Epiphanyblog

All about ideas…

Posts Tagged ‘Bruce Bartlett

Money, Power & The American Dream

leave a comment »

Hat tip to one of my Facebook friends, Bruce Bartlett who advised Presidents Reagan and GHW Bush on tax policy, including Reagan’s tax reform of ’86, for letting me know about this video documentary.

The first 20 minutes or so describe the lives and luxury of the uber wealthy. But don’t be deceived into thinking this video is a rant against the wealthy. It’s not.

This video is an expose on how politics and wealth intersect…and how that intersection affects middle and working income and poor families.

This hour-long video needs to be seen by every voter of conscience, from whatever party, before casting their votes. It shows quite clearly how our system is broken, why it’s broken and how beloved nation has begun to fail to live up to its potential. Neither party is spared judgement.

I urge everyone to put aside everything else and take the time to watch the entire video documentary and to think about our nation, her well-being, and all her people before the election.

The US is not, nor has it ever been, pre-Revolutionary France or Russia wherein a few very wealthy held all the power and opportunity while everyone else struggled to survive, thrive and paid all the national bills.

John Winthrop and his Massachusetts colonists created the first free schools because the colonists knew education was vital to economic health, demanded that everyone help those who suffered hardships because doing so was the message of Jesus, and required each family pay a income proportional tax so the colony could pay for its needs and wants. Winthrop believed that only through building a strong, cohesive, educated community could the colony become the shining city on the hill that Reagan and many other politicians have cited rhetorically.

As you can see in this documentary, Winthrop’s dream of a shining city – Jesus’ shining city – is not just under attack but is threatened with having its lights extinguished. Yes, the political system is broken because of money in politics and the wealth that can be made through the use of and manipulation of political power. But much worse is erosion of the traditional social values of social cohesion, caring for the poor, and education of which Winthrop spoke and this nation held for over 300 years.

Advertisements

AEI Argues Against Reagan Economic Adviser Bruce Bartlett on Tax Rates

leave a comment »

The American Enterprise Institute’s James Pethokoukis has put forth an article arguing against Bruce Bartlett’s claim that increasing the highest margin tax rate will not harm economic growth. Of course, Bartlett has history on his side, while the GOP and their funded think tanks have dogma. The nexus of the argument surrounds the Clinton era tax rates and the dynamic growth that ensued throughout the ’90s.

Bill ClintonI’m still not sure what caused the “Clinton Boom.” Democrat economist Dean Baker says Clinton got lucky (coincidence) that the internet boom occurred under this administration. However, since VC capital boomed under those years, I wonder if tax policy – slightly higher rates – didn’t drive more capital into VCs to avoid those higher rates on AGI. When I ran a small (very small) business during the Clinton Administration, I looked for ways to decrease my tax bill. The best way, I discovered, was to invest more money into my business. The result of increased capital investments was lowering my AGI and thus my tax bill.

When you own a business, you consider two things: do I have the customers to sustain my business to make it profitable (demand) and will my taxes (AGI) allow me to make a profit on my business. Under Clinton my income rose, regardless of the higher rates, while under Bush my income declined. Under Clinton my retirement accounts grew; under Bush, they declined steadily year over year.

Of course, we’re in a completely different situation now with globalization where multi-nationals can locate anywhere in the world to avoid paying US taxes and obtain the cheapest labor possible. As a result of this dramatic change, I’ve come to agree with Bruce Bartlett on the need to reduce the nation’s fiscal needs on labor taxation towards more to consumption: a Value Added Tax (VAT). If properly designed – and given Congress’s penchant towards rewarding donors and special interests doing so would be extremely difficult without significant campaign finance and redistricting changes – a VAT could be progressive and moral.

The nation, obviously, needs to three things: 1) increased revenues to pay down the debt/deficit which will signal to the markets that the nation the government is serious about its debt problem; 2) a long term plan to control the costs of health care (bend the cost curve which will reduce costs not just to the federal government but to all health care consumers thereby releasing billions for the nation’s other needs; and 3) a major overhaul of the federal government to bring it fully into the realities and needs of the 21st century rather than maintaining a structure more suitable to the 19th or 20th centuries.

