‘Affordability’ Is A Trojan Horse For Democrats To Bring Back The Biden Years

No matter what Democrats are saying about 'affordability,' trust that their priorities are anything but lowering prices.

Democrats may ride a blue wave on a red script



Democrats are poised for a good night on November 3. The only question is how far into Republican territory their gains will reach. Yet unlike the Democratic waves of 2006, 2008, and 2018, this election has no unmistakable leftward pull. Watch the ads. Democrats are attacking Republicans on issues that conservatives should own.

Trump won Alaska, Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, Ohio, and Texas by double digits in 2024. Now Republicans must defend Senate seats in every one of them, along with North Carolina, which Trump also carried. Georgia, another Trump state, has a Democratic incumbent senator that Republicans appear unlikely to unseat. Some of the fiercest contests are unfolding where the GOP should be cruising.

Trump’s endorsements helped protect milquetoast incumbents from serious primary challenges. Now Republicans must spend millions defending them. It’s political malpractice.

Does this mean voters have embraced the left? The Democratic Party’s commercials suggest the opposite. They seldom lead with abortion, transgender ideology, or illegal immigration, though those issues will surely figure in their governing agenda. Instead, Democrats attack inflation, health care costs, insider trading, data centers, Big Tech surveillance, and the Epstein scandal. Some of these spots would fit comfortably in a conservative primary.

We’re losing an election for things we don’t even believe in. Republicans embraced the cost of living as the “golden economy” while Democrats run on affordability, corruption, and opposition to corporate favors. Voters hear one party attacking powerful interests and another defending them. Guess which one holds the White House?

Take Texas. James Talarico, the radical leftist running against Ken Paxton, recently attacked Paxton for tax breaks and campaign donations tied to data centers that are “selling off Texas — our land, our water, our communities.” Talarico also promoted an ad calling out Biden for “failing us on the border” and promising to put Texas first. I could have written those attacks against a corporatist Republican myself!

In Ohio, former Senator Sherrod Brown (D) casts Republican attacks on transgender issues as distractions from gas prices, groceries, and health care. He goes after Senator Jon Husted (R) for promoting data centers across Ohio. Rather than defending their cultural agenda, Democrats make Republicans look like the ones obsessing over it while families struggle.

Independent Dan Osborn is doing something similar against Sen. Pete Ricketts (R) in Nebraska. His ads tie Ricketts to Epstein, challenge the importation of foreign beef over Nebraska cattle, and promote right-to-repair laws — a cause I have championed while few Republicans joined me. Osborn also condemns Ricketts’ vote to pardon a convicted rapist who had already served his prison sentence. That is a political opening no tough-on-crime conservative should offer.

RELATED: Democrats have a political violence problem

Tayfun Coskun/Anadolu via Getty Images

I have no faith in Osborn to govern as a conservative. But why hand him those openings? He is hammering Ricketts over sprawling data centers and casting himself as the champion of farmers and ranchers. The Senate Leadership Fund is pouring another $8 million into Nebraska, a state Trump won by 20 points.

Trump’s endorsements helped protect milquetoast incumbents from serious primary challenges. Now Republicans must spend millions defending them. It’s political malpractice.

In Kansas, Democrats are running an ad condemning Sen. Roger Marshall (R) for voting against releasing Epstein files and quoting his remark that the matter was “not of much interest to me.” Trump won Kansas by 16 points. The state hasn't elected a Democrat to the Senate since 1932. Yet a toxic mix of corporate baggage, scandal, and a rudderless Republican agenda has put even this seat in play.

Campaigns have aired more than 160 different Epstein-related ads this cycle, backed by more than $35 million in airtime, according to CNN’s analysis of AdImpact data. Democrats have found an issue that lets them sound like the outsiders demanding accountability while Republicans defend the status quo.

The same pattern holds in Georgia. Incumbent Democrat Jon Ossoff is attacking Flock cameras and Big Tech surveillance, issues most Blaze readers would recognize as legitimate threats to liberty. I don’t trust Ossoff to get them right. But my kind of Republican would never give him such an easy target. Why did the GOP?

RELATED: On ‘Meet the Press,’ El-Sayed denied his family's ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. Hours later, the receipts landed.

Slaven Vlasic/Getty Images

Michigan offers another example. Abdul El-Sayed, perhaps the Democrats’ most radical Senate nominee, isn’t running ads about making the Muslim Brotherhood great again. He’s attacking Republican Mike Rogers for promoting government surveillance and saying officials would love to get “one-tenth of what Google has on you.” Once again, Democrats have seized ground conservatives should occupy.

