Blog

By: AIF Staff

—

Washington, DC – Earlier this summer, Paul Ryan and Kevin Brady joined the Tax Foundation’s podcast, The Deduction, for a wide-ranging interview reflecting on their efforts to reform America’s tax code. As former Chairmen of the House Ways & Means Committee, Ryan and Brady were the primary authors of the tax reforms rolled out by House Republicans in 2016 as part of the “Better Way” agenda, which ultimately became law via the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA).

In an interview with the Tax Foundation’s Kyle Hulehan and Erica York, they look back at the long road to reform and discuss how this methodical effort culminated in a more competitive, growth-oriented American economy.

The full interview is accessible here and excerpts of Ryan and Brady’s responses, edited lightly for clarity, follow.

The Breaking Point: America’s Uncompetitive 2016 Tax Code
“Kevin and I had been long-time seatmates at Ways and Means, and long-time members of the Ways and Means Committee. Under the Bill Thomas days, the Dave Camp days, and the Jim McCrery days… we were working on [tax reform] all along. It was basically [because] we were on a worldwide tax system, which was proving extraordinarily uncompetitive for us. We had a 35% tax rate, so we had the highest rate in the industrialized world in a really screwed-up international tax system, which was creating all these inversions.”

Preventing the Atrophy of American Cities via Tax Reform
“I had two big hedge fund guys, who are household names today, come to see me when I was Speaker. They told me, ‘Just so you know, we think what you’re trying to do [with tax reform] is great, but if you don’t pull it off, we’re going to go buy all these pharmaceutical companies in New Jersey and Chicago and bring them to Ireland.’

Look at St. Louis. Look at these company towns that lose their headquarters. First, the C-suite leaves, then the civil society atrophies, and then the jobs go because there is no allegiance to the town. That was going to happen across America if we didn’t stop it.”

Earning the ‘Moral Authority’ to Pass Bold Policy
“One of my conditions with the members of our conference on becoming Speaker of the House was that we would write an agenda in that session and run on it in the next election. So, in 2015, we put together the Better Way. My thesis always has been in politics to be conviction politicians, run on choice-based elections, and run on the policies that you want to put in place. [You have to] sell them. Then, if you win the election, you have earned the moral authority and the right to put them in place.”

Why Lowering Corporate Tax Rates Benefits the Workforce
“The evidence was really clear to us that the corporate tax rate affects workers the most. We knew lowering the rate was going to help workers get higher wage growth. We knew that by being territorial and with full-expensing at a low rate, companies would make the decision to domicile in America, keep it in America, and never invert ever again. We knew, with this new tax system, you were going to put your manufacturing and as much of your economic activity in America as possible rather than putting it overseas, which was the prior incentive structure under the old tax code.”

Chairman Brady on Wages Increasing and Inequality Shrinking following the TCJA

“First, real wages, what people were making ahead of inflation, grew more in that [2019] year than in all eight years previous combined. It turned out those first three years after the TCJA saw a 9% growth in real wages, which was the highest three-year period we’ve had. People were getting ahead. Obviously, poverty just dove down in all categories, especially those in the bottom two quintiles. The other thing is, as our friend Larry Lindsay pointed out, income inequality began to shrink in America for the first time in half a century.”

Replacing the Hodgepodge of Tariffs with a Simplified Tax Code
“I just think this tariff uncertainty is not good. Biden didn’t take these tariffs off when he became president, and Trump just doubled down on more, so I don’t think that’s a good path for us to take. A destination-based cash flow tax and a border adjustment tax would complete that. It would provide certainty with a full exchange rate adjustment versus this hodgepodge of uncertain tariff regimes, so I think that would be good for us. Today, I think it is different.”

Saving Entitlements for the Next Generation:
“It’s not too late to rewrite these entitlement programs and do it in a way that guarantees the Baby Boomers get their benefits as they planned their lives around. We can keep that promise and borrow for them, so long as you have a new system for Gen X on down. On an accrual basis, that wipes out tens of trillions of unfunded liabilities, stabilizes the bond markets, and does it without ripping the social contract up. Not only [do you save these programs] without ripping the social contract up, but [you’re] making it solvent and renewing it for the next generation.”

Chairman Brady on Building Trust with Industry Leaders
“Paul and I, during tax reform, met with a number of industries and just said, ‘Look, we can’t lower this corporate rate and make these changes without you helping.’ We challenged these industries to give back specific provisions. What was terrific was that while not all responded, a number of them absolutely got it. The point of all that was to say that if you have a bolder vision and you are willing to pursue it, others are willing to come to the table and give up things.”

Outmaneuvering Special Interests with a Plan B on Tax Reform
“Frankly, from all those years we had on the Ways and Means Committee going after tax expenditures, we knew if you go into Gucci Gulch too soon, you’re going to get carved up. There is a reason why tax reform hadn’t been done since 1986: It was politics, and it was this tax expenditure lobby. We knew that if we led with our chin on, say, SALT or the mortgage interest deduction, we would get destroyed politically and not be able to pass anything. So, we put the gold-standard tax reform bill out there [in the form of a border adjustment tax]… but we always had, and Kevin Brady was always working on, what Plan B would look like.”