One of the mantras in business during the last two decades was “lean and mean.” What that mantra really meant was reorganizing to create efficiency by reducing duplication, collapsing departments to eliminate roadblocks, and streamline processes towards faster approvals as well as lower costs. Government could take a lesson from the private sector here, but will Congress allow such as change when so many Committee heads gain their power from more rather than fewer committees?

The truly wealthy (those in the 1%) will not be harmed by having their tax rates increase by 3.9% to Clinton rates. They’ll still have more money than they need or can use to create demand; however, if the rates increase on income and short term cap gains, those with enormous incomes will find that investments, in VC or longer held investments, are more profitable than cashing out for lower tax rates. Plus, since the tax system is in part used to to encourage behaviors we like and want, such as marriage and having child, and investments we desire, such as technology, research and design, then why not use the tax system to short term investments and lack of investments rather in favor of lower taxes?

Lastly, it is important to note that the GOP notion of extremely low marginal taxes is relatively new. For example, when JFK advocated reducing the top marginal rate from 90% to 65%, Republicans revolted.They said that reducing the rate would increase the deficit…and since they were deficit hawks, anything that would increase the deficit was anathema. Of course, we know now that the enacted decrease, under Johnson, did not harm the deficit nearly as much as those Republicans claimed it might. On the other hand, we know from the eight years’ experience under the Bush Administration, that rates can be too low – as they are now – which most definitely increases the deficit. The extremely low rates did not unleash the animal spirits of capital. Instead they created a bubble just as Treasury Secretary O’Neill said they would when arguing against Cheney’s push for the 2003 tax cuts. Thus, the happy medium may be about 50% as Bartlett mentioned some years ago in an article for Forbes.

When Cheney argued for the ’03 tax cuts, he said we won the election so we can can do what we want (reward ourselves and our friends). Obviously, Cheney did not care about the deficit or long term health of the nation. Whether his acolytes on Capital HIll have taken up his dogma or are simply opposed to doing anything which may help President Obama, as Republican Congressional leaders stated, in that Capital HIll steakhouse, on the night of Obama’s inauguration, is unknown. Perhaps both.

Nevertheless, what we do know from the Clinton era is that raising the highest marginal rate of taxes by a modest amount, such as the 3.9%, does not harm the economy as the GOP and its funded think tanks proclaim. In fact, raising those rates might be beneficial…especially if combined with long term deficit reduction plan, particularly with regards to bending the cost curve of health care spending for the entire economy (i.e, businesses, families, and government) and reorganization of the federal government as Obama advocated in his last State of the Union address. Nevertheless, the entire tax code must be rewritten at some point in the very near future, not only to clean it up, but to insure the revenues needed for the future. As Bartlett has stated a VAT may well be the way to go.

Four GOP Presidential Icons on Tax Fairness and Values

with one comment

Three Republican Presidential Icons Who Advocated Tax Fairness

Bruce Bartlett, in the Fiscal Times, makes a really good argument for raising taxes on the wealthy, especially on those who receive capital gains, dividend, and inheritance tax breaks.

What is novel about Bartlett’s argument is that he uses four Republican Presidential icons to make his case.

At least through the 1980s, special tax breaks, such as those for dividends and capital gains, were viewed as unfair and unjustified. Indeed, Ronald Reagan was among those who decried the capital gains break because it meant that rich people, who get most of their income from capital, paid less taxes than the average working man. Consequently, as part of the Tax Reform Act of 1986, he agreed that income from capital gains and wages ought to be taxed at the same rate.

Reagan was building on long tradition by Republicans of demanding fairness in the tax code, which, among other things, meant making sure that capital and labor were treated equally. For example, in his first State of the Union Address in 1861, Abraham Lincoln said, “Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”

In 1910, Theodore Roosevelt excoriated big corporations and wealthy men for rigging the system in their favor and not paying their fair share of taxes.