Then comes Iran. The war has battered energy prices and supply chains. Trump opened with two weeks of bombing and failed to plan for Iran's predictable disruption of the Strait of Hormuz. Even from a hawkish perspective, what meaningful objectives did he accomplish? That is another glass jaw Republicans did not need to inherit.

After Nov. 3, conservatives will face a long conversation about what went wrong. No single issue explains it. For two years, the movement has been pimping Big Tech, protecting Epstein, defending corporate welfare, and selling an economic message that bears little resemblance to what voters experience. None of that is inherent in conservative principles.

Democrats may be on the cusp of a blue wave, but they’ve written it with a red script. If conservatives refuse to learn, Democrats will repeat the performance in 2028 while Trump remains president. We need to break out of the paralysis of the Trump era and write our own script — so we can finally win or lose on what we believe.

Democrats can't erase the price shock of the Biden years



House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) says Republicans have "done nothing to make life more affordable for the American people" and instead have "made life more expensive." That’s a remarkable accusation from a party that presided over a historic jump in consumer prices and continues to defend policies that add to the bills families pay.

With the November midterms approaching, Democrats want voters to blame Donald Trump for the cost of groceries, rent, power, and gasoline. They should first account for the prices Americans inherited when Trump returned to office — and for the costs imposed by Democrat-led states.

Americans did not forget what groceries and rent cost four years ago. Democrats should not expect them to forget who held power when those prices took off.

Start with inflation. The Federal Reserve aims for 2% annual inflation over time. Even when inflation slows, prices generally keep rising. A smaller annual increase does not reverse the larger increases that came before it.

According to the consumer price index, overall prices climbed about 21% during Joe Biden's presidency. They rose roughly another 5% between January 2025 and August 2026, the latest available monthly data. Inflation has not stopped: The August report put the 12-month rate at 3.4%. But the distinction between the rate of inflation and the price level explains why families still feel the squeeze from the Biden years.

Household essentials tell the story. The Bureau of Labor Statistics recorded increases of more than 20% in grocery prices and residential rents during Biden's term. Electricity costs rose by roughly 30%. Slower subsequent increases leave those earlier jumps in place.

At the pump, the weekly national average hit $5.01 a gallon in June 2022, during Biden's term. It peaked at $4.50 so far in Trump's second term, amid disruptions to oil supplies due to the Iran war. Nominal term averages have run $3.46 under Biden and $3.43 so far under Trump, according to federal energy data.

Still, the household costs Democrats now denounce were already elevated when Biden left office. The party cannot credibly campaign as though American families began paying those bills in January 2025.

State policy makes the contradiction sharper. The Federation for American Immigration Reform, which favors stricter immigration enforcement, estimated in 2023 that illegal immigration imposed a net fiscal cost of $150.7 billion a year on federal, state and local taxpayers. The report raises a question Democrat officials cannot dismiss: Who pays for education, health care, and other public services as migration increases?

RELATED: The diesel panic cure could make the disease worse

Frederic J. BROWN/AFP/Getty Images

Housing supplies another pressure point. A September 2026 Brookings study estimated that the post-pandemic immigration surge raised rents in receiving metropolitan areas by 1.4% to 1.6%. Policymakers who expand immigration without making room for more housing should expect renters to notice.

Electricity offers an even clearer test of state choices. An analysis publicized by the American Energy Alliance found that rates rose 32.4% from 2014 to 2024 in states that backed the Democrat presidential nominee in 2020 and 2024, compared with 18.5% in Republican-voting states. States with mandatory renewable portfolio standards also saw larger increases than those without them. Voters should ask what those mandates cost.

When House lawmakers passed legislation requiring state utility regulators to consider shielding ratepayers from new data-center infrastructure costs, Senate Democrats blocked its advance. Families watching their power bills climb deserved a better result.

Taxes provide another point of comparison. Visual Capitalist's analysis estimated that a New Jersey resident would pay about $1.36 million in federal, state, and local taxes over a lifetime, equal to 48.2% of estimated earnings. Eight of the 10 highest-tax states in that ranking had Democrat governing trifectas in 2026. The concentration is striking.

RELATED: The kindness con: Fraudsters exploit America’s safety net

Aleksei-veprev/Getty Images

New Jersey, my home state, levies the nation's highest top corporate income tax rate, 11.5%. Burlington has announced plans to shift its headquarters to Philadelphia, and Samsung has announced a headquarters move to Texas. ExxonMobil moved its legal domicile to Texas. Lawmakers should consider what those departures say about the state's tax and regulatory climate.

