>> i think that is an excellent note to and on. it has been such a pleasure to talk with you. i'm excited to continue the conversation the nexttime i see you . thank you all all so much for joining us and iurge you to buy this book . >> thank you so much. i hope that you all enjoy this conversation tonight with fatimah and jennifer as much as i have. if you have had the honor of reading this book, he in the history of a free black brotherhood iabsolutely urge you to . it is a treasure. thank you so much again and i hope you all have a wonderful night. >> if you're enjoying tv sign up for our newsletter using the qr code on the screen to receive the schedule of upcoming rams, author discussions, book festivals and more. he every sunday on c-span two, television for serious readers.

>> will you be writing a book about your time in the trump administration ? >> i don't have anything planned at the moment. i'm very busy. i'm loving life.

never say never. but no, notat the moment i don't . >> how many jobs do you have? >> of course, there's foxbusiness show every day. if i can plug it's 4:56 pm. i love that, that's double what i do. i also do a lot thof different segments for pn and also fox news people n. in fact i did this morning on fox and friends. i also radio show every saturday for three hours. onthe national radio show one runs here on w abc radio. but we are my streams and we are also syndicated. i also do some, well, i write op-ed pieces pretty much constantly and some informal political consulting. with my friend on policy. pretty much anybody who asks.

so i'm a busy camper. i'm a grateful camper. life after the white house has :been terrific. it's a real blessing for me. >> this is your second stint in the white house, correct? >> just a few years ago, 40 years ago it was somewhat lower position. i was an economicsdeputy at agthe office of management and budget during stthe reagan administration .ct the director of omb in these days was a fellow named david stockman who remains a friend of mine and that was my first job. it was in reagan's first term . >> larry kudlow, your 2016 book connects the reagan revolution with jfk what is your policy connection ? >> is the story that i wanted to tell for years. it's been in the back ofmy head .

and i worked with my powell brian dimitri who was a terrific researcher and co-author . basically, in a nutshell, john f. kennedy was a progrowth democrat . he was tax cutting democrat. he was asupply-side democrat . and when he ran in 1960, he was, he really ran as the growth guy and richard nixon kind of ran as the status quo , in those days republican party was okay with very high tax rates. eisenhower had no interest in cutting the 91 percent tax rate they inherited from fdr's new deal and kennedy didn't explicitly run on it but he said i want five percent growth. i want low unemployment because there had been three recessions during the eisenhower years . three recessions.

that's a little-known factoid but it is true. and the connection to reagan, some 25 years later was reagan lowered marginal tax rates also and helped reignite a more robust economy. in fact, i would argue as i do quite a bit on our show that the reagan tax cuts launched almost a threedecade prosperity . the jfk tax cuts launched a decade-long prosperity but unfortunately was unwound and undermined by lbj's great society but richard nixon, jerry ford, jimmy carter. none of them understood tax cuts. none of them understood the incentive, the economic growth effects of lower marginal tax rates,maybe we can talk about that some more

. and some very smart people, arthur clapper who is still around, thankfully my deepest friend and mentor and robert mondale, nobel prize winner and jack kent and others the supply-side . essentially the attended the kennedy tax cuts to reagan and reagan look at them and ran on them. and it was very controversial just as it was in jfk's day and it worked. it worked, in fact reagan had two rounds of tax cuts. i was involved in the campaign to promote. >> in 1961 you quote jfk as saying it will be a major aim of our tax reform program to broaden the tax base and reconsider the rate structure. >> absolutely. and there's some really juicy jfk quotes that could have easily applied to reagan.

in fact, listen. kennedy was the first guy to use the phrase a rising tide lifts all boats. that phrase was used later by jack kent. the late jack kemp who was a dear friend and mentor by reagan. i use it all the time. trump used it. the trump tax cuts which were more on the corporate side but were enormous tax cuts were cut from the same cloth as the reagan and jfk taxcuts . so i was able to bridge reagan to trump on those policies. i was too young for jfk, just barely too young. i was really only 17 when i went into the reagan house. but tax cuts and if i may, i want to go back because i'm reading a book the title of

which is the jazz age but it's about war and g harding. the much-maligned us president i might add. wayto form a line but in the 1920s , in the 1920s harding, his vice president calvin coolidge and importantly his treasury secretary andrew mellon who was a great figure from pittsburgh, an entrepreneurial banker. they put together huge reductions in marginal tax rates. the income tax amendment was i believe 1913.the 16th amendment. it started out as seven percentand when woodrow wilson left office it was 70 percent . we went into a recession after world war i. those guys brought tax rates down to 25 percent. and launched a tremendous boom, prosperity boom in the

1920s. and i'm going to go one more. you're going to give me one more on this and that is another of my favorite figures is ulysses s grant. he was arguably america's greatest general and one of its greatest general. they still teaches formations at west point but grant as president also much-maligned and my colleagues at fox, brett behr wrote a great book about grant. but he did to economic things in his administration, he never gets credit for this. the liberal historians will never give him credit but grant and the civil war income tax, ended it. and grant restored the greenback to gold. so we had massive wartime inflation and high wartime taxes adand grants ended both and also helped launch the second industrial revolution

which sometimes is referred to dispirited disparagingly as the gilded age. but just to be consistent, here's my guy grant. he's cutting taxes. harding, he's cutting taxes. kennedy is cutting taxes. reagan is cutting taxes. trump is cutting taxes. i was honored to serve under the last two which i've been around for the others, would have been great. >> mister kudlow, in all your books, in your work at foxbusiness you talk about economic terms and i was hoping that we could maybe have a broader discussion about how they all work together . tax rates . growth. the bond market, thestock market . what's the interplay between all of these? >> look, i would simply say the absolute basic key

element to economic growth and prosperity and let mestep back a moment . i'm for growth. i'm for prosperity. wtin my whole career that's been fomy raison d'ctre. it seems to me, i've served in government by the way and the first job i ever had was at the federal reserve in new york, federal reserve back at new york. i served in open market operations and i was secretary to paul bulger who was president so i've had three governmentsassignments . it seems to me if you do nothing else, in government you should promote policies that would prgenerate growth, prosperity, jobs, optimism. that's our job. i'm a free-market capitalist. i believe in free market,

free enterprise capitalism. i think it's the surest path to growth. when i was in the cnbc days and i have my show there for many years i used to open up the show every night by saying free-market capitalism is the best path to prosperity. i said it for many years. i believe that, i still believe that so coming back to your point, your questions , essentially you need the lowest possible tax rates. the least possible government intervention. think of it t as minimal regulations. and you need a sound currency i call kane dollar. that was my phrase years ago, king dollar and if you break that, if you move to a policy regime of high tax rates, excessive government intervention and regulation and , it dollar, the base

dollar depreciated dollar you will find yourself with high inflation, high unemployment and recession. and i've argued down through the years that there are almost tno exceptions to that. almost no exceptions to that. this is a controversial point . economics profession nowadays which like everything else in the economy has moved a far to the left doesn't agree with that. although i will say ftthis modern monetary theory has taken a big looking right now with high inflation but the point i'm making is unprepared to argue in historical terms as well as economic policy terms that those are the essential ingredients. lowest possible tax rates, minimal government regulation and a sound viable king dollar.

