Gov. Scott Walker reveals new details of his tax plan modeled after of that of Ronald Reagan

September 17, 2015

WRITER

Wisconsin Governor and GOP 2016 hopeful Scott Walker joined Glenn on radio Thursday morning to share his thoughts on the prior night's debate and to dive deeper into some of the policies he has been running on.

Topics ranged from repealing Obamacare to marijuana use to taxes. When Walker expressed frustration that the debate didn't focus enough on the issues, Glenn invited him to set the record straight on radio right then and there.

"You got 10 million people across the nation that listen to this program. So let's take that opportunity right now," Glenn said.

Walker proceeded to explain how his tax plan would follow that of Ronald Reagan, which he said led to the economic boom that occurred thereafter.

"It's pretty similar to what Reagan did. He had two tax rates. Same sort of concept back in 1986. It was 15 and 28 percent. We'd adjust it for current numbers today," Walker said. "We can say to the American people, 'this has worked.' This is not in theory, this is something that has worked."

Listen to the full dialogue or read the transcript below.

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors.

GLENN: Governor, how are you?

SCOTT: Hey, I'm doing well. Thanks for having me on.

GLENN: How did you feel last night?

SCOTT: Well, really I felt like we had scored some real points, if that's what you call it, I guess, in terms of getting the message out. If you want someone who has been tested, I'm the guy. If you want an apprentice, someone who has never been tested before, then you're likely to get someone like we have in the White House right now.

STU: The apprentice line was fantastic.

GLENN: It was.

SCOTT: And I think we used the limited time CNN gave us, even though we tried to get in there many of times, we used it to the best of our effect to get our message out.

GLENN: When you walked off the stage, did you have one opinion of what happened and then you listened to the people, the press and then saw the reviews and everything else and have another, or did they sync up for you?

SCOTT: Oh, I think I knew going in, we knew the narrative, no matter what happened, they were going to say that Carly had a big night no matter what. And obviously they said that. I think the other impression was -- the feedback I got back from folks, not just from the press but from across the country I talked to was a frustration that there wasn't more talk. I mean, I mentioned I broke in at one point and said, "That's what's wrong with this campaign. We're not actually talking about issues. We're talking about personalities." But it seemed pretty clear that CNN was trying to pit people against each other for ratings instead of talking about issues.

GLENN: I will tell you that I heard you say that and I heard a couple of candidates try to get it back. What are we doing? We're attacking each other and the real challenge here are the policies that are -- well, the policies of Donald Trump and the other side of the aisle.

And I think that actually -- at least for me because it was such a circus at times, for me, I actually found myself saying about people like you, even Chris Christie who I'm not for at all, when he was saying some things like that, "I'm like, yeah, fine. Can we just have an adult conversation here, please?"

SCOTT: Right. Because -- I mean, I mentioned briefly, I would have loved to have them question, push back, put me on the spot, I've got a plan to repeal Obamacare. Literally to repeal Obamacare and to get Congress to have to pass it by signing an executive order that requires them to live under the same rules as everybody else. Ask me about it. Probe me about it. Ask me about my tax plan. Ask about energy independence. Ask about using all of the abundance of energy that we have here in America. Ask about any of those things. But those weren't the questions they were asking. It was, "Well, hey, you said this about this person, or you said that about that person." Ironically, one of my sons pointed out something interesting. He said, "Dad, you didn't get asked any of those questions because you don't attack other Republicans. You just attack Hillary Clinton."

PAT: That's a good point.

GLENN: Let me ask you this, Scott. Let's go through some of these things. I know the tax plan of Rand Paul, which I'm in love with. I know the tax plan now -- I heard for the first time, flat tax from --

PAT: Ted Cruz.

GLENN: -- Ted Cruz, which is great. I heard somebody else say they'll abolish the IRS.

PAT: Huckabee.

GLENN: Was that Huckabee?

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: What is your tax plan?