    The true friend of property, the true conservative, is he who insists that property shall be the servant and not the master of the commonwealth; who insists that the creature of man’s making shall be the servant and not the master of the man who made it. The citizens of the United States must effectively control the mighty commercial forces which they have themselves called into being….

    We grudge no man a fortune in civil life if it is honorably obtained and well used. It is not even enough that it should have gained without doing damage to the community. We should permit it to be gained only so long as the gaining represents benefit to the community. This, I know, implies a policy of a far more active governmental interference with social and economic conditions in this country than we have yet had, but I think we have got to face the fact that such an increase in governmental control is now necessary.

    No man should receive a dollar unless that dollar has been fairly earned. Every dollar received should represent a dollar’s worth of service rendered – not gambling in stocks, but service rendered. The really big fortune, the swollen fortune, by the mere fact of its size acquires qualities which differentiate it in kind as well as in degree from what is possessed by men of relatively small means. Therefore, I believe in a graduated income tax on big fortunes, and in another tax which is far more easily collected and far more effective – a graduated inheritance tax on big fortunes, properly safeguarded against evasion and increasing rapidly in amount with the size of the estate.

In 1954, Dwight Eisenhower said that everybody should pay their fair share and denounced unjustified tax cuts. “An unwise tax cutter, my fellow citizens, is no real friend of the taxpayer,” he said.

In short, the real debate on the Buffett rule is about fairness. Its particulars are less important – especially since it has no chance of passage at this time – than the debate that will accompany it. If Republicans are successful in conveying the message that it’s okay for rich people to pay less than working people then this will frame the forthcoming budget debate in a particular way….

If history proved any answers, the one answered by these four Republican presidents is that labor should be taxed at the same or lesser rate than capital gains and inheritance because labor is inherently worth more to society.

Something to think about as discussions on taxes and tax rates continue throughout the year.

Related:

Have the Rich Ever Paid a Fair Share of Taxes? (Part 1)

Have the Rich Ever Paid a Fair Share of Taxes? (Part 2)

Written by Valerie Curl

April 20, 2012 at 10:35 AM

How The GOP Became The Party of Tax Cutters (Hint: It wasn’t economics!)

with 5 comments

The following quoted text duplicates in it’s entirety Bruce Bartlett’s Tuesday, 3/20, NYTimes Economix blog but without all the links in the original blog post. You can go to the original for those.

I’ve often wondered where and why Republicans derived their tax cutting dogma…and how it took hold. It’s doubtful many others know either because until Reagan’s Administration, Republicans had been the party of fiscal responsibility and spending austerity.

Prior to John Kennedy’s Administration and even during it, the GOP maintained a strict policy priority of keeping deficits under control, even if doing so meant higher tax rates. For example, when President Kennedy wanted to cut taxes (from a top marginal rate of 91% to 65%) to spur growth and investment, Republicans rebelled saying the tax cut would increase the deficit far too much.

According to the Washington Monthly, “Keep in mind, unlike contemporary GOP policy, Kennedy’s plan distributed “peace dividends” broadly across the wage spectrum. As the Joint Committee on Internal Revenue Taxation explained at the time, the bottom 85% of the population received 59% of the benefits of JFK’s tax cut. The top 2.4% received 17.4% of the tax cut, and the top 0.4% received just 6% of it.”

Nevertheless, now I know the genesis of current GOP “tax cuts solve every economic problem” dogma. Once again I thank Mr. Bartlett for putting policy ideas in accurate historical context. As that often used phrase goes, the more we know….

Note: The bold emphasis throughout is mine, not Bartlett’s.

The Origin of Modern Republican Fiscal Policy
Bruce Bartlett
In 1976, the journalist Jude Wanniski wrote an essay, “Taxes and a Two-Santa Theory,” little noticed at the time and virtually unknown today, that put forward a theory that has had extraordinary influence on the Republican Party. Indeed, virtually everything Republicans say about taxes and spending today echoes that theory.