The state's employment figures offer another warning. New Jersey's initial estimate of 25,600 jobs lost in July was subsequently revised to 21,900. Officials have reason to examine the burdens they put on employers.

Americans have also seen welcome gains. The Census Bureau reported that real median household income reached a record $87,460 in 2025, up 2.6% from 2024, while the official poverty rate fell to 10.2%. Median income for black households rose 4.8%.

Democrats are free to make their case that Republican policies have made life more expensive. Voters should require them to answer for their own record: the price surge under Biden, the tax burdens in Democrat-led states, the cost of energy mandates, and the fiscal consequences of immigration policy.

Americans did not forget what groceries and rent cost four years ago. Democrats should not expect them to forget who held power when those prices took off.

Is this why everyone gets into fights at Taco Bell?



The citizenry is mad at Taco Bell.

What started as a meme has morphed into a social commentary on the economy and corporate greed.

'Prices for almost every major fast-food chain had exceeded inflation.'

Bean counters

What started as a meme has morphed into a small economic referendum after a 20-year comparison of Taco Bell menu prices began circulating on social media.

The post contrasted purported 2006 prices with what customers pay today. A crunchy taco, according to the graphic, went from 69 cents to $1.99. A Crunchwrap Supreme went from $1.89 to $6.49.

"This doesn't even take into account the shrinkflation factor," one user complained. "All these items are smaller, have less filling, or just flat out taste worse than they used to."

Another remembered getting two double-decker tacos and a medium soda for $2.99.

In the end, the fast-food industry in the United States has become predominantly known for two things: fights and overpriced food.

For the latter, the prices are outpacing inflation. A 2024 analysis by FinanceBuzz looked at 10 longstanding menu items at a dozen major fast-food chains and compared their prices with a decade earlier. Every chain it studied had raised prices faster than overall inflation over that period, which was roughly 32.5%, with Taco Bell being one of the biggest culprits at 81%.

Fast food, in other words, really did get expensive unusually fast.

RELATED: Want to avoid fixing Canada's problems? Just blame Trump.

Marcin Golba/NurPhoto/Getty Images

Big Mac attack

Historically, brands have blamed "increased commodity costs" and labor costs on the spike in food prices.

Economists Orley Ashenfelter and Štěpán Jurajda studied wage rates and Big Mac prices at nearly every McDonald's in the United States between 2016 and 2020. They found that increases in minimum wages were passed almost entirely into higher restaurant prices.

Their estimate suggests that a 10% increase in the minimum wage raises the price of a Big Mac by about 1.4%.

The president of McDonald's USA said in 2024 that salaries, food, and paper had increased about 40% in the past five years, as did the average price of McDonald's menu items.

Portillo's CEO said that same year that prices in each market have to go up to cover the cost of labor commiserate with minimum wage increases, while Chipotle's CEO made similar claims too.

RELATED: EXCLUSIVE: A year after Charlie Kirk’s death, Sabo’s 'controversial' tribute finally goes on display

Taco Bell in 1994. Afro American Newspapers/Gado/Getty Images

Border run

Some have related the prices to a shift in company priorities. An article from Medium alleged that fast-food chains are more akin to tech companies now, scraping app data or being more like real estate developers. The latter is essentially the plot of the McDonald's-themed movie "The Founder."

Are prices still going up?

Yes, but they haven't gone over inflation. In March, Grocery Trade News noted restaurant prices had gone up 3.8%, while groceries had only risen 1.9%.

The current inflation estimate for 2026 is 3.4%.

Will we ever reach the prices of the purple and green Taco Bell era again? Outlook not so good.

Konstantin Kisin: Britain can slow the bleed — but reversing the damage is harder



Can Britain still change course, or has the country already passed the point of no return?

After attending the Unite the Kingdom rally, BlazeTV host Nick Freitas is asking that question — and Konstantin Kisin, who is an immigrant himself, has some answers.

“Do you believe that there is any chance within the next five to 10 years that there is a party that controls parliament with enough of either a majority or a ruling coalition that they will significantly curtail immigration and actively deport illegal immigrants?” Freitas asks Kisin.

“I think there is no reason why Reform can’t do that, other than the legislative system is set up in such a way that they’re going to have to sweep away a lot of Blair-era legislation,” Kisin answers.