SCOTT: You know, we're going to wrought week by week. So we'll wrought in greater detail. But for us, I mean, I wish I would have got more time. It was right in the Reagan Library. Our plan is modeled after the tax plan of '86, what Ronald Reagan did. You simplify the code. You had two rates. Brought about one of the most extended periods of economic prosperity in American history. There is a model there. It is a proven model. It has worked. A simple flat concept that we've done in the past. It didn't just apply to individuals. I think you have to do the same thing to job creators. We did that. We've actually seen more of these jobs that have parked overseas come back to America. Put more of our fellow Americans back to work. But, again, instead of spending a lot of time talking about that, we were asked about who took a jab at whom and what they thought about that. And I hope in the future we'll have more chances to talk about tax policy, true immigration policy, all sorts of other things.

GLENN: But we have one right now. Hold on just a second. We have that opportunity right now. You got 10 million people across the nation that listen to this program. So let's take that opportunity right now. And let me go back to tax policy. You know, what used to sound really good to me was the Ronald Reagan plan. That -- and if we could get that done, I'd be happy with that. However, we're in such a place now to where I think the bolder the idea, the better the chance of getting it done. Because people are tired of eating around the edges.

Why not abolish the IRS and give me a flat tax? Russia does it. It's 18, 15 percent. Whatever it is. Here's what it is. How much did you make? What's 18 percent. Put it in an envelope and send it to us.

SCOTT: Well, it's pretty similar to what Reagan did. He had two tax rates. Same sort of concept back in 1986. It was 15 and 28 percent. We'd adjust it for current numbers today. To me, it's essentially almost the same sort of thing you're talking about. But the difference being, we can say to the American people, "This has worked." This is not in theory, this is something that has worked. It brought about this extended -- people talk even last night about the 1990s and the balanced budget. The balanced budget wasn't because of Bill Clinton in Congress. The balanced budget was because we were still benefiting from the economic boom -- the residuals of Ronald Reagan's economic policies, not just with tax benefits, but reducing the size and scope of the federal government. Imagine what we could do if we had a Republican leader who was willing to push in the White House to get both the House and the Senate back on these issues, instead of having a split Congress like Reagan did. We could go even further.

GLENN: I had a hard time listening to the nonsense last night about the War on Drugs. You know, marijuana, smoke it, don't smoke it, that's really not the crux of our problems in America, especially when we're about to vote for a deal that says, "Hey, Iran, we're you're buddy and screw Israel." What do you do as president --

SCOTT: It is unbelievable. I mentioned this last night. I'd love to play cards with President Obama because the guy folds on everything. On this deal, almost all the major things he talked about that had to be in the deal are not in the deal. We have moved to Iran when Iran -- I mean, Iran didn't come to us because they wanted to be really nice people. They came because they were on their knees. They were crippled because of economic sanctions that were in place. They were ready. They were ready to give in. And instead of negotiating on our terms, the United States basically backed up and said, "Do whatever you want. Or do just about anything you want out there." We need to terminate the bad deal on day one. To me, anybody who says that they're not prepared to terminate that bad deal on day one is not ready to be president of the United States.

So I spent the time -- and I got knocked on this. President Obama came out and said that I was -- needed to bone up on foreign policy, to which I laughed saying, "This is the guy who called ISIS the JV squad and Yemen a success story." He wants to talk about boning up on foreign policy. Bottom line is it's a bad deal for America. It's a bad deal for Israel. It's a bad deal for the world.

It doesn't just open the door towards a nuclear race in the Middle East. In the short-term, the money that will be freed up from these sanctions being lifted will go, not into helping the Iranian people who really do want to be free of this oppressive government, it will go into Hamas and Hezbollah, some of the worst terrorist activities in the world that are directly aimed at Israel. And, ultimately, for Iran, who hates us just as much as they hate real Israel. This is a bad, bad deal.

GLENN: Let me ask you this, let's switch over to ISIS. I said six years ago that there would be a caliphate established. It would sweep the Middle East. And then it would begin to destabilize Europe and the western world. That is exactly what happened. We are now in the final stage of destabilizing Europe. It's amazing to me that all of the refugees. I should say the vast majority of refugees that you see that are trying to flee into Hungary and everything else all seem to be 20-something guys. You're the only ones. Really? Just these 20-something guys trying to get in everywhere. This is not the way that you save people. This is not -- you know, Saudi Arabia has room for 2 million people. They can take in all kinds of refugees. They should be taking their own kind. How do we separate the Muslims that you don't know who the good Muslims and the bad Muslims are, how do we separate those guys from the Christians who you do know who they are? And how do we do something to help the Christians who don't have a -- any kind of history of trying to behead people?