In 1974, Mr. Wanniski attended a conference sponsored by the American Enterprise Institute in Washington. One speaker was Robert Mundell, who had worked with the conference organizer, Arthur Laffer.

In his conference paper, Professor Mundell first articulated what came to be called “supply-side economics.” He said the mainstream economic view, based on the theories of John Maynard Keynes, was all wrong. Keynesians advocated easy money to stimulate growth and a tight fiscal policy to fight inflation.

This was the exact opposite of what was necessary, Professor Mundell said. He advocated a tight money policy to fight inflation and tax-rate reductions to stimulate growth.

Mr. Wanniski wrote a commentary, “It’s Time to Cut Taxes,” about Professor Mundell’s view that was published in The Wall Street Journal on Dec. 11, 1974. He wrote a much longer description of supply-side economics, “The Mundell-Laffer Hypothesis — A New View of the World,” that was published in the spring 1975 issue of The Public Interest, an academic journal edited by Irving Kristol.

Mr. Wanniski’s most important contribution to the emerging supply-side philosophy, however, was his “Two-Santas” article, published in The National Observer on March 6, 1976. The Observer was a weekly published by Dow Jones that folded in 1977; consequently, it has been pretty much forgotten. (The article doesn’t even appear among the archives of Mr. Wanniski’s work at the Polyconomics Web site; I retyped it myself from a reprint Jack Kemp used to hand out when I worked for him, and I posted it here.)

The essence of the Wanniski argument was that each political party needed to be a different sort of Santa Claus. The Democrats were the spending Santa Claus, promising more government benefits. The Republicans should be the tax-cut Santa Claus, he said.

Many of the nation’s problems in 1976 stemmed from the unwillingness of Republicans to play that proper role. Instead of being the tax-cut Santa, they had become the party of fiscal austerity. The balanced budget was the sine qua non of Republican economic policy. This was both bad economics and bad politics, Mr. Wanniski said.

Instead of worrying about the deficit, he said, Republicans should just cut taxes and push for faster growth, which would make the debt more bearable.

Mr. Kristol, who was very well connected to Republican leaders, quickly saw the political virtue in Mr. Wanniski’s theory. In the introduction to his 1995 book, “Neoconservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea,” Mr. Kristol explained how it affected his thinking:

I was not certain of its economic merits but quickly saw its political possibilities. To refocus Republican conservative thought on the economics of growth rather than simply on the economics of stability seemed to me very promising. Republican economics was then in truth a dismal science, explaining to the populace, parent-like, why the good things in life that they wanted were all too expensive.

Republicans didn’t immediately embrace the two-Santa theory, but began to after Ronald Reagan’s victory in 1980, when he ran mainly in favor of a big tax cut, with far less emphasis on deficit reduction. In office, Reagan pushed for domestic spending cuts but also sharply raised spending for favored programs such as the military.

Although the budget deficit rose to 6 percent of gross domestic product in 1983 from 2.7 percent in 1980, Reagan easily won re-election in 1984. This further convinced Republicans that the deficit was a losing issue and only tax cuts mattered for political success.

The final straw was George H.W. Bush’s support for a tax increase in 1990 to reduce the deficit, which many Republicans say sealed his defeat in 1992 by Bill Clinton.

Since then, fealty to tax cuts and lip service to deficits has become Republican dogma.

Among its enforcers is Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform, which makes support for tax cuts and opposition to tax increases a litmus test for all Republicans.

In The Boston Globe’s Sunday magazine this week, Mr. Norquist explains that his famous tax pledge owes much to Mr. Wanniski’s two-Santa theory. Indeed, Mr. Norquist said he thought of the same idea himself when he was in the seventh grade.

