mountain of debt has been exacerbated by massive so-called emergency spending enacted by both parties. During the pandemic, legislation added over $5 trillion to the debt. Now the nearly $1 trillion in annual interest on the debt exceeds all federal spending on children, and defense spending, too. 

Efforts to balance the budget are repeatedly dismissed. As chairman of the House Budget Committee, one of us regularly proposed and passed balanced budgets, only to see hope for such discipline overcome by a desire for ever-greater spending. Important-sounding commissions (including one dubbed the “supercommittee”) issued detailed recommendations that were mostly ignored.  

Experts produced reams of data showing nations deep in debt inevitably reach a financial crisis, even as proponents of modern monetary theory (MMT) argued no amount of spending is too great. According to MMT advocates, the federal government can always print more money.    

Americans have already experienced where inaction and that illogic lead. During the pandemic, former Obama Treasury Secretary Larry Summers warned that massive new federal spending would lead to significant inflation, which is exactly what happened, with prices growing 20% since the start of the Biden-Harris administration.  

The Federal Reserve’s response led to the highest interest rates in two decades, helping drive the monthly mortgage payment for a median-priced home up by over $1,000. Lower-income Americans spend a greater share of their income on housing, so such rising costs are just one example of why they tend to suffer most from inflation and higher interest rates. 

Yet despite expressing concerns about inflation, both presidential tickets propose even bigger deficits. In fact, they seem to be in a bidding war to make them worse. Former President Donald Trump proposed exempting tip income from federal taxes, and Vice President Kamala Harris quickly followed suit. Both ignored the 10-year costs of this proposal, which stretch into hundreds of billions of dollars.  

Republican vice-presidential nominee JD Vance suggested more than doubling today’s $2,000 child tax credit to $5,000, which Harris one-upped by proposing $6,000 payments in a child’s first year. Senator Vance hasn’t spelled out important details of his plan, but we know most of Harris’s plan comprises bigger benefit spending instead of tax relief. Both proposals would cost over $1 trillion during the next decade. 

Neither campaign has a plan to cover the new costs. According to the Penn Wharton Budget Model, counting their economic effects, Trump’s plans would increase deficits by $4 trillion versus Harris’s $2 trillion. But that assumes Harris doesn’t revive the massive spending plans she promoted as one of the most liberal members of the Senate. Her plans included a ruinously expensive Medicare-for-all proposal, along with $2,000-per-month stimulus checks for most Americans costing $21 trillion. If you believe a Harris administration wouldn’t revive such proposals during the next economic crisis, you haven’t paid attention to recent Washington policymaking. 

While both campaigns suggest we can have higher spending and debt alongside lower prices and interest rates, recent experience suggests otherwise. So where does the buck really stop? That is, who will ultimately pay for all this?  

The reality is every American will pay, especially those with modest incomes and younger Americans who will suffer the longest from higher taxes, inflation and interest rates. We should demand more from our leaders than promises of bigger giveaways, followed by empty handwringing about the soaring debt and financial pain that inevitably result.     

Matt Weidinger is the Rowe Fellow in poverty studies at the American Enterprise Institute. He is a former deputy staff director of the House Committee on Ways and Means. Paul Ryan is the former Speaker of the House and a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. He is a member of the Fox Corporation Board of Directors.