“Actually, the reason that the Conservative Party wasn’t able to deal with the issue is partly they didn't realize that when Blair was in power, they basically legislated their values into law,” he continues.


“So now, things like net zero, not deporting illegal immigrants, etc., it’s the law,” he explains, noting that despite all of this, "Reform, if they are elected, can address that problem.”

Kisin likens the influx of immigrants to inflation and people’s general understanding of it.

“The difficulty is, Nick, that it’s like inflation. Inflation goes down from 3% to 2.5%, and people say, ‘Things are getting cheaper.’ You don’t understand how inflation works. Inflation is the rate of change,” he tells Freitas.

“So getting mass immigration down from its peak of almost a million a couple of years ago to a couple of hundred thousand is great. You still have a couple of hundred thousand people coming in,” he continues.

“The challenge that people are really frustrated by is the fact that the country has changed very dramatically and in ways that they don’t like,” he says, adding, “And undoing that is a much bigger project than reducing the number of people coming in.”

“Making the Argument with Nick Freitas” is available on BlazeTV+, YouTube, and major podcast platforms.

Start watching Nick Freitas NOW at blazetv.com and use the promo code NICK40 for $40 off your BlazeTV+ subscription.

Rising Interest Rates Push Washington Toward Another Fiscal Crisis

The American people themselves want to have their fiscal cake and eat it too.

How Trump got Washington to think about the national debt



President Trump may have accomplished something fiscal conservatives have been trying unsuccessfully to do for decades: He got Washington talking seriously about the national debt.

All it took was promising a $5,000 payment — what he calls a “Trump Dividend” — to every adult American citizen if Republicans retain control of Congress. With roughly 240 million eligible recipients, the back-of-the-envelope cost is about $1.2 trillion.

Somebody proposes mailing the money directly to the people, and suddenly everyone remembers that the Treasury has a balance sheet.

Suddenly, the political class discovered fiscal responsibility. Critics immediately pointed out that the federal government doesn’t have over a trillion dollars laying around. They warned that the checks would increase the deficit. They reminded us that the national debt has surpassed $40 trillion. They worried about inflation, borrowing costs, and the burden we are leaving to future generations.

Those are legitimate concerns. In fact, they should have been dominating our national political debate for decades.

The federal government has been spending money it does not have at an astonishing rate. Annual deficits that once would have produced political panic are now treated almost as background noise.

A trillion dollars has become an almost meaningless abstraction. Consider how large a trillion is. A million seconds is about 12 days. A billion seconds is nearly 32 years. A trillion seconds is more than 31,000 years. Yet our political representatives routinely toss around trillions as though they are discussing the office-supply budget.

That is why the reaction to Trump’s proposed $5,000 checks is so revealing. Whatever one thinks of the proposal itself — and there are perfectly good reasons to question sending another trillion-plus dollars out the Treasury’s door — the renewed concern about borrowing raises an obvious question: Where has everybody been?

The United States did not wake up one morning with a $40 trillion national debt because somebody proposed sending Americans a check. The debt accumulated because, year after year, Congress spent more than the government collected and borrowed the difference.

Entitlement programs were created or expanded. Emergency spending became routine. Temporary measures acquired permanent constituencies. Politicians discovered that voters enjoy receiving government benefits considerably more than they enjoy paying the taxes necessary to finance them.

Washington’s addiction to debt is bipartisan, and Republican Congresses and presidents have substantially increased it just as Democrats have.

But that makes the current moment all the more useful. If a $1.2 trillion proposal is irresponsible because the country is already deeply indebted, then fiscal responsibility cannot begin and end with this particular $1.2 trillion. The same arithmetic should apply to every spending proposal.

RELATED: Trump picked the wrong way to fight fake news

Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

Every dollar Washington spends ultimately comes from one of three places: current taxpayers (including importers via tariffs and, potentially, taxpayers if those costs get passed through to consumers), borrowing from future taxpayers, or money creation, which can erode purchasing power through inflation. There is no fourth category called “government money.”

That elementary fact tends to disappear from political debate whenever Congress is considering a favored program. Costs are described over 10 years. Spending is called an “investment.” Borrowing is treated as somebody else’s problem.

Then somebody proposes mailing the money directly to the people, and suddenly everyone remembers that the Treasury has a balance sheet. Perhaps taking spending seriously again in speech is the most valuable thing about the $5,000 proposal.