I worked for Mr. Wanniski in the mid-1980s and know that he wasn’t obsessive about never raising taxes. He wanted economic growth and thought tax-rate reductions were the best way to achieve it, at least in the 1970s. But if higher taxes would raise growth, then he would support them. As he explained in an e-mail to Ben Bernanke, at the time the chairman of the president’s Council of Economic Advisers, on Aug. 11, 2005 (on which I was copied):

I for one am always ready to listen to arguments for higher taxes, more regulation and restraints on free markets, as I might be persuaded that under certain circumstances they would “invite,” not “stimulate” (a Keynesian idea), long-term growth. I’m not “anti-government,” in other words. (The Grover Norquist idea of opposing all tax increases is dumb, and Grover knows I believe that.)

Unfortunately, Mr. Wanniski opened Pandora’s box when he let loose the two-Santa theory. Republicans are now bound to it, whether they know it or not. As Keynes once put it, “Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back.”

Written by Valerie Curl

March 20, 2012 at 5:01 PM

Forget What You’ve Been Told – Bruce Bartlett Talks Honestly On Taxes

with 3 comments

Bruce Bartlett, an economist and senior Adviser to President Ronald Reagan on domestic policy, talks to Bill Moyers about tax policy, misconceptions about taxation, and the failure of community conscientiousness. I’ll frankly admit Bartlett is one of my heroes when it comes to a frank and honest discussion of taxation, our deficit and debt, and what the country need to do on taxation to recreate growth and equity for our commonweal.

Bartlett, a libertarian leaning Republican, left the GOP after the 2006 publication of his book, Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy. As a result of that book, Bartlett lost several positions within Republican sphere of influence which not only defended GW Bush but believed as a matter of faith, rather than verifiable data, that lowering tax rates always paid for themselves. Bartlett was among the first in the GOP to explode that myth.

As the years have passed since 2006, Bartlett has become even more outspoken on the economic challenges that face our country…and how an honest discussion and creation of an appropriate tax policy can resolve much of our deficit and debt problem and our economic growth problems, along with resolving the inequity problems the country faces.

Bartlett left the GOP some years ago to become an independent. He often states he will not join the Democratic Party, but he believes the Republican Party has lost its way as the responsible fiscal party. He has no trouble in his NY Times Economix blog, in his columns for The Fiscal Times, and elsewhere, stating that the GOP has deceived the American people and that the party’s fiscal policies, partly as a result of the influence of Grover Norquist, are setting the country up for long term unsustainable deficits or the eventual ruin of the GOP once the public becomes fully aware of the real policy agenda of politicians like Paul Ryan.

Faith (as in absolute trust) in Fox News and right wing talk radio and partisan politicians, says Bartlett, is leading the country to believe ideas that are not true. Only with truth and a real discussion of the facts on taxes can the United States once again recapture its essential heart of freedom. Freedom, according to Bartlett, is not a zero sum game but an expansive project wherein all can succeed to the limits of their ability and enjoy the benefits of capitalism if economic policies are geared towards a level playing field and politicians are not held hostage to fundraising which compromises their ability to do their job honestly.

Written by Valerie Curl

February 16, 2012 at 9:48 AM

Reagan Economist: Why GOP Should Stop Invoking Reaganomics

leave a comment »

Bruce BartlettBruce Bartlett on why Reagan’s Tax Policy is wrong for today’s economic problems.

Judging from the [GOP] candidates’ tax proposals, they seem to believe that the most Reagan-like candidate is the one with the biggest tax cut. But, as the person who drafted the 1981 Reagan tax cut, I think Republicans misunderstand the premises upon which Reagan’s economic policies were based, and why those policies can’t — and shouldn’t — be replicated today.

I was the staff economist for Rep. Jack Kemp (R-N.Y.) in 1977, and it was my job to draft what came to be the Kemp-Roth tax bill, which Reagan endorsed in 1980 and enacted the following year. Kemp and Sen. Bill Roth (R-Del.) proposed cutting tax rates across the board by about a third, lowering the top rate from 70 percent to 50 percent and reducing the bottom rate from 20 percent to 8 percent. (Though when the Reagan tax cut was enacted in 1981, the bottom rate was reduced to 11 percent.)

