To understand the sometimes glaring gaps between candidate Obama’s promises and President Obama’s policies, it is useful to appreciate an old tension in American progressivism. . . .
In 2001 President Bush established a bipartisan commission to study and report recommendations for restoring fiscal soundness to the current Social Security program. All three of the commission's models for reforming the system included the creation of individually controlled retirement accounts—a process commonly referred to as "privatizing Social Security." Some critics of the proposals argue that Social Security is not in as much trouble as the president's commission would have us believe and that major reform is unnecessary. Other critics say that creating private accounts will compound Social Security's problems rather than solve them. Who's right, the president's commission or its critics?
Be careful when one uses the superlative case—best, most, -est, etc.—or evokes end-of-the-world imagery...
On July 29, 1981, barely six months into his presidency and in the face of an economic crisis of historic proportions, Ronald Reagan succeeded in persuading both houses of Congress to pass dramatic tax cuts that set the stage for nearly three decades of vigorous economic growth...
The decades of the 1980s and 1990s seem to offer two different fiscal models for promoting economic growth. The 1980s under President Reagan suggest that cutting taxes is more important than balancing the budget. The 1990s under President Clinton suggest the importance of balancing the budget with moderate tax increases. Yet the results in each decade were similar: sustained economic growth. President George W. Bush has clearly been following the Reagan model in his first term: enacting large tax cuts even as the federal budget approaches record deficits. But has the Bush team taken the correct lessons from our recent economic past? Do the Bush policies promote long-term growth or jeopardize it?
Just two years ago, in the 2000 fiscal year, the annual federal budget had a surplus of $236 billion. Now the federal government is facing a budget deficit of more than $150 billion, possibly much more. And whereas during the presidential campaign of 2000, the candidates were debating how to spend trillions in expected future surpluses, the Congressional Budget Office is now projecting a cumulative $1 trillion deficit by 2011. What happened to the surplus, and what is to blame for the return of the deficit? Is it President Bush's tax cut? Or was it the recession of 2001 and the war on terrorism? In light of the deficit, what should we make of the president's budget plans?
Despite the fundamental distinction between the two, misunderstandings of capitalism and socialism — and their implications for freedom — abound, and usually in favor socialism. In these circumstances, a return to the basics is warranted. The 17th-century writings of John Locke in defense of political and economic freedom and the 19th- century critique by Karl Marx of political and economic freedom represent classics of the genre.
In January 2003, the Bush administration unveiled a package of proposed new tax cuts, including provisions to eliminate the taxation of dividends and make permanent the 2001 tax cut. President Bush called the plan "an immediate boost to the economy" as well as "essential for the long run to lay the groundwork for future growth and prosperity." Critics have said that the plan doesn't provide short-term economic stimulus and endangers long-term growth and prosperity. Is the Bush tax plan good for the economy or not?
Govern moderately, or the governed will turn against you. Clinton learned it. Will Obama? By Peter Berkowitz.
From Hoover Press: The Road Ahead for the Fed, by George Shultz, Allan Meltzer, Peter Fisher, Donald Kohn, James Hamilton, John Taylor, Myron Scholes, Darrell Duffie, Andrew Crockett, Michael Halloran, Richard Herring, John Ciorciari
In this new book, The Road Ahead for the Fed (Hoover Press, 2009), coeditors John B. Taylor and John D. Ciorciari bring together twelve leading experts to examine and debate proposals for financial reform and exit strategies from the financial crisis...
The Arab struggles may be new, but American goals are not. Three recent presidents laid the groundwork. By Peter Berkowitz.
Clarity of purpose is only half of a winning political strategy. The other half involves a clear understanding of the possible. By Peter Berkowitz.
Partnerships with religious groups may have been dismissed as a stepchild of the Bush administration, but they appear to have a bright future all the same. By David Davenport.
In today's Wall Street Journal, Hoover's Peter Robinson reports on an interview with Gary Becker. . . .
With Architects of Ruin, Peter Schweizer again delivers a knockout punch of a book that is the must read of the season for conservatives and should be a main topic of conversation for conservative media. . . .
Hoover Institution research fellow Peter Schweizer has a potential blockbuster of a new book hitting the shelves Oct. 6 entitled "Architects of Ruin: How Big Government liberals wrecked the global economy and how they will do it again if no one stops them."...
A bailout for newspapers? . . .
There they go again...
Mock outrage is common to Washington...
White House Budget Director Peter Orszag was poised to become the first member of Barack Obama’s Cabinet to leave, as early as this summer. Then came an appeal from the president insisting that he reconsider...