This should immediately raise basic, nonpartisan questions: Can we afford this? Where will the money come from? How much interest will taxpayers pay on that borrowing? Is this expenditure important enough to justify passing its cost to our children and grandchildren? These questions should be asked whenever anyone — Republican or Democrat — proposes spending another dollar.

And the interest clock is already running. As the debt grows, interest consumes an ever-larger share of federal resources. Unlike most federal programs, interest cannot simply be canceled without defaulting on the nation’s obligations. Money spent servicing yesterday’s borrowing is money unavailable for defense, national infrastructure, Social Security, tax relief, or anything else tomorrow’s voters might consider important.

So by all means, debate the $5,000 dividend. Ask whether it is affordable. Calculate its effect on deficits and inflation. Demand to know where the money will come from. Sen. Bernie Moreno, a Republican from Ohio, is drafting legislation to pay for it by instituting a market access fee on imports. That is a salutary development in a town that for too long has spent first without even bothering to consider who would pick up the tab.

But having rediscovered those questions, the political class should not forget them the moment this proposal disappears from the headlines.

If the prospect of $5,000 checks finally makes Americans look at a $40 trillion national debt and ask, “How on earth are we going to pay for this?” then the proposal will already have performed a useful public service.

The only question is whether Washington will keep asking it.

Editor’s note: This article was originally published in the American Mind.

The real reason everything is expensive and what you can do



Joe Biden has been out of office for almost two years now — so why does everything still feel so expensive?

As midterm elections draw nearer, that’s the question on the top of American minds, and BlazeTV host Ron Simmons has some answers.

While prices are up, Simmons points out that this all began under Biden, where “prices rose about 21%.”

“That’s over 5% a year. And since that time, since the second administration of President Trump, they’ve grown a little over 2% a year, about 2.5% a year,” he explains.


“When prices grew to 21%, so if something cost a dollar and then when Biden left it cost a $1.20, it didn’t go back down to a dollar when President Trump got elected,” he says.

“What he has done, and his administration have done, is they’ve just reduced how fast it’s increasing,” he adds.

Simmons explains that prices will go down when demand goes down.

“If you remember back to 2008, 2009, when they had the huge housing crisis, well, in 2007, do you know what interest rates were for mortgages at that time? Guess what they were. They’re right what they are right now, a little over 6%,” he explains.

“People lost their jobs and things, and there was more supply than there was demand,” he continues. “So they dropped interest rates and they brought interest rates down, probably too low, honestly — artificially low — and so you could buy a house at a 3% mortgage.”

“Then when the economy got better, and the fact that we pumped a lot of unnecessary money into the economy, interest rates went up because there ended up being more demand than there was supply,” he adds.

When the demand is high, the interest rates remain high.

“Now, what we don’t want to happen is another huge recession, obviously, but just remember how this happened,” he says, pointing out that Democrat policies have led us here.

“Housing has become dramatically more expensive during the Biden years,” he continues, noting that the Heritage Foundation has reported that the cost of financing a medium-priced home has risen 114% since 2021.

“At the same time, consumer prices have risen about 20%, which we talked about, and it costs about $13,300 more per year to purchase the same house, interest-rate-wise, than it did in 2021,” he says.

“Immigration was a part of this,” he explains. “When they opened the floodgates, more people coming into the country means there’s more demand for goods and services, and that increased the cost of living and housing.”

However, Simmons points out that the most expensive cities — San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Jose, New York, and Boston — are all run by Democrats.

“So just remember when you’re voting this time,” he adds.

Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?

To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Can a $1.2 trillion giveaway become a fiscal bargain?



President Trump’s call for a $5,000 “dividend” payment to all adult U.S. citizens is being widely criticized as fiscally unsound, grossly irresponsible, a cynical vote-buying scheme, and another political promise that will never come to fruition.

Trump’s plan, as he presented it in just a couple of throwaway sentences at the Republican Midterm National Convention in Dallas last week, is indeed all those things. It amounts to a Keynesian-style attempt to stimulate the economy temporarily by making people feel richer than they are, to be followed by the usual consequences of such fiscal monkeyshines: violent inflation and a subsequent grinding recession.

An unprecedented economic boom or dramatic revenue surge cannot be assumed in advance.

Trump, however, is a habitual dealmaker. What if congressional leaders were to respond to the president’s idea as a starting point for negotiations?

My suggestion: Agree with the president to pass a one-time tax cut of $5,000 for the 2027 fiscal year, paired with a permanent spending cap set at the 2019, pre-COVID-19 level and mandatory 2% additional reductions in the spending cap each year through 2040.