>> is affecting powerful? >> i will argue the necessity part. although it's interesting. the gilded age j.p. morganwas his own fed . rescued monetary system a couple of times. but is the venue powerful? yes, right now it is. troubling to me, the most troubling part of the fed to me is its lost sight of its principal mission which is to keep the currency sound and the price level stable. okay, nowadays with all this talk of woke culture and woke economics, the fed and some of his appointees are talking more about climate change than price stability.

diversey. i'm not opposed to diverse city, lord knows buti don't think that's the iomission of the fed . the fed should manage its own human resources properly without any prejudice at all but the idea that it wants to equalize the economy, that it takes this left-wing socialist view that we should all be equal at the finish line when in fact in a free society like ours what wewant is equal opportunity at the starting line . and then the finish line, we will exercise our god-given talents in many different ways but i think the fed is way too much geared towards something called equity and of course, climate change which i'm not a climate denier. i'm just saying we do not have a climate emergency. we do not have some existential climate risk.

factually, even un reports don't show this. this has become a political obsession, almost a religion and i think the fed completely, utterly missed the boat on this inflation problem that we are experiencing today . and that last one is unpardonable . >> one of the other issues that is brought up in this genre is income inequality. is that concern? should we be concerned that person x makes 10 times as much as a person be? >> we should not. i think that the idea here for me is we should by law have equality of opportunity at the starting line. i mean, absolutely by law. but we cannot guarantee the quality of results. we cannot.

even in communist countries, even in the also be a union. i grew up during the cold war and particularly in the reagan years when he fought sovietcommunism . the only quality that they had in the soviet union was the quality of poverty. and then that nomenclature of ran the place, they were the rich guys but there was no widespread prosperity ever sthat is true for all socialist or communist countries it seems to me so no, we should not strive to end something called inequality . we should strive for growth and prosperity. we should maximize opportunities. we want to have unlimited opportunities. that's what i argue the government cannot manage the economy.

the government cannot manage the price system. the government cannot manage markets. >>. >>. >> .. free-market capitalism is the best. i want individual freedom inside the economy. freedom to fail and freedom to succeed. one of the great aspects of america, , and it's still true o this day, you've got an entrepreneurial story where people have an idea, they might scratch up some money to finance

it, it may not work, it may fail, it may fail several times, you may go bankrupt but at some point you may get it right and then you become a massive success, a massive success. that's what's so brilliant abouh the gilded age, the industrial revolution, the second industrial revolution, the information revolution in our lifetime. the stuff that we routinely used today didn't exist when i was in prep school or college or starting out. all that stuff. do you have spare mimeograph machine in theog truck? remember that? so all that is gone. we hardly see xerox emote. you're running the show on an iphone for heaven sake and 11. even an old guy like me i figured out most of the stuff, howyo to use it. my point is you've got kids dropping out of college, working in garages, trying to put things together.

they fail, they fail, and they succeed and hit it big. that's the american story but behind that story, that's, behind that is freedom, is freedom. and again if we lose that we will lose everything. i spent a lifetime trying to promote freedom, frankly, in the economic sector where i know something about it but, frankly, all throughout, all throughout the country. i mean, freedom of speech and now, there's ath big debate with misinformation, government bureaus. this stuff dries me crazy. but i won't call him my friend but i dealings with elon musk when i was in white house. what he's trying to do, he calls himself a free-speech absolutist something like that, i love that. free speech, freedom of religion. religion. i want a free economy. a free economy will produce every state run centrally planned economy. and i will sit here, we're on

for a couple of hours, i'll sit here all day and tomorrow and show youhi historical examples f why every economy outperforms the state economy. >> host: before we get too far from jfk and the reagan revolution, that fact about thee three recessions and the go get them \50{l1}s{l0}\'50{l1}s{l0} kind of surprised me. g what happened? was that government policy or just the waxing and waning? >> guest: there are a lot of factors after world war ii and a lot of factors after the korean war, but i would just say principally, you had a a 91% x rate, very high taxes, which were very onerous. now,y some critics of this view will say you would high taxes budget loopholes and nobodyy pad them. you had some loopholes, some very famous loopholes, from hollywood studio owners and stuff like that. but most people, particularly

the entrepreneurs, had to pay very high income taxes. the more they earned, the more punitive the tax rate was. capital gains taxes were very high, corporate taxes were very high. so the economy was smothered. the incentive effect which is so prominent during the harding, coolidge, mellon tax cuts, or the liberating u.s. grant tax cut, those incentives were not around. so it was veryiv tightly controlledon economy, a very government run economy, a highly regulated economy. the federal reserve properly, i think cap the dollar -- kept the dollar stable so inflation, computed episodes of inflation but we were under the old bretton woods dollar gold

exchange system and the federal reserve principally under martin did a pretty good job on that. but any time the fed tried to type, the economyri no other outlets because again it was so tightly controlled by high taxes and regulations. those are really importantti issues, and ike who has many wonderful qualities, general eisenhower, president eisenhower, economics was not one of them. there's a long story. there's a . his top advisor was arthur burns . he advised nixon. push the ball down the road during the reagan years. he was ambassador to germany and a very good ambassador. he and i became very friendly and he became something of a mentor of mine.