Chairman Brady’s Unfinished Business on Tax Reform
“The day that [the TCJA] was signed, I still had a wish list. We wanted to do so much more on the individual side with the postcard approach and simplification—just three simple, Reagan-style rates. A low top rate at 28% would be incredibly pro-growth. We wanted to tackle capital gains in another simple way, which was a 50% exemption. We had proposed Universal Savings Accounts which is another simplification that gave more power to draw more savings, especially from younger people.”

By: AIF Staff

Washington, DC – At a virtual event hosted jointly by the Urban Institute and the American Enterprise Institute, former House Speaker Paul Ryan and former Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo announced the creation of Commission on Artificial Intelligence and the Future of the American Workforce, which they will jointly chair. 

The Commission will be a year-long initiative that brings together leaders from industry, labor, academia, and government to develop an actionable policy framework for AI-driven employment disruption.  

Watch the virtual announcement here and check out Speaker Ryan’s opening statement, as prepared for delivery, below.  

Good morning, everyone. I want to thank my good friend, Secretary Gina Raimondo, for agreeing to chair this Commission with me. 

Just this past weekend, elected officials from Donald Trump to Bernie Sanders to Jay Obernolte threw out various policy ideas on AI. Last week, we saw massive swings in tech stocks. Last month, Anthropic’s Mythos model made waves in the national security space. 

Make no mistake: The AI revolution is here and Washington, DC needs to quickly wrap its heads around the specific policy challenges that it is going to present for American workers and job creators. 

America will be better-served if we take an evidence-based approach to developing AI policy and that’s why this Commission will bring in the perspectives of academics, technologists, leaders from labor and business, and thought-leaders from across the political spectrum. Having the support of AEI and the Urban Institute, two gold-standard research organizations, will ensure this is a substantive endeavor focused on real solutions, as opposed to partisan soundbites. 

My view is simple: We stand at a critical crossroads where technological innovation meets the dignity of human work. Artificial intelligence is actively rewriting the rules of our economy. 

Over a century ago, Pope Leo XIII responded to the Industrial Revolution by writing Rerum Novarum, reminding the world that capital and labor are fundamentally interdependent. Recently, Pope Leo XIV built upon that very foundation with Magnifica Humanitas, noting that while technology can be an ally, it requires thoughtful parameters and policy responses so that it remains a force for good. 

The desire and ability to create Artificial Intelligence shows our immense capabilities as humans, but we must never allow technology to replace or overtake the value of the individual worker.

Throughout my time in Congress, my focus was always on expanding upward mobility and economic opportunity using an evidence-based, data-driven approach. 

I watched firsthand as my hometown of Janesville, Wisconsin faced severe economic restructuring when the GM plant closed. I know what happens to families when the economic ground shifts beneath their feet. 

We cannot afford to let the AI transition happen by accident; we must shape it with intention and with an eye towards helping those whose careers and lives will be most acutely impacted.

That is why we are launching the Commission on AI and the Future of the American Workforce. This commission is structured to deliver clear, practical utility to two specific groups: policymakers and the employer-employee ecosystem.

For my former colleagues in Congress and policymakers, this Commission is designed to provide specific solutions and ideas to particular aspects of challenges that AI will impose on the workforce. 

I spent 25 years as a staffer and Member of Congress, so I know how difficult it is to govern at the speed of technological change. 

This initiative will not produce an academic report to sit on a shelf. Instead, it will provide a practical roadmap of actionable options to consider as lawmakers attempt to assist workers and incentivize growth. 

For employers and their employees, this Commission aims to address the immediate realities of the free market. 

In my work at Teneo and Solamere Capital, I see leaders every day who are actively grappling with the AI challenge. They want to innovate, but they also want to protect their workforce. This Commission will bridge that gap. 

We will help employers understand how to integrate AI to augment human capability rather than simply automate it away. We will advance ideas that clear pathways for employees to upskill into the high-demand, high-paying jobs of tomorrow.

We can achieve both technological leadership and human flourishing. By bringing together the best minds from the public and private sectors, we will ensure that the future of AI is a future built by, and for, the American worker.

By: AIF Staff

Grove City, PA — Earlier this month, American Idea Foundation President and former Speaker of the House Paul Ryan joined former Vice President Mike Pence at Grove City College in Western Pennsylvania for a thought-provoking discussion on the enduring relevance of Ronald Reagan’s principles and how they can be applied to today’s economic, constitutional, and geopolitical challenges.

As part of Grove City’s 18th Annual Reagan Day Lecture, Vice President Pence asked Speaker Ryan about Reagan’s governing philosophy, the key elements of Reagan’s economic and foreign policy agendas, and how they still animate the modern conservative movement. Speaking to a full house of Grove City College students and supporters, Ryan and Pence encouraged future leaders in attendance to study foundational texts, reject performative politics, and “be happy warriors” who defend freedom and free-market principles with seriousness, integrity, and joy.