The tax cut would be payable immediately upon enactment and designated as refundable to all U.S. households that file a personal income tax return (whether they pay any income tax or not), thus fulfilling Trump’s promise.

Republicans would make a simple deal with the American people: $5,000 today for every adult citizen, in exchange for serious, desperately needed cuts in federal spending beginning in the next fiscal year and continuing through the next decade. Any congressional Democrats who want to do the right thing will be welcome to vote for it as well, of course.

For practical reasons, the spending cuts would need to begin with the 2028 fiscal year in October 2027, but the 2% annual spending cuts thereafter would easily offset the extra interest costs on the additional federal debt that the delay would create.

To implement the cuts, Congress would convert the federal portion of spending on Medicaid, SNAP, housing programs, higher education, and the like into block grants to the states, with the expenditures scaled down to the 2019 level. The legislation would institute 5% annual reductions in those block grants for subsequent years through 2040, essentially phasing them out of the federal fisc.

The move to block grants with annual downsizing would steadily transfer responsibility for welfare spending to the states, where it belongs. Federal redistribution programs are not explicitly permitted under the Constitution, and the Supreme Court should never have allowed Congress to establish those programs.

These welfare programs account for about 24% of the $7 trillion-plus federal budget, around $1.7 trillion. In 2019, they composed about $1 trillion. A return to that number would pay off a $1.3 trillion refundable one-year tax cut in less than two years, with a dozen years of much lower federal spending on the way.

RELATED: Free money wins elections — and that’s why America’s debt will keep growing

Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call Inc./Getty Images

If a 40% cut in spending on federal welfare programs sounds draconian and cruel, remember that the 2019 spending level was far from stingy. We needed cuts then, and we need them much more urgently now, even without Trump’s dividend payments. Investigations during President Trump’s current term suggest that elimination of entitlement fraud could lead to even greater cuts than what this plan would call for.

Congress should also consider cutting defense spending to provide further spending reductions.

In short, this would be a temporary tax cut and permanent spending cuts — the very opposite of the way things are ordinarily done in Washington D.C. The key element, and the unique opportunity here, is the political goodwill and appealing trade-off the $5,000 dividend checks would provide.

The only way to reverse the spending cuts would be through legislation signed by the president or a veto override. Trump would have every reason to refuse any attempt by Congress to restore the spending, especially given his track record of trying to implement limits on entitlement programs through executive orders. The same would be true for any Republican successors.

Moreover, the transfer of welfare responsibility to the states would eliminate congressional spending junkies’ ability to use these programs as a slush fund for buying votes. In addition, the money simply will not be there, given the rising cost of Social Security and Medicare.

This plan would allow Congress fiscal breathing space to develop a plan to transition Social Security and Medicare into private taxpayer accounts and transfer future responsibilities for those programs to the states. Social Security and Medicare are just as unconstitutional as the other entitlements, with the important difference that these were funded by people’s paychecks with the direct promise of repayment, a pledge the government must keep for current and prospective retirees.

Americans would be relieved to know that major Social Security cuts are off the table.

The plan should also make permanent all of Trump's executive orders that have reduced federal regulations — and add further regulatory relief.

RELATED: Trump’s interest-rate fantasy runs into debt gravity

Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

The large, one-year tax cut would spark an economic boom of possibly unprecedented proportions. Economic growth would cause federal revenues to rise dramatically in subsequent years, which would enable the government to begin paying down the existing federal debt.

The spending cuts would push down interest rates by greatly reducing the federal deficit and thereby raising the assurance that the federal government will be able to pay its debts, thus increasing the value of Treasury bonds and lowering interest costs.

This would reduce interest rates for all Americans, including for mortgages. That would help relieve the housing affordability problem.

The entitlement cuts would also put able-bodied people back to work and make them taxpayers instead of tax takers, raising revenues and cutting costs further. That would spur even more economic growth.

These would be impressive achievements. A political party that instituted this plan could create a permanent majority despite the inevitable mistreatment by the media and the opposition party, while returning the nation to constitutional rule. Most people dislike the current overspending, and people recognize that far too much of it goes to cheaters, grifters, and government cronies.

For the good of the American people, Trump and the congressional Republicans should prepare legislation to implement this full plan in the lame-duck session, immediately after the election, regardless of whether they win House and Senate majorities this fall. They would be giving the American people a great gift of economic prosperity and better government, and Democrats would not be able to reverse any of it, with a Republican president holding veto power.