arthur creed -- i had a point about lower tax rates. he opposed it -- eisenhower, nixon -- he saw them work during the reagan years. there were three recessions and this is what gave kennedy a step up in the election. he ran as a growth guy and nixon did not deal with much economic, domestic policy. i remember nixon's son-in-law, a very dear personal friend of mine, his daughter and son-in-law are very dear friends of ours. i met nixon in the middle 80's. i was out of office, back on wall street. he had his old office down at one federal plaza, whatever it was in downtown new york those days. his son-in-law would bring in various policy people before

president nixon would go on foreign trips. i had at least one visit, maybe two, and it was very charming -- but what i had written, numerous op-ed pieces criticizing his economics as president. he did everything wrong. raised taxes, had tariffs, took the dollar off the gold standard and we had booming inflation. the first time i met him, he comes in and looks at me and says you don't think much of my economics, do you? [laughter] and i said net -- i said, no sir, with respect, i don't. it was a very cool moment. this was the mid 80's. i had served in reagan's first term, but nixon acknowledged in his books that the reagan tax cuts worked. he acknowledge that because he

was intellectually honest. host: insanity once more is a collection of your columns that came out in 2018. i want to read a quote from them -- this is election day 2016. enforcing trade deals is spot on . acting in the interest of american workers is correct. but large-scale tariffs are a terrible idea. larry: yes. and believe it or not, that is still my mantra. this is a good story. president trump was much more attuned to tariffs than i was or that i am. before i went into office, i became his nec director in march of 2018. he had just put through steel

and aluminum tariffs. i did not agree and art die, i think steve moore may have been on that, but we wrote an op-ed piece criticizing this -- criticizing the steel and aluminum tariffs. president trump knew all about it. he read it when he was calling me secretly. the subject came up once or twice. we agreed to disagree. it is interesting. i'm not a fan of tariffs. tariffs are international taxes. they tax work and production just as much as direct -- as the mistake tax rates. so i regard myself as a free trader. but i'm going to make two qualifications on this. one is you do have two think

about the issue of reciprocity. what's the other side doing to you on trade? this was an important point trump made. he and i, it is sort of interesting -- the only two op-ed pieces i wrote in his administration both preceded drew -- both preceded g7 meetings. in those, i quoted a conversation he and i had where he believed he was a free trader and under ideal circumstances, that is to say no tariffs, no non-tariff barriers, and no subsidies. that is the world trump yearned for. those were his goals and they

are classic free-trade goal -- no tariffs, zero non--tariff barriers, and zero subsidies for favorite industries. i wrote that and quoted that. one op-ed was in the washington post, the second was in the wall street journal before a g7 and i remember, at the g7 we had in canada, which i think was 2018 in the north of quebec. we were in a bilateral with justin trudeau and president trump and your senior advisers lined up on both sides and they were talking about trade because trump was threatened to impose car tariffs on canada, which would have devastated canada. trump said you know, justin, if

we had no tariffs and no nontariff barriers and no subsidies, we would all be in great shape as free traders. trump looks at me, i'm sitting one or two or three down from him. he said you've said that your whole career, 30 years. he knew that because we had talked about it. but, he expressed publicly that view and he did it later. so he had a lot of free-trade blood in him. his trade representative, a deer friend of mine and a brilliant guy, he was just on my tv show. we were in atlanta for an america first policy conference. people forget we had usmca, which was not perfect free-trade but it was a good free-trade

deal. we had free-trade deals with japan, brazil, south korea, where both sides in the spirit of reciprocity gave up some protections. the biggest one was china and the most controversial one was china. trump had big tariffs on china. we still have them. 365 billion some odd. so far, biden has not taken them off and i hope he doesn't. i would argue, and as president trump argued, we needed those tariffs to bring china to the table, to get their attention. i will give you another view -- i completely agree.

one of trump's greatest achievements as president was he rang the bell on china correctly. he made it very clear to people in this country and around the world that china is an adversary, they are not our friend, they are an economic adversary, they are a foreign policy adversary. so his rhetoric was tough, his tariffs were tough, but we did bring them to the table. no one had been able to do that. we got a bunch of concessions and i was on that china trade team and it was hard going. beijing and washington, beijing and washington. this was the so called one deal. the phase one free-trade deal

was rooted in tariffs. if there is a certain inconsistency there, i understand the point, but the one was necessary to get to the other and i think the deal is holding up the good. it ain't perfect, lots and lots of progress on international -- on intellectual poverty theft. they bought a lot of our commodities, not perhaps as much as we want, but a lot, and we ought to be selling much more lng exports. forced transfer of technology, still a work in progress, but on the whole, phase one was a great success and if trump had been reelected, we would have moved to phase two. so far, nothing has happened. a bit long-winded, but i am a free trader. is trump a free-trade or?

he would not say it the way i say it, but in a perfect world, he would agree with me -- no tariffs in a perfect world. he liked that. somewhat pollyanna. host: good afternoon and welcome to book dvds in-depth program. our guest is larry kudlow, the author of american abundance, which came out in 1997, jfk and the reagan revolution came out in 2016 and a collection of his columns from creators syndicate came out in 2018 and that is called insanity once more. for regular viewers, you know this is our monthly call in program. one author, his or her body of work and your calls, text messages, tweets, etc. here is how you can get a hold of us if you have a question or comment. for the eastern and central time zones -- and in the mountain and

pacific time zone. if you want to send a text message, 202-748-8903. include your first name and your city. we will also scroll through our social media addresses. just remember at book tv is the handle there. we will begin taking those in just a few minutes. what was the reaction from a lot of your long-time republican friends when you joined the trump administration? larry: it was pretty good, actually. very positive. people encourage me to do it. for a variety of reasons. i was pretty busy, tv on a different network and a radio show and consulting.

i had worked with candidate trump, we worked on the tax-cut plan quite a lot. occasionally i was a spokesperson for him. he invoked my name several times in some of the debates, much to my astonishment. and i knew him in new york city for many years. new him, like him, he had been a guest on my tv show and radio show. i knew his family a bit. i thought he was a major force. i was not looking for a job. but if you have a second, i will tell you how it started. it is honey. in march of 2018 is how this got started. we were up here in connecticut for a weekend and i was coming back from indoor tennis. the phone rings in my car and it

is the president. i had spoken to him. i had seen him in 2017, and been in the oval with him and talked to him. he calls me and i pulled over, i had pretty good reception, i pulled over so we could have a conversation and he just starts talking about one thing or another. he mentioned the national economic council, but nothing terribly specific. i thought he was calling to yell at me because we had written an op-ed piece against the steel tariffs. but i don't think it came up in that conversation. he just wanted to talk about things and i think he mentioned the nec. it was a sunday afternoon. he said i will call you back tomorrow night. i said ok, sir.

host: when the phone rings from the white house, is it please hold for the president? larry: yes. monday night, i'm home in new york and he did call. that was when we had a more earnest, direct conversation about the national economic council. he was about to make a change and we talked about a bunch of policies. these were very good conversations. what do you think about this, what do you think about that? what should i do here question mark as you know, i'm not bashful about my views and he said no one knows we are having this conversation. ok. he said i will call you tomorrow night.

i said yes. the next night, we are having dinner. we have a dinner group with some dear friends in new york city in midtown. i had the cell phone in my back pocket just in case and the phone rang and it was him. i walk out onto fifth avenue, it was cold and drizzly, but i wasn't going to take the call in the restaurant. he got much more specific on that call. it's amusing because my wife came out to get me. we had to go home and i had to do a radio show. every tuesday night, we would do an hour. so we were talking and going up madison avenue. finally i said sir, are you offering me a position?