Video of the full event, Morning in America: Reagan’s Lessons for Today’s Challenges, and excerpts of Ryan’s responses follow.

On Reagan’s legacy and the foundations of conservatism:

“You have to go back to core, irreducible, primary principles to really understand what conservatism is and what it is you’re trying to conserve as a conservative. When we say conservative in this time, what we mean really is a classical, liberal, traditional conservative [who believes] natural rights and natural law were articulated in the Declaration of Independence and operationalized in our Constitution, and they work beautifully. These are timeless principles that have as their offspring freedom, free markets, liberty, self-determination and the institutions that we defend and support. Faith, family, and federalism. That’s what we’re seeking to conserve as conservatives.”

“Conservatism is about conserving natural rights and natural law—timeless truths that gave us freedom, free markets, and self-government.”

On advice for the next generation of conservatives:

“My mom told me, ‘You have two ears and one mouth—use them in that proportion,’ and that turned out to be some of the best advice I ever got. Don’t be this young guy who thinks he has it all figured out, because people older than you have lived so much more life. Don’t let ambition cloud your judgment, because when you do, you cut corners and compromise principles. TikTok says do this, Instagram says do that, and those pressures will tell a young and ambitious person to say whatever people want to hear.

“Don’t chase social media applause. Play the long game. Let the game come to you—don’t compromise principles for popularity…. Temperament matters. Be joyful, empathetic, and curious. When they expect anger, meet them with optimism and confidence.”

“Be a happy warrior—don’t be an angry troll—and articulate timeless principles in a persuasive, inclusive, and joyful way.”

On the debt crisis and fiscal responsibility:

“The most foreseeable and the most predictable crisis in our country is the debt crisis. It basically means we’re consigning the next generation to an inferior future. The legacy of this country, because of [our founding] principles, is that you leave the next generation better off, and when we were growing up, we all believed that because it was true. This is not what most [younger] Americans think these days, and in many cases, it’s not true. And if we keep on this path, we know it will not be true, and we will have severed that legacy for the first time.”

On trade, tariffs, and economic principles:

“The International Emergency Economic Powers Act… is a sanctions law. The word “tariff” doesn’t exist in it. Congress did not designate the President this kind of power to whimsically, on his own, tariff the whole world or any country—that power was not delegated from Congress to the Executive Branch.

Tariffs are a tax increase on the American people, and the vast majority of the costs are paid by American businesses and consumers. It’s not just bad economics; it’s based on a philosophy that life is a zero-sum game, that there’s a winner and a loser and nothing in between. That is not how it works—trade is a positive-sum game because both sides benefit.”

“Tariffs are taxes on Americans, and they rest on a zero-sum view of the world that just isn’t true…. If we want a mature economy, we must make things and sell them to the 94 percent of people who live outside America.”

On the dangers of moral relativism in today’s polarized environment:

“My worry in this day and age is [the type of populism] coming from the left and now from the right are morally relativistic versions of populism. Both of America’s political parties are kind of the parties of moral relativism—where might makes right, the ends justify the means, and the most important principle is just getting elected so that the other side is not elected. That is not supposed to be the end of this. The end of this is [supposed to be realizing] these principles that built this country and that we care about—life, liberty, freedom, self-determination and our rights coming from God, not from government. The kind of populism that is dominating both parties is not producing that.”

On Reagan’s moral clarity & support for allies in Ukraine:

“President Reagan spoke with moral clarity, and his speechwriters tried to soften those speeches, but he insisted on that clarity. I do worry that we’re losing the plurality for defending our principles the way President Reagan did. My successor, Rep. Bryan Steil, said the Ukraine aid vote was politically the hardest vote he’s taken all year, and that tells you how much the lines have shifted [in our party]. There are those voices in the conservative movement drifting into darker corners, back to the moral relativism of might-makes-right. The anti-Semitism that has always been over on the left is now percolating on the right. It’s very dangerous, very insidious, very immoral.”

On China, globalization, and strategic competition:

“We always believed that the more we traded with China and the more we had diplomatic exchange, the more they would move toward the practices of free, democratic nations—towards private property and towards respect for liberties, especially religious liberty. The opposite happened. [Welcoming China to world bodies] made sense at the time; it was a different leadership over there, and then Xi came in. I frankly regret the vote with hindsight, and I think free trade with free countries is the way to go. With mercantilist countries that cheat, steal, subsidize, and dump, you’ve got to play tough with them.”

On principled vs. unprincipled populism:

“[President Milei] in Argentina is a populist, but his populism is directly tied back to these conservative principles and universal truths, and that, to me, is good populism. The kind of populism we have today [in America] comes from the left, which is progressivism, but we also have a lot of this populism on the right as well. These two wings are almost forming a full horseshoe, but this populism is not rooted in these core principles. Populism untethered to principle— but that’s tethered instead to a cult of personality or whatever is deemed popular on a given day—is not what I would call “principled populism,” and regretfully, that [untethered populism] is what is dominant in our party right now.”

“Populism tied to principle can be powerful, but populism tied to personality becomes dangerous.”