You can't tax corporations to death and expect this country to be more productive and prosperous

One could make the case that Larry Kudlow is more knowledgeable and even just plain smart than I am.

(No doubt certain readers are now saying, "Gee, ya think?")

And he's a man whose character was honed the hard way. Some twenty years ago, he missed a major speech, leading to exposure of his cocaine habit. His marriage nearly fell apart. He got clean and sober and became a devout Catholic.

Still, there's this goofy, pony-in-here-somewhere optimism that drives him that gets him way off-base fairly frequently. (I recall a column he wrote in the spring of 2010 called "The Coming V-Shaped Boom.")

His zeal for rosy scenarios is on full display in his overt enthusiasm for Squirrel-Hair. In his latest column,  he gets all excited about the economic-policy speech S-H is set to give in Detroit next week. Apparently, no doubt at the urging of Kudlow, and probably Stephen Moore, S-H will argue for lower tax rates on individuals and corporations.

Now, longtime LITD readers know about one of this site's basic assertions: That a principle is true and right on its own merits, regardless of who is espousing it.

With the table thus set, I would like to excerpt from the middle of Kudlow's column, in which he explains why the kind of increased taxes on corporations the Hillionaire shriek about  proposes would further damage the post-American economy - which, of course, is fine with her, since she's a planned-decline proponent, just like the Most Equal Comrade:

Let me begin with AEI economists Aparna Mathur and Kevin Hassett. They have written extensively on the adverse effects of high corporate taxes on worker wages. They argue that high taxes drive capital out of the high-tax country, like the U.S., which leads to lower domestic investment. That in turn reduces the productivity of the worker, who will lack the latest advances in technology and machinery. And since there is a tight link between worker productivity and pay, lower wages result. 

Mathur and Hassett cite famous University of Chicago economist Arnold Harberger to explain that when taxes are raised on corporations, wages are lowered not only for the workers in those firms, but for all workers in the economy. So, a $1 corporate income tax leads to a $1 loss in wages for a firm’s workers. But that tax could lead to more than a $1 loss overall when we look at all wages for all workers. 

President Obama and Mrs. Clinton wrongly believe that the corporate income tax is a tax on the rich. The reality is that rich corporations don’t pay taxes -- workers do.

Another erroneous claim from Obama and Clinton is that the rich don’t pay their fair share. But a new CBO study shows that the so-called rich pay the lion’s share of federal taxes. The CBO reveals that the top 1 percent of households pays an average of 34 percent of income in federal taxes, while the middle 20 percent of households pays only 12.8 percent. This is confirmed by a recent Tax Foundation report. 

And taxes for the top 1 percent have been going up. Between 2008 and 2012, the top 1 percent paid an average tax rate of 28.8 percent. But in 2013 that rate spiked to 34 percent as a result of tax increases and the Affordable Care Act. This data is summarized by Mark J. Perry of the University of Michigan and AEI. 

It’s also worth noting that the so-called rich haven’t had it so great lately. Recent studies by Manhattan Institute economist Scott Winship and Cato Institute economist Alan Reynolds show that during the Great Recession, the top 1 percent lost 36 percent of its income, while income for the bottom 90 percent was 12 percent lower. As of 2014, the top 1 percent was still poorer by 18 percent than it was in 2007, compared with a 9 percent decline for the bottom 90 percent. Reynolds also notes that middle-incomes fell only 1 percent in the 2007-09 recession, after counting tax cuts and government benefits. 

These facts and figures slay a lot of left-wing urban legends. Highly divisive urban legends, I might add. 

What matters most for all Americans is economic growth. As Arthur Laffer frequently reminds us: Tax something more, get less of it. Tax something less, get more of it. 

Sound economics.

The only problem is that Kudlow, like anybody carrying Squirrel-Hair's water, has to overlook a seemingly infinite number of problems with S-H's basic make up on the levels of personality, spiritual depth, and intellectual rigor.

A number of the other sixteen Pub contenders we had a year ago could have made the same argument - and would have been able to convince voters that they actually understood and believed it.

UPDATE: Noticed this noteworthy point made by a commenter underneath the column:

Larry once again does not address the elephant in the room that is Trump's threats of tariffs and punishments of companies that send jobs overseas. Trump could negate his tax based efforts through a trade war and over reaching government intervention in free markets!!