yeah, you are my guy. no one knows we are having this conversation. you are my guy, congratulations. he said would you take the job and i said yes, i would. i'm honored, and i was honored. i love government service and i love him. so that was that. i went and did the radio show and a very dear friend of mine, a radio man, mark simone, who is part of the dinner group said kudlow takes a call from the president at dinner, gets up and walks out of the restaurant and we don't see them for four years. [laughter] that's sort of how that happened. then in that call tuesday night, some people said he offered me the job the night before but i didn't get it, i don't know.

in any case, he said you will come down here thursday or friday and we will have a press conference. no one knows this. the next morning, which is a wednesday morning, i'm sitting at home preparing for my tv show . he calls me and says you look so handsome. he said turn on the tv. and the news at broke and everyone was running this thing. [laughter] to me -- those are in during qualities. he's just natural and flows and maybe he could say some things differently, but he is who he is and i remains -- i remain loyal to them. host: did you know him is donald? larry: yes. host: once he got elected, did

you call him by his first name? larry: never. when he was president elect and while i serve there, he was either mr. president orser, always. -- mr. president or sir, always. host: we are in larry kudlow's library up in the wilds of connecticut. back to your insanity once more book. this is your october 2016 column -- i want to thank melania trump for starting me on the path of restored confidence in donald trump. larry: president trump, then candidate trump had said a couple of things that did not thrill me. i never left him, just things that did not throw me. things came up in that campaign

-- you look back and it wasn't very important but during the campaign, it became a big deal and i had to talk about on the air and i recall milani a who is a wonderful, wonderful woman. we got to be good friends in the white house. she went on tv and defended president trump. she made it very clear she was a thousand percent behind him and that these things were passing and it was no big deal. so i wrote about that. it's funny. that column, he told me later that he was personally not thrilled about that column, but

that milani loved me. he says milani loves you. i don't think you had to write it but -- it was a column about her. i'm not one of her intimates, but i have great respect for her and i watched her on a couple of cable tv shows and it was very impressive and clear to me that her support was unwavering. those columns were written to some extent tongue-in-cheek. but she liked it more than he did. host: let's hear from our viewers. let's begin with monte in spring, texas. you are on with larry kudlow. go ahead and make your comment or question. caller: i had a short question for mr. kudlow about the comments president trump made on may 3 2019 when he said we are

taking billions of dollars in china from tariffs. we've never taken tariffs from china -- now we are taking billions of dollars. were these both false statements? we have been taking billions but china is not paying the tariffs. it is american consumers. host: i think we got the idea. he referenced may 3, 2019, but tariffs on china and taking in billions of dollars. is there something you can extrapolate from that. it was a little difficult to hear. larry: i'm not sure -- in economic terms, the tariffs imposed a significant burden on china.

they experienced it and they sought because prices went up and the demand for chinese currency went down. their inflation rate went up, interest rates went up and it is true those tariffs would be paid , imports, rather, in that tariff world would be paid by u.s. companies. but the key point it was minimal impact. our economy was booming. their corporate tax cuts were so important and gave us such a big advantage and that deregulation, but particularly in the world of trade and tariffs because, as we discussed earlier, tariffs are tax rates. we did increase tariff rates on certain chinese imports, particularly technology-related

imports, what i call the family jewels, which we had to protect. but, we slashed the marginal corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%, which more than offset any tariff rate impact. as i was mentioning earlier, even though i don't like tariffs in an ideal world, perhaps president trump doesn't either in an ideal world, he rang the warning bell and we brought them to the table and it wasn't until 2019, early 2020 that we finally consummated what became known as the phase one china trade deal. i think, on balance, even though i am a free trade are, i think those tariffs were necessary and any time -- there is a lot of

talk about the biden edits ration about raising the corporate tax rate, it would put us at tremendous disadvantage and would damage the tough position we had staked out on china. i would urge them to keep those tax rates low. we want to be as competitive as we can and money flowed back to the u.s. just as an aside, it turns out corporate tax rates, the reduction in corporate tax rates pay for themselves. we've been getting irs data on this and i've talked quite a bit about this on my show with arthur laffer. the laffer curve work. -- laffer curve worked. tax collections went up as tax rates went down.

why? because you had more economic activity, more people working, earning more income. so, they paid more tax collections even though the rates were down and income was up. and, by the way, tax avoidance is much less. there's no point in looking for tax shelters if you have a low tax rate. it's just not worth the effort. so we were able to withstand any to minimize native impacts of the chinese tariffs. it was well offset by corporate tax rates. host: let's hear from george in hudson, florida. caller: good afternoon. how are you today. host: go ahead with your question or comment. caller: i watch your show religiously on foxbusiness channel because i don't have a nine-year-old around to set the dvr for me. [laughter] larry: thank you.

caller: i have to do it myself. what i was going to ask you is where are we going to be next year when we still have joe biden in office whose cognitive values is craziness or however you want to call them. there's something wrong with him and i can't see anything happening with kamala harris or anybody in the government now that can take care -- where are we going to be next year? larry: i can't comment on the cognitive problems. i see what i see and i see what lots of other people see and i will leave that to doctors.

this is my own personal view -- as i have said many times, cavalry is coming. i think the midterm elections are going to be a gop sweep in both houses and i think that will stop some of the economic and social excesses of the biden administration. just giving my own personal views here. i think the biggest problem we are going to have in the next couple of years is getting high inflation down. i think high inflation was a big mistake by the biden administration. too much spending, too much borrowing, and the federal reserve missed the inflation boat. too much money printing. so we are paying for that now. the good news is it's not a 12

year thing the way it was back in the 70's. the bad news is getting 8% to 10% inflation back to 2% inflation will not be pain free. hopefully a republican congress will move to reduce spending and reduce borrowing. hopefully a republican congress will open the spigots toward oil and gas production and pipelines, all of which had been closed by biden. and hopefully a republican congress will keep a sharp eye on the federal reserve to make sure they slow down the money supply and move their interest rates up accordingly and protect the value of the dollar. i think you will see policy changes, but it's not going to be easy. and i don't think it's going to be pain free. host: for those who do or don't

watch your show, there is something else you have been saying recently and we are going to play a quick montage. you will see it, but you will hear it. larry: save america killed the bill. save america killed the bill. save the bill -- save america and kill the bill. that wisdom is simple, save america, kill the bill. save america, kill the bill. save america, kill the bill. tonight, i'm lunching a slightly new mantra, kill any new bills that may come next year. [laughter] that's great. there it was. the good news is, we killed the bill, at least so far. it keeps coming back. it became a rallying cry.