SCOTT: Well, you got a combination of things. You've got refugees. You've got people seeking asylum. I think there's a difference in asylum. You have to sort that out. And I said we should be taking in more refugees. Because right now, we've already done a lot. In the last year we've permanently settled something like 70,000 refugees in total in the United States. We spent $4 billion.

GLENN: But, Scott, we picked up whole Somali Muslim communities. We're resettling people who don't want to blend and who are Muslims. And a lot of them are Islamists. We're saving the wrong people.

SCOTT: And when you talk about refugees, that's the issue. To me, a refugee is someone who is fleeing, but who ultimately should be restored to their country, which means you have to fix the real problem as opposed to someone seeking asylum who is fleeing from political and sometimes religious persecutions just like you mentioned the Christians there. There is a distinction. But with the refugees, that's why we draw the line and say, "Until we actually deal with Assad, until we deal with ISIS within Syria, why would we be taking any more refugees when we're not fixing the fundamental problem?" We're only going to exacerbate the symptoms of those problems.

GLENN: Would you grant asylum for those who are being marked for death?

SCOTT: Christians, absolutely. The Christians, Jews, others. For people being targeted and persecuted because of their religious beliefs, particularly in that region as Christian, absolutely.

GLENN: Scott, we have -- three, four months ago, we didn't know who you were exactly. We've had great conversations with you. We knew your record. But we didn't know you. And we've been lied to so many politicians that we don't trust any politician anymore. We have grown to like you. The audience has grown to like you even more. And yet your poll numbers are slipping. What do you think this is? What's happening?

SCOTT: Oh, I think -- you know, it's interesting being in the Reagan Library, being reminded that Reagan, even in September of 1979, had some challenges. He was behind, even days before the 1980 election. He came through. And I think right now what you see amongst a lot of the mix of different conservative candidates out there is that there are so many good candidates, and then there's Trump out there who has kind of gotten all the media attention.

I think for a lot of people -- and I see it not just in the polling. We see it out on the campaign trail. Just in Iowa the other day. People routinely say to us, "I like you. I like what you did in Wisconsin. Like your ideas for America. You're one of my top two or three choices." And so they're still trying to sort out between the mix.

They also say, "You know, I'm not high on the -- I'm not excited about the guy that is the frontrunner right now. I like you." They say, "I like Cruz. I like Carson." Whoever it might be. I think in the end, for us, it's about grassroots. We have a good organization in Iowa. We're going to have to get the grassroots out. That's what will make the difference. And we win in the Iowa caucuses, that's what will take us going forward.

GLENN: I have about a minute. Tell me what you would say to somebody who is currently on the bandwagon and not a -- just somebody who is so far gone. But they're on the bandwagon of Trump. They may have been a supporter of yours or somebody else, but they like the fireworks show. Talk to them right now. Why should they come to you? We have about a minute.

SCOTT: You know, I would say, we had an apprentice. We had a novice, somebody we didn't know who they were, where they were going in the White House, someone who said many things that many Americans liked and it didn't work out very well. We don't need to do that again. If you want to take on Washington, if you really want to shake things up, the best way to do it is to get behind somebody who has actually done it. We took on the machine. We took on, not just big government union bosses, all the liberal special interest groups from Washington who tried to stop us. We didn't back down. We fought. We won. We got results. We did it without comprising our conservative principles. If that's what you want out of the next president, then I'm your guy.

GLENN: Scott, I would like to sit down with you and talk to you specifically about progressivism because you are at the belly of the beast and you have taken it on. So maybe sometime in the future we can actually sit down and have a real conversation about some -- some deep issues about what the country has to choose right now.

PAT: Meantime, where do people go if they want to help out?

SCOTT: ScottWalker.com. ScottWalker.com. We appreciate it. Thanks, guys.

GLENN: Thank you. God bless you. ScottWalker.com.

