You're watching...
Laffer Associates chairman Art Laffer anticipates a weaker economy and possibly a recession in 2013.
Also in this playlist...
Auto-advance: ON
Auto-advance
This transcript is automatically generated
Thank you he is -- recession inevitable ball here is the former economic advisor to president Ronald Reagan art Laffer chairman of Laffer associates art.
Are we headed for recession most definitely regardless of what happens.
Well we're headed for a very poor economy in 2013.
You've got all those tax increases coming on January 1 -- -- you know people are anticipating that they're moving their income forward out of 2013.
In the 2012 so they can pay taxes -- the lower rates and -- 2013.
Comes they'll just be a drop off in the economy in my view.
It looks very very serious to me and I wouldn't be surprised if it became a recession.
On you don't think there's folks out of Washington are gonna do the right thing and extend the bush tax cuts and get it done even before they -- -- intentional action.
What love it might and I really hope they do because that they do -- least stave off a secular decline.
But you know people are anticipating a right now -- You know you can't wait until December 31 to do a lot of the shifting of income so people are already -- -- just like they -- in 2010.
And what you saw happen even though the tax cuts were extended to 2010.
He's still a huge drop off on the first half of 2011.
Because they'd already shifted income so yeah it's baked into the bred to be honest for the you know will be a fall off but.
Goodness knows I really hope they extend the tax cuts for a lot longer and well I hope they get.
What he had -- -- a tax rates are gonna stay where they are art.
And even if they don't know if you what you had argued that spending does need to be cut and I -- to refer to this Gallup poll that just came out.
With that asked voters like their list of priorities things that are extremely important for the next president never -- with creating jobs.
44%.
Said -- -- the budget deficit but then 40% said protecting -- security and Medicare.
Reducing the budget deficit but protecting -- security Medicare how can you do those two things because again people.
-- want our deficit to come down -- to reduce that but then they don't want the government to take away any saying.
That they might have.
Well I hope.
That's not what they mean I mean I thought the President Reagan protected social security and Medicare and I thought the Bill Clinton did as well I thought they did a great job.
What we need to do is raise the age of retirement for Social Security to make sure that it's fiscally sound going forward so there -- no huge unfunded liabilities.
That's what we really need that means taking some -- away from somebody that if you -- we aren't talking about what will go bananas.
Well what we did in the eighties was we extended the age of retirement from 65 to 67.
I don't remember all the riots and all the picketing and all that back to and by the way.
I I think -- him very well very smoothly.
And I don't think there were -- he would really disruptive or are really upset with what we did but we also made it so that half of about benefits were taxed.
An ordinary income rates Bill Clinton made of 85% so.
You know we can do what we could make it sound without having -- totally disrupted.
In in the tax reform also used to be able to deduct interest on credit cards which was just.
Today is unthinkable all the Ronald Reagan tax reform did away with that but art is there anybody in Washington -- I mean and congress.
In the White House they can artfully.
Cut and six the way -- as you point out Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan did.
I think they can't I mean I think we're just waiting for a new election and the new president.
And once that occurs -- I think then they'll be all sorts of Democrats were fewer Republicans just like we did in 1986 with the tax.
Act of 1986 which lowered the highest rate from 15% to 20%.
You know it passed the senate would 97 votes 97.
All these Democrats voted -- along with all the Republicans because it's good economic statement and the Democrats today know that they would never run their family budgets.
The way they propose running the federal government's budget.
They wouldn't run their family businesses that way that they know the wrong.
And all they need is an opportunity to come back into working up bipartisan fashion to create -- good tax code.
I write what I think we're almost there are where there I'm on hold until you're welcome back -- -- assays are RB well they stay.