that bill, depending on its iteration would've been another five or $6 trillion of additional federal spending with massive inflationary consequences. and also, hidden in that bill, very huge tax hikes which would have done great damage to the economy and incentives to work, save and take risks. there was a save america coalition that developed among conservative groups. i was a supporter of democrat joe manchin, constantly supporting mention. i thought he was a very brave democrat. he's somebody who would save the democratic party from themselves if they ever gave him the chance. i wish you would run in

primaries for the presidential run in 2024. joe is a friend of mine. he's been on the show. i don't talk politics with them, talk policy but i think he did a heroic job. i think kyrsten sinema has done a terrific job fighting off the tax increases and so far, we have killed the bill. i don't want any more bills. by the way, i want to add one thing -- there is another bill sometimes called the china compete bill which has nothing to do with competing with china. it would be as much as 300 billion dollars of additional federal spending, industrial policies, corporate welfare, bailing out a chip industry that doesn't need bailouts. and i've got to tell you, a dozen republicans voted for it in the senate and should not have. host: richard is in brentwood, maryland. caller: you are still in the top

three interviewers in the country. i appreciate your efforts. mr. kudlow, you mentioned to the previous caller about nonclinical comments about mr. biden's cognitive abilities and i listen to you on the forum with stephen forbes and you called our president an idiot. so enough of that. but my question is this. you did -- you referred to reagan's tax policy of three decades -- as three decades of prosperity. his policies cost george bush the first a second term because it was economics clinton ran on

and the state of our country's economy. 30 years would have taken us to the second bush which was an economic debacle as well. host: a lot on the table there. mr. kudlow -- first of all the idiot remark and we will go into the economics. larry: i'd don't think i've said that. perhaps i did and passing, but i don't believe that. i've been critical of biden. idiot, i doubt it. putting that aside, poppa bush temporarily reversed a small part of reagan's tax cuts and it was a mistake. we went into recession and he lost the election. but the bulk of reagan's tax cuts state and bill clinton, who continued to raise the income tax -- when reagan came in, it

was 70%. when reagan left, it was 28. poppa bush raised it to 31 with other tax hikes. bill clinton took it to perhaps 40. still below 70. george w. bush brought it back to 35. basically, the tax cuts stayed intact. they were not as low as 28 but basically stayed intact. but look -- with poppa bush, so many of us who helped vice president bush and tried to talk him out of raising taxes -- he said don't do it, don't do it, he did it and he lost the election. host: richard in brentwood, maryland. if you want a fuller, longer answer of that, this trick

kudlow writes about that extensively in jfk and the reagan revolution. you and i were talking yesterday and you kind of have this happy warrior persona on the air. i was surprised you had called mr. biden. guest: it's just not my way. i gave him a chance and then i looked at thehost: our book tv h program continues from larry kudlow's library in connecticut. we want to hear from you. 202 is the area code. 202-748-8201 if you live in mountain and pacific time zones. if you want to send a text, 2027

488903. -- 202-748-8903. mr. kudlow, where did you grow up and who are your parents? guest: i grew up in inglewood, new jersey. irv and ruth kudlow. he was a businessman. she became a very good real estate agent. and i have one younger brother who has lived in hollywood, los angeles, hollywood for many decades. i love him to death. he is my favorite hollywood liberal. host what does he do in hollywood? guest: he is a scheme -- screenwriter, postproduction.

younger brother. host: i want to read a quote from "american abundance." this was in the introduction "in late november 19 905i had no prospects, no confidence, no ambition, and know since i could do the job." what was going on? guest: well, i had had my crash and burn sort of hopeless addictions to alcohol and drugs. it was the worst time of my life . it had been building up for several years. it went away -- i went away to a treatment center in minnesota for five months to get well. my saintly wife, judy, whom you have meant, sent me up there to long-term care. november 1995 is when i got out.

basically what i wrote was kind of true. i was not really sure what was going to happen. the most important thing was staying sober. which, i have managed to stay sober now for 27 years, coming up on 27 years. that is through god's grace and is the greatest blessing of my life. those were tricky times. it seems like a long time ago. things have, in almost every way, worked out better than i ever dreamed possible or ever dared dream possible. judy and i will have, i guess, i had better remember this. i think, 35 years married this summer. 27 years of sobriety.

god has been very good to me. god has been very good to me. at that point when you read that, and i was being honest in that book, who knew? i did not know. i had no idea. host: what do you remember about the last, or, first few months of 1995 at the end of your using. guest: blessedly, very little, to be honest with you. look, i still go to 12 step meetings. i'm still very active in 12 steps. i am very active in my church. i think about that stuff from time to time. every now and then, you know, the way it works in the 12 step. may be on your anniversary or maybe not you are asked to tell your story in front of the group . i don't want to bore the viewers

but, you kind of go back in time a little bit. you never really want to lose that. because, they were terrible days, terrible days. i will spare the quantification here. on c-span. i will just say that it was the worst moments of my life without any question. i do not think -- i mean, i returned to faith. i returned to a more spiritual way of looking at the world. i would also say, peter, things that i have learned from the 12 step group have served me very well in my career these last three decades. very well. of course, i have been honest about all of this.

president trump new. i have never withheld that and it has come up from time to time. i have done interviews. in the white house, the trump white house, on my 25th anniversary melania was hosting a conference on alcohol and drugs. it so happened that they found out, i do not know how, maybe one of my ladies, but that it was my 25th anniversary coming up. she asked me to speak, which i did in at least a general way. but, you know, i mean, think about it. from that point in 1995 to being a very senior presidential

advisor it is a very long stones throw but one could not have happened without the other. i'm very grateful for that. god has been very good for me -- to me and i tried to follow his path. i and perfect, but i tried. host: jim in rochester, new york you are on with larry kudlow. caller: mr. kudlow, i am wondering what your opinion is on the u.s. debt of $30 trillion, the unfunded liabilities we have in social security, medicare coming up getting closer and closer. also, the $9 trillion balance sheet the fed has. what kind of effect will that have when interest rates begin

to turn to -- return to anything close to normal? it seems to me there is a growing concern, i think, the cato institute published a booklet of various editorials called the fiscal cliff. it is very concerning. i'm wondering what your opinion of it is. guest: those a very good questions. one is the entitlement question on social security and medicare. the second one is the balance sheet of the fed, called the monetary base which is just briefly for viewers, essentially, printing money. all right? said, the government spends money. the federal government spends money. it borrows to finance its spending.