Featured Image: Scott Walker speaks during the Western Conservative Summit at the Colorado Convention Center in Denver, Colorado on June 27, 2015 in Denver, Colorado. The Western Conservative Summit attracts thousands of conservatives and a number of prominent politicians; this year the lineup includes Rick Santorum, Mike Huckabee, Carly Fiorina, Ben Carson, and Scott Walker. (Photo by Theo Stroomer/Getty Images)

What our response to Israel reveals about us

JOSEPH PREZIOSO / Contributor | Getty Images

I have been honored to receive the Defender of Israel Award from Prime Minister Netanyahu.

The Jerusalem Post recently named me one of the strongest Christian voices in support of Israel.

And yet, my support is not blind loyalty. It’s not a rubber stamp for any government or policy. I support Israel because I believe it is my duty — first as a Christian, but even if I weren’t a believer, I would still support her as a man of reason, morality, and common sense.

Because faith isn’t required to understand this: Israel’s existence is not just about one nation’s survival — it is about the survival of Western civilization itself.

It is a lone beacon of shared values in the Middle East. It is a bulwark standing against radical Islam — the same evil that seeks to dismantle our own nation from within.

And my support is not rooted in politics. It is rooted in something simpler and older than politics: a people’s moral and historical right to their homeland, and their right to live in peace.

Israel has that right — and the right to defend herself against those who openly, repeatedly vow her destruction.

Let’s make it personal: if someone told me again and again that they wanted to kill me and my entire family — and then acted on that threat — would I not defend myself? Wouldn’t you? If Hamas were Canada, and we were Israel, and they did to us what Hamas has done to them, there wouldn’t be a single building left standing north of our border. That’s not a question of morality.

That’s just the truth. All people — every people — have a God-given right to protect themselves. And Israel is doing exactly that.

My support for Israel’s right to finish the fight against Hamas comes after eighty years of rejected peace offers and failed two-state solutions. Hamas has never hidden its mission — the eradication of Israel. That’s not a political disagreement.

That’s not a land dispute. That is an annihilationist ideology. And while I do not believe this is America’s war to fight, I do believe — with every fiber of my being — that it is Israel’s right, and moral duty, to defend her people.

Criticism of military tactics is fair. That’s not antisemitism. But denying Israel’s right to exist, or excusing — even celebrating — the barbarity of Hamas? That’s something far darker.

We saw it on October 7th — the face of evil itself. Women and children slaughtered. Babies burned alive. Innocent people raped and dragged through the streets. And now, to see our own fellow citizens march in defense of that evil… that is nothing short of a moral collapse.

If the chants in our streets were, “Hamas, return the hostages — Israel, stop the bombing,” we could have a conversation.

But that’s not what we hear.

What we hear is open sympathy for genocidal hatred. And that is a chasm — not just from decency, but from humanity itself. And here lies the danger: that same hatred is taking root here — in Dearborn, in London, in Paris — not as horror, but as heroism. If we are not vigilant, the enemy Israel faces today will be the enemy the free world faces tomorrow.

This isn’t about politics. It’s about truth. It’s about the courage to call evil by its name and to say “Never again” — and mean it.

And you don’t have to open a Bible to understand this. But if you do — if you are a believer — then this issue cuts even deeper. Because the question becomes: what did God promise, and does He keep His word?

He told Abraham, “I will bless those who bless you, and curse those who curse you.” He promised to make Abraham the father of many nations and to give him “the whole land of Canaan.” And though Abraham had other sons, God reaffirmed that promise through Isaac. And then again through Isaac’s son, Jacob — Israel — saying: “The land I gave to Abraham and Isaac I give to you and to your descendants after you.”

That’s an everlasting promise.

And from those descendants came a child — born in Bethlehem — who claimed to be the Savior of the world. Jesus never rejected His title as “son of David,” the great King of Israel.

He said plainly that He came “for the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” And when He returns, Scripture says He will return as “the Lion of the tribe of Judah.” And where do you think He will go? Back to His homeland — Israel.

Tamir Kalifa / Stringer | Getty Images

And what will He find when He gets there? His brothers — or his brothers’ enemies? Will the roads where He once walked be preserved? Or will they lie in rubble, as Gaza does today? If what He finds looks like the aftermath of October 7th, then tell me — what will be my defense as a Christian?

