Move over David Frum, my new fav republican is Bruce Bartlett. Truly conservative and uses data to make and support opinions. He's been speaking out a lot lately on the mainstream Republican's faith-based approach to economics.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/11/the-real-long-term-budget-challenge/

To be sure, some restraint is needed in federal entitlement programs. But the idea that we are facing a crisis is complete nonsense. Spending for Social Security, in particular, is very stable. Relatively modest changes, such as raising the taxable earnings base slightly, would be sufficient to put the program on a sound footing virtually forever.

And I don't think he ever used the expression "job creator."

BTW, he's been on talk shows recently because he's saying that going off the fiscal cliff isn't so bad. It will get revenues back in line with spending, which is, he argues, what true conservatives want, and the data he provides in that article really suggests he's on to something.

Wow! A sighting of a reasonable Republican --I thought that species was extinct... I also find interesting his analysis of covered earnings under social security, yet another reminder of the negative consequences of income skewing towards top earners

What does "some restraint is needed in federal entitlement programs" mean?

Having read his blog, I don't see where he is refuting the need for fiscal restraint. Isn't Mr. Bartlett saying it takes two sides to correct this? Both revenue increase and fiscal reduction are needed.

Boehner says no revenue increase, and Obama is not putting entitlements on the table. Both sides are not being reasonable.

Here is what Bartlett said about entitlements: "Entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare are rising gently as the baby-boom generation retires."" Republicans demand that Social Security and Medicare be cut immediately to deal with the so-called fiscal cliff. " "But the idea that we are facing a crisis is complete nonsense." Bartlett does not appear to believe that entitlement reform is necessary now in order to deal with the fiscal cliff.

I read that, Freeman2. I want to know what he means by the "restraint of federal entitlement programs".

Bbauska - if you read the last part of what geo quoted, it may help you...

Relatively modest changes, such as raising the taxable earnings base slightly, would be sufficient to put the program on a sound footing virtually forever.

I take it to mean that he proposes reform to ensure that over the next few decades they don't become a problem. Small actions taken now would multiply up over time, and if sufficient, would reduce the liability gap over the 'baby boom bubble' period.

Once that hump is over, we will find that social welfare programmes will become less of a looming threat.

And crucially, they are not actually the main cause of the current deficit, or of historic debt.

I only hope you are right. Sadly, I fear that you are not.

bbauska wrote:I only hope you are right. Sadly, I fear that you are not.

The only thing you have to fear, Brad, is fear itself! Our politicians play on our emotions and we start thinking with the wrong side of our brains, but what Bartlett does (not only in this article, he's a prolific Blogger/Tweeter) is he relates everything back to data and he's wonky enough to know what's right and what's BS. If you read more of him, I think you'd like him.

George,
I have stated it before, and I am sure you know my position of both sides of the aisle. I have little trust in either side to correct this. That is exactly the reason that I recommended to those on the Right to just abstain and let this experiment run it's course.

bbauska wrote:I only hope you are right. Sadly, I fear that you are not.

In which part? I'm not sure which of my last post you 'fear' I am wrong on, and before I respond, it would be useful to work out whether you think I misunderstood Bartlett, or that reform of a long term programme can be small and have a large effect in the long term, or that the demographics of the baby boom are not real.

I do not believe I misunderstand Bartlett. He offers a plan.

My concern is the politicians that spend to the level of taxation, and beyond. That is why the debt increases. Why not increase the revenue 1.6Trillion? At least that would be a balanced budget. All I am asking for is a real balanced budget.

danivon wrote:Bbauska - if you read the last part of what geo quoted, it may help you...

Relatively modest changes, such as raising the taxable earnings base slightly, would be sufficient to put the program on a sound footing virtually forever.

I take it to mean that he proposes reform to ensure that over the next few decades they don't become a problem. Small actions taken now would multiply up over time, and if sufficient, would reduce the liability gap over the 'baby boom bubble' period.

Once that hump is over, we will find that social welfare programmes will become less of a looming threat.

And crucially, they are not actually the main cause of the current deficit, or of historic debt.

The problem with this is that politicians spend to the level of taxation. This mean the most likely outcome would be that increases in the money available to Social Security today would mean increased benefits to those collecting it today not money saved for future reciepents.

That's not what Bartlettt is proposing.

If you guys are so cynical, what's is the point even bothering to try?

Archduke Russell John wrote:The problem with this is that politicians spend to the level of taxation.

This has led to the Starve the Beast philosophy. Let's see what Mr. Bartlett say's about that:

In short, we have tested starve-the-beast theory in the laboratory, and it has failed miserably. At least a few conservatives have had the courage to acknowledge that lowering the tax cost of spending may be a culprit. After all, the main reason to oppose higher spending is that it will lead to higher taxes. But if people can have tax cuts and higher spending at the same time, why should they not have their cake and eat it too?

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/20/the-new-republican-tax-policy/

It's actually a pretty interesting read if you want to know where the idea comes from (Alan Greenspan in the 1970s he claims.)