that all too frequently -- then all too frequently the federal reserve purchases the bonds uncle sam sells. there is fullface faith in credit but when the fed buys those bonds they literally create money. that is what central banks do. i could go on and on about it. i actually started my entire career at the new york fed back in 1973. but in any case, the entitlement problem is an issue. look, i do not believe there will ever be a default of social security obligations or, for that matter, medicare obligations. i mean, at the end of the day, it is the government that sells bonds to raise the money. yes, we pay taxes and we have payroll taxes for social security and medicare. but, really, there is a certain

fiction about that, particularly, on the medicare side. medicare really is not funded anymore by payroll taxes. it is mostly just funded out of general obligations. those are financed by selling bonds. so at some future point, somebody in power, in congress are the white house, will have to look at that. they will just have to look at that. there are very valuable systems that need to be preserved in my judgment. they could be reformed. there are a number of decent proposals out there to reform social security and to reform medicare. but, we spend more than we take in. that is a generic program -- problem throughout the entire government. it includes entitlements and will have to be looked at. and the other point the viewer made, interest rates will return to something more normal. they will not be zero anymore.

already mortgage rates are up to 5%. 10 year bond rates are moving to 3%. in my view both will go higher because of inflation and the federal reserve's attempts to stop inflation. so that will add to the burden. the financing of federal debt in general will be more expensive. i will add one other point, peter. these are all reasons why i do not want any more federal spending. on domestic discretionary programs. that is why i said save america kill the bill. we don't need another $5 trillion worth of domestic spending. we cannot afford it. it will be extremely costly to finance. and ultimately, it is inflationary. i want to say, although, i has been an opponent of the biden administration's policies, by the way, not alone. some democrats like larry

summers and jason furman, honest democrat economists, have also. but the point is, we have to come up with no new spending at all, period. that is why i have been so emphatic about this. secondary from my concern about the negative economic growth effects we cannot keep doing this. it is a matter of common sense. let me put it to you that way. i know i am a republican, a reagan guy, a trump guy, a conservative, a supply side. i get that. i am not masquerading as anything else. i think what you are seeing in the polls, in the run-up to the midterms, it is a matter of common sense. people do not want to go out this far to the left on everything. whether it is government spending more ending fossil

fuels or taking parents out of the classroom more the -- or the open border or the file is -- foreign policy the afghanistan. i mean, this is not a campaign commercial. i am just saying that what you have here is an administration that is departed from traditional democrat concerns. this is why i love joe manchin. i speak as a former democrat. many years ago. i'd knowledge it was 45, 50 years ago. i worked for ronald reagan, a former democrat. i worked for donald trump, a former democrat. i have often said the best republicans are former democrats. not every republican senator agrees with me on that and i say it somewhat tongue in cheek. but the extremism in the biden

administration rejected. it just lacks common sense, that is all. you are sitting there and you see an inflation rate that has jumped. this was before the invasion in ukraine. the inflation rate has gone from less than 2% to 7% before ukraine. now here they come back with a new proposal. the congressional budget office prices it out at $5 trillion in spending and another $3 trillion in debt. you can do this. -- cannot do this. joe manchin was the standup guy along with kyrsten sinema and i noticed some other moderate democrats beginning to line up behind it. the stuff going on on the border is not sustainable, alright? you see a bunch of democrats, and i know they are from swing states. but i don't need to question their motives. directors, -- the fact is, we cannot just have a couple

million people illegally cross the border every year. it's just not sustainable. just like we will not end natural gas and fossil fuels in the next eight to 10 years. because, there is nothing to replace it. people know that. so, entitlement. i mean, we have a lot of work to do, ok. a lot of work to do. i think that you will see a big change. but i think the congressional changes coming. but i think the biggest change and the most important change will be 2024. because in order to effect major reforms, in any of these areas whether it is taxes or spending or inflation or the border or education or civil rights or what have you, you need the white house. you need the white house. i believe you will see different occupants in the white house. host: ok. july 9, 2019 talking to business insider this is a quote.

"i do not see this as a huge problem right now at all, it is quite manageable talking about the $22.5 trillion debt at that point. guest: as a share of gdp host: july 9, 2019. guest: it was still under share of gdp. i did not see it as a big problem. it's funny. i have a long history of not being a debt monger. some of my traditional conservative friends don't like that. i am much more interested -- here is where my theme of economic growth comes into play, ok? are you growing the economy? that is my first question. now, let's go back. this was true in the reagan tax cut debate.

let's go back to the trump tax cut debate. so, his tax cuts were priced out by the congressional budget office and the joint tax committee on a static basis meaning no economic good -- growth impact. at $1.5 trillion. of course, you have democrats that said, oh my god, that will raise the deficit and the debt. of course, they have never cared about that before. tax cuts not only promoted growth but brought unemployment to record low levels, brought minority unemployment to record low levels, brought poverty to record low levels. they also paid for themselves. now, they did not in year one and i never said they would.

they did not in year two. yes, there was a debt increase to finance those tax cuts. but here we are, through the pandemic and all of these numbers are coming in from the irs and treasury. they show record revenues. they zero -- show that the corporate tax cuts paid for themselves. this has been the suspect or subject of a cup -- been the subject of a couple programs on my fox business show. the laffer curve works. in the first year or two, you may have to borrow money to finance lower tax rates. but whether they are individual or corporate rates, you are making an investment. you are making an investment in future growth and prosperity and jobs including minorities, especially minorities. you are making an investment in

middle-class working folks, blue-collar folks. so it is worth it to incur a temporary deficit. that will increase the debt. it is worth it because down the road everybody will benefit. studies show for example, studies on the left of center. you know, the brookings. they are not crazy leftists, but left of center. i don't know. 80% of the people got tax relief.

you will and but make us

better so that's where you get it and those people get the path to citizenship, a green card, they're paying nd into the system. that's why you solve that problem and for some reason people on the right, you're talking about people on the left but there's a lot of extreme wackos on the right to. you've got these american first errors, these know nothing people and that's going nowhere. second, inflation >> you know what martin, there's a lot there to play with and we appreciate you calling in . >> it's very well done.

you're one of the three, ri good, that's even better. i want to make a point about immigration because ati at least part of what carl just said i agree with. i think that immigration is a good thing, not a bad thing. and of course immigration, i don't like open borders. my own views have changed of the last 10 years. because i'm a strong pro-immigration reform, but these border crisis, the catastrophe at the border is something that cannot be allowed to continue. it's unsustainable in all of its many forms.