Some Christians argue that God’s promises to Israel have been transferred exclusively to the Church. I don’t believe that. But even if you do, then ask yourself this: if we’ve inherited the promises, do we not also inherit the land? Can we claim the birthright and then, like Esau, treat it as worthless when the world tries to steal it?

So, when terrorists come to slaughter Israelis simply for living in the land promised to Abraham, will we stand by? Or will we step forward — into the line of fire — and say,

“Take me instead”?

Because this is not just about Israel’s right to exist.

It’s about whether we still know the difference between good and evil.

It’s about whether we still have the courage to stand where God stands.

And if we cannot — if we will not — then maybe the question isn’t whether Israel will survive. Maybe the question is whether we will.

America’s moral erosion: How we were conditioned to accept the unthinkable

MATHIEU LEWIS-ROLLAND / Contributor | Getty Images

Every time we look away from lawlessness, we tell the next mob it can go a little further.

Chicago, Portland, and other American cities are showing us what happens when the rule of law breaks down. These cities have become openly lawless — and that’s not hyperbole.

When a governor declares she doesn’t believe federal agents about a credible threat to their lives, when Chicago orders its police not to assist federal officers, and when cartels print wanted posters offering bounties for the deaths of U.S. immigration agents, you’re looking at a country flirting with anarchy.

Two dangers face us now: the intimidation of federal officers and the normalization of soldiers as street police. Accept either, and we lose the republic.

This isn’t a matter of partisan politics. The struggle we’re watching now is not between Democrats and Republicans. It’s between good and evil, right and wrong, self‑government and chaos.

Moral erosion

For generations, Americans have inherited a republic based on law, liberty, and moral responsibility. That legacy is now under assault by extremists who openly seek to collapse the system and replace it with something darker.

Antifa, well‑financed by the left, isn’t an isolated fringe any more than Occupy Wall Street was. As with Occupy, big money and global interests are quietly aligned with “anti‑establishment” radicals. The goal is disruption, not reform.

And they’ve learned how to condition us. Twenty‑five years ago, few Americans would have supported drag shows in elementary schools, biological males in women’s sports, forced vaccinations, or government partnerships with mega‑corporations to decide which businesses live or die. Few would have tolerated cartels threatening federal agents or tolerated mobs doxxing political opponents. Yet today, many shrug — or cheer.

How did we get here? What evidence convinced so many people to reverse themselves on fundamental questions of morality, liberty, and law? Those long laboring to disrupt our republic have sought to condition people to believe that the ends justify the means.

Promoting “tolerance” justifies women losing to biological men in sports. “Compassion” justifies harboring illegal immigrants, even violent criminals. Whatever deluded ideals Antifa espouses is supposed to somehow justify targeting federal agents and overturning the rule of law. Our culture has been conditioned for this moment.

The buck stops with us

That’s why the debate over using troops to restore order in American cities matters so much. I’ve never supported soldiers executing civilian law, and I still don’t. But we need to speak honestly about what the Constitution allows and why. The Posse Comitatus Act sharply limits the use of the military for domestic policing. The Insurrection Act, however, exists for rare emergencies — when federal law truly can’t be enforced by ordinary means and when mobs, cartels, or coordinated violence block the courts.

Even then, the Constitution demands limits: a public proclamation ordering offenders to disperse, transparency about the mission, a narrow scope, temporary duration, and judicial oversight.

Soldiers fight wars. Cops enforce laws. We blur that line at our peril.

But we also cannot allow intimidation of federal officers or tolerate local officials who openly obstruct federal enforcement. Both extremes — lawlessness on one side and militarization on the other — endanger the republic.

The only way out is the Constitution itself. Protect civil liberty. Enforce the rule of law. Demand transparency. Reject the temptation to justify any tactic because “our side” is winning. We’ve already seen how fear after 9/11 led to the Patriot Act and years of surveillance.

KAMIL KRZACZYNSKI / Contributor | Getty Images

Two dangers face us now: the intimidation of federal officers and the normalization of soldiers as street police. Accept either, and we lose the republic. The left cannot be allowed to shut down enforcement, and the right cannot be allowed to abandon constitutional restraint.