president trump on this discovered two things. one is he got control of the border through the remain in mexico build a wall policy and basically had a policy, remain in mexico was basically catch and deport because illegal immigration does damage. illegal immigration by the way includes drug trafficking which again is a crisis point. sex trafficking. kids trafficking. narco terrorists run these and we cannot allowthat . i guess i've been tougher on theborder because we've been looking at what's happened on the border . i think the bidens have made a terrible mistake over there

and its title 42, if you're going to get rid of that place with something else like until emergency. the other part of president trump's policies however were what i would call legal immigration reform. we had a very good plan which we could never get through congress and it will require for elbow grease that it will require a new congress. there are a number of ways that we can legally, productively, consistent with economic growth allow 1 million, 1 million+ perhaps legal immigrants per year, i don't have any problem with that . of course america was founded on immigrants and they were gigantic contributors to our fabulous economic growth over the last eight centuries but today situation cannot last in my judgment. >> what about martin's comment about right wing

wackos as he called them, the america first errors. >> he mentioned mark, he's a smart guy. i'm not sure what a right wing wacko is. >> with you from tom in phoenix, tom modell. >> caller: thank you for taking my call and mister kudlow, you seem to be a person respectful of everybody but if comments were made my assessment is they are accurate and true so how bad can they be? butanyway , save america, ñbill. your dedication to the service of this country will help change things around from the disaster we have now and there's a lot of people

on the right writing books and talking and their service is greatly appreciated . we need to see you out on tv like cnn, i'm sorry, not cnn but the program we're on. i used it to write to the office of correspondence. i don't know if the president ever gets to read them, maybe you can tell me but they were first used to refer to him as the president teacher and the way he spoke people understood. they got it and it wasn't anything fancy.and i see you do lots of the same on the economic side and i appreciate that, thank you. .> thank you tom >> it's very kind, i appreciate it. i have a long history with c-span and actually, in my book american pundits i have a hats off to brian lamb which is a giant iconic figure so i'm honored to be

on theshow today . i love to do service with its c-span. >> host: tom asked about the president and access or hearing from the public. how often, you've been in the oval office twice now. how often does it come up? l>> guest: actually, with president trump, i would say he kept in touch with more people, more frequently. he was constantly on the phone. that's the thing. which may be very interesting. so let's say we're having a big policy meeting. let's say the economy. so we're in the meeting with the oval office. mnuchin is there and

lightheiser is they are, anyway, very important meeting and some subject with,. itcould be taxes, could be trade . could be housing. could be fossil fuel. there's no end to it. you start off by the top server, we are here and he would listen and the next thing he would yell out to the outer oval office, can you get me so and so on the phone, i want to talk to him. and it would be, his mind would associate somebody he knew from outside the government who might have something interesting to say about thetopic . he would put that person on the phone, put the speakerphone on and he would join our meeting.

this would happen with some regularity. i know also even when we were not informal meetings that she was constantly on the phone with people and people that you might be surprised. not everyone was a trump supporter, everyone was a republican. he wanted to get as many inputs as he possibly could. he's not giving away trade secrets, it's not like he would be calling people for a national security meeting, none of that but some of these, i'll just call them open endeddiscussions . not decision discussions which would be by various executive agencies but rather open ended discussions, kicking stuffaround . ceos, sometimes broadcasters. friends.

you know, one of the great things in that trunk umtradition is you know what? the so-called experts including outside people were always right. they don't all have all the wisdom . and this sort of beltway thing with credentials and degrees and length of service , oh my gosh. nonsense. trump was great at bringing rin new blood and staying in touch withpeople who were not in the government . and i don't know. some people inthe administration were frustrated by that . i would do the same thing on my own, at my level if i had something cooking i liked to hear from so and so . i know people out there whose opinions i'm interested in hearing so i loved it when he did that. we used to have that nec,

national economic council would have cabinet lunches every two weeks and we have all the cabinet agencies involved and we would invite my predecessor and i did it, we would invite people outside the government to us during lunch. we go down to the boardroom and it was refreshing. they say anything they want and we would hear it. it was fabulous. experts will be the death of us. i want experts, too many experts. >> every author who appears on in-depth we ask him or her for their favorite books and what they're currently reading. here is larry kudlow's list. his favorite books include john sanford, brett baer,

brian tell me, the president and the freedom fighter. currently reading or just read c4 on inflation, brian dimitri vick, the emergence of arthur last letter. charles morris : tycoons and martin lawrence, the jazz age to present. which of these, any of them? >> they're not necessarily my favorite books of all time but it's what i either have read or am reading now . i want to say john sanford, i love to read. and this by the way, john sanford's book the investigator. he has written 1 million books about a great ... i love mystery,cops, cia . sanford writes his favorite cop is lucas davenport and down through the years i've

read many on sanford books that i believe i know lucas davenport very well and i've been infinitely involved with lucas davenport's family and this is a book about lucas davenport's daughter letty davenport and i'm about halfway through soi let you know how that works . the other one is jamie lee burke who has written about my otherfavorite job . i guy named david robicheaux. i've never met rob sanford, i'd love to meet them, their fantastic writers. lucas davenport should sometime meet david robicheaux. david robicheaux by the way is a recovering alcoholic and some of his books go into aa meetings. that's how good they are so i think it's great fun. the other stuff, look. ienjoyed steve forbes .

i'm a longtime collaborator. his book on inflation is terrific. i think it's a must read because inflation is so very important. i wanted to say that brett behr wrote a great book about us grant. it's an excellent book as i said earlier as well. brett baer wrote, brian kill me a terrific book about abraham lincoln and frederick douglass. two opponents of slavery, different styles, different positions. very very important. both did a great job. he's an indefatigable guy so i really am very keen on the folks i've brought here with you, i wasn't sure what to sign up. i like that the two books 19

on, one is the book about the gilded age which is that charlie morris, that's the jazz age. here's the tycoons. okay. the tycoons and that links to the jazz age. the jazz age book is about one but i want to group them altogether because i'm going to give an opinion here. left wing historians have destroyed these presidents and by the way they tried to destroy grant. i think it was you who told me grant is starting to move up the list on. >> host: on the c-span quadrennial list of presidential rankings grant is moving up. >> hideservedly so. not only did he win the civil war on the battlefield but as i said to you yesterday when grant was the guy who tried to enforce reconstruction.

grant was the guy who took on the ku klux klan and by the way grant restore the value of the dollar to stop civil war inflation. liberal historians don't like that, they don't likewarren g harding, they don't like calvin coolidge . they used the not like ronald reagan but there have been histories written by reagan in his own hand they realize he was quite an intellectual so let's go to the gilded age . the gilded age was a, i'm going to define it as kind of like 1870 to 1910 or something. give me some running room on that. i'm actually going through us grant into this grant was president from 68 to 76. the gilded age was the second industrial revolution and the

gilded age was phenomenal period of inventions. airplanes, oil, applications of oil. i was hoping we could go into this stuff. steel, electricity, telegraphs, automobiles. airplanes. the red cross, come on. and their bad mouthing everything about the book. this tv show, made them all out to be villains. it's all about social climbing stuff. they completely miss the big picture. this was a time of unheralded prosperity in theunited states . they became the greatest country economically during the so-called gilded age and it was the second industrial

revolution. also a terrific artist and painter, the hudson river painters rrcame through. tremendous stuff. horatio alger. the chicago exposition of 1893, i don't know if i get this right . it was either 1893 or 1896. the wright brothers, 1903 was during the gilded age. a few of these guys, rockefeller and j.p. morgan. i'm just saying this was not an era of robber barons. this was an era of american greatness and prosperity, tens of millions of people getting higher-paying jobs. just can't ask for more. it was a tremendous period of literature and a tremendous

period of art and that's why i wanted to bring this up. the tycoons is a good place to start. a lot of good books about this.e bill grant at the university of texas has written, liberal historians have slaughtered this age and they're wrong. they just missed the point. the progressive period cannot post anything like this. the other thing is the1920s, the jazz age and again , people like to kill harding and there was corruption in the harding administration but as mister walters shows, it had nothing to do with harding and the people that were corrupt got busted and thrown in jail. harding had nothing to do with them. he was good middle-of-the-road conservative republican from ohio but here's the thing. return to normalcy.

harding again, i said this earlier in the show. calvin coolidge was another guy, liberals coolidge. maybe the first law and order guy, he was the guy stopped the police in massachusetts, he was tough on crime. that's a big issue today and andrew mellon was the quarterback read a/tax rates and space last bending. and they even slashed the federal debt. i don't care about that as much. they had unbelievable prosperity in the 1920s. again, another industrial age . literature, arts, everything. and unfortunately, herbert hoover came in and even though he was a republican and he served in coolidge, coolidge called him, hoover was a good businessman. he was a mining engineer and

he did great humanitarian things as secretary of commercecoolidge had no time for him because he was a big government got . even though he had the hoover institution in sanford, hoover himself took the tax rate for 25 to 65 percent. and the smoot hawley terrace and determine what was a modest downturn into a depression and fdr made it worse because he kept raising taxes. kept controlling prices. so i'm reading this book i like to proselytize about these books. i love the gilded age stuff. personally if i had it to do over again , i would like to have been ... i don't know.

grover cleveland the democrat is oneof my favorite presidents . he was a pro- old spending cutter. wouldn't fathom the income tax. he was mayor and president all in about five or six years. and he was the only guy to come back and be president again. i like grover cleveland and i like us grant and i like warren harding and i especially like calvin coolidge . and i like donald trump. >> was grover cleveland the father of little babies was ? >> guest: 'sopponents go after these guys and grover cleveland was last gold democrat. anyway, william jenningsbryan .

>>. >> host: we got time for one or two more calls. john, you're on with larry kudlow. you with us? let's try john. >> caller: this is john from connecticut. i don't know where you think the senator from louisiana would be agood presidential candidate in 2024 . >> are going to leave it right there. >> guest: john kerry is a very smart man. >> host: when you were in the white house how often did you talk with the congressman, constantly? >> guest: constantly. i had a lot of dealings with senator kennedy . we spoke here at a state fundraiser.

i mentioned on the show recently he's a smart guy. >> host: frank from florida, you're on the air. >> caller: how are you mister kudlow? peter, you have to have one question of mister kudlow. i somewhat agree with some of his positions but some i do not and one of them is i think the caller mentioned about the spending of the trump administration and that's always been bugaboo for me. the republicans, the democrats tried to come in and fix that mess but what's kudlow's position on that and one more thing, you have a

great argument about the government taking the place of the workers. they would start having to pay workers for their salary because there would be more no morejobs . >>. >> host: did you get anything out of that? >> guest: that is the most exaggerated overstated argument. robots will help grow the economy and create jobs just like all the industrial revolution improvements. trump called deals of creative destruction and i'ma great advocate of that . i'm not sure i understood his first question. >> host: i just couldn't hear it clearly enough and i don't want to put words in his

mouth. i'm going to do something the last five minutes. i'm going to go through headlines and get your quick take on n these. these are from recent newspapers. here's the new york times, the story on tucker carlson, american nationalist. >> guest: i read it quickly. tucker is a longtime friend of mine. he's a very smart guy. he's done a fabulous job and it just looks like i new york times political job. >> host: wall street journal. us economy shrinks 1.4 percent, every year amazon loses money. >> guest: high inflation again, the feds going to have to take away the punch bowl. the stock market is going to be in for r a rough time the next six, nine, 12 months but i want tosay this . people should buy and own stocks for the long run.

and if the market does go down some more because i think the economy is going through stagflation we might be on the front end of a recession last year. and then hold on, by the indexes and hold them forever . and again, the cavalry is coming. >> host: washington post, biden a plan for ukraine signals deepening war. >> guest: i did not read that but i will say joe biden has been a dollar ytshort and a day late on ukraine but i will also say it looks like there catching up to where they need to be. i'm very impressed with defense secretary lloyd austin about this and i think the united states should do everything it can, everything it can to help the ukrainians

win the war in ukraine. not american troops on the ground but we should help ukraine win the war and drive the russians out of there. >> host: tim murtagh, media reaction to the clan must. >> i didn't read tim's article. i really like elon musk, i like what he's doing with respect to twitter and his crusade first free speech and i just think he's a brilliant, brilliant guy. >> had one final story, this is from the washington post. proud boys member pleads guilty in january 6 cooperation. january 6. >>. >> guest: i was in my office on the second floor. i didn't read that. i'll just make one comment. january 6 was a rough day for

everybody but i'll say this. people who accuse my former boss donald trump somehow commenting insurrection in the revolution, they want to go back and look at some of facts and my friend jerome murdoch has written about this. that was president trump who ordered 10 to 20,000 national guard people to police the capitals and the city of washington and that order was rejected either mayor of washington and the speaker of the house so for a guy who is trying to promote insurrection, don't you think it's odd, don't people think it's odd he called 20,000 national guard people in to protect the capital so i would just leave that there. >>. >> host: from insanity once more which is a collection of larry kudlow's columns, there's not a racist, hateful, white supremacist bone in donald trump's body.

where going to finish with this quote from larry kudlow to people magazine . i don't believe in retirement . i don't understand the aword. i just keep on working. work is a virtue. what else am i going to do? >> i don't believe there's a racist bone in donald trump's s body. i'll review that i couldn't imagine it not working and as long as the lord gives me the strength to keep working on the opportunities i will continue to work. i love it too much. i'll just kind of keel over on the set of some tv show. just cardio way and will be done with it. >> thank you for being on book tv. thank you to both you and your wife judy for hosting us. >> it's time to wrap up the as