The real threat to the republic isn’t just the mobs or the cartels. It’s us — citizens who stop caring about truth and constitutional limits. Anything can be justified when fear takes over. Everything collapses when enough people decide “the ends justify the means.”

We must choose differently. Uphold the rule of law. Guard civil liberties. And remember that the only way to preserve a government of, by, and for the people is to act like the people still want it.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Stand with Voddie Baucham’s family in this time of loss

In the quiet aftermath of a profound loss, the Christian community mourns the unexpected passing of Dr. Voddie Baucham, a towering figure in evangelical circles. Known for his defense of biblical truth, Baucham, a pastor, author, and theologian, left a legacy on family, faith, and opposing "woke" ideologies in the church. His book Fault Lines challenged believers to prioritize Scripture over cultural trends. Glenn had Voddie on the show several times, where they discussed progressive influences in Christianity, debunked myths of “Christian nationalism,” and urged hope amid hostility.

The shock of Baucham's death has deeply affected his family. Grieving, they remain hopeful in Christ, with his wife, Bridget, now facing the task of resettling in the US without him. Their planned move from Lusaka, Zambia, was disrupted when their home sale fell through last December, resulting in temporary Airbnb accommodations, but they have since secured a new home in Cape Coral that requires renovations. To ensure Voddie's family is taken care of, a fundraiser is being held to raise $2 million, which will be invested for ongoing support, allowing Bridget to focus on her family.

We invite readers to contribute prayerfully. If you feel called to support the Bauchams in this time of need, you can click here to donate.

We grieve and pray with hope for the Bauchams.

May Voddie's example inspire us.

From isolation to connection: Overcoming loneliness

Loneliness isn’t just being alone — it’s feeling unseen, unheard, and unimportant, even amid crowds and constant digital chatter.

Loneliness has become an epidemic in America. Millions of people, even when surrounded by others, feel invisible. In tragic irony, we live in an age of unparalleled connectivity, yet too many sit in silence, unseen and unheard.

I’ve been experiencing this firsthand. My children have grown up and moved out. The house that once overflowed with life now echoes with quiet. Moments that once held laughter now hold silence. And in that silence, the mind can play cruel games. It whispers, “You’re forgotten. Your story doesn’t matter.”

We are unique in our gifts, but not in our humanity. Recognizing this shared struggle is how we overcome loneliness.

It’s a lie.

I’ve seen it in others. I remember sitting at Rockefeller Center one winter, watching a woman lace up her ice skates. Her clothing was worn, her bag battered. Yet on the ice, she transformed — elegant, alive, radiant.

Minutes later, she returned to her shoes, merged into the crowd, unnoticed. I’ve thought of her often. She was not alone in her experience. Millions of Americans live unseen, performing acts of quiet heroism every day.

Shared pain makes us human

Loneliness convinces us to retreat, to stay silent, to stop reaching out to others. But connection is essential. Even small gestures — a word of encouragement, a listening ear, a shared meal — are radical acts against isolation.

I’ve learned this personally. Years ago, a caller called me “Mr. Perfect.” I could have deflected, but I chose honesty. I spoke of my alcoholism, my failed marriage, my brokenness. I expected judgment. Instead, I found resonance. People whispered back, “I’m going through the same thing. Thank you for saying it.”

Our pain is universal. Everyone struggles with self-doubt and fear. Everyone feels, at times, like a fraud. We are unique in our gifts, but not in our humanity. Recognizing this shared struggle is how we overcome loneliness.

We were made for connection. We were built for community — for conversation, for touch, for shared purpose. Every time we reach out, every act of courage and compassion punches a hole in the wall of isolation.

You’re not alone

If you’re feeling alone, know this: You are not invisible. You are seen. You matter. And if you’re not struggling, someone you know is. It’s your responsibility to reach out.

Loneliness is not proof of brokenness. It is proof of humanity. It is a call to engage, to bear witness, to connect. The world is different because of the people who choose to act. It is brighter when we refuse to be isolated.

We cannot let silence win. We cannot allow loneliness to dictate our lives. Speak. Reach out. Connect. Share your gifts. By doing so, we remind one another: We are all alike, and yet each of us matters profoundly.

In this moment, in this country, in this world, what we do matters. Loneliness is real, but so is hope. And hope begins with connection.