While our aim was to increase growth and employment, we were intent on doing so in a way that did not exacerbate inflation, which was the nation’s top problem at that time.

Here’s the money quote:

When comparing Reagan’s policies with Republican proposals today, several things stand out. Inflation is low now. We are not looking at “bracket creep” or sharply rising taxes, as we were in the late 1970s. The top income tax rate is 35 percent, half the rate Reagan inherited. And federal revenue is at a 60-year low of about 15 percent of GDP, compared with a post-World War II average of about 18.5 percent.

These differences are essential to understanding why Reagan’s policies worked when they did — and why they are not appropriate today.

All of the evidence tells us that the economy’s fundamental problem today is not on the supply side but the demand side. According to a recent study by Credit Suisse, two-thirds of the difference in growth at this point in the business cycle, compared with previous cycles, is due to slower consumer spending. And low inflation — as well as widespread unemployment, vast stocks of unsold houses, empty factories and other indicators — tells us that money is tight, not loose, as was the case in the late 1970s.

“Low interest rates are generally a sign that money has been tight,” economist Milton Friedman wrote in 1997. Yet, absurdly, Republicans continually berate the Federal Reserve for being too easy; some even insist, insanely, that the United States should return to the gold standard, even though it was a key cause of the Great Depression.

Because inflation and interest rates are low, Fed policy is constrained today in ways it was not in the early 1980s. Back then, the Fed could bring down the federal funds rate to a little less than the inflation rate and create negative real rates, thus stimulating borrowing, investment and consumption. It can’t do that now because it can’t reduce market interest rates below zero.

Economic conditions are entirely different today than they were in Reagan’s era, and different conditions demand different policies. Those who say otherwise are simply engaging in cookie-cutter economics — proposing whatever was popular and seemed to work once, without regard to changing circumstances.

Written by Valerie Curl

February 7, 2012 at 9:48 AM

Premier Business Advisory Group Says Balanced Budget Amendment a Disaster

with one comment

Over the last several years, I’ve learned to ignore what politicians and highly partisan think tanks say. I’ve learned they’re not really trustworthy or truthful.

As Bruce Bartlett, one of Reagan’s top economic advisers, wrote a year or so ago: all too often politicians and partisan think tanks decide on a result they want, then work back to reinforce that conclusion, coming up with thin data to reinforce the conclusion they want. Now, not all think tanks work this way. Certainly, Brookings and Urban Affairs, the Bipartisan Policy Center, and the Tax Policy Center do legitimate research and provide exemplary results.

Another of those great non-partisan advisers is Macroeconomic Advisers. Macroeconomic Advisers, which provides nonpartisan analysis to major corporations and government entities such as the President’s Council of Economic Advisers (under Presidents of both parties) and the Congressional Budget Office, also concludes that under a balanced budget amendment, “recessions would be deeper and longer,” and uncertainty would be cast over the economy that could retard economic growth even in normal economic times.

Here’s what they said:
– Macroeconomic Advisers writes that if a constitutional balanced budget requirement had been ratified in 2008 and took effect in fiscal year 2012, “The effect on the economy would be catastrophic.” If the 2012 budget were balanced through spending cuts, those cuts would have to total about $1.5 trillion in 2012 alone, which the report estimates would throw about 15 million more people out of work, double the unemployment rate from 9 percent to approximately 18 percent, and cause the economy to shrink by about 17 percent instead of growing by an expected 2 percent.[1] These results, the report explains, would occur in part because “[t]he Fed would be near powerless to offset this huge fiscal drag” and “[n]o model could capture the ensuing chaos and uncertainty, which would make matters far worse.”

– Macroeconomic Advisers also notes that a balanced budget amendment would create great uncertainty because it would be unclear whether the balanced budget requirement would be enforced or suspended during a recession. “The pall of uncertainty cast over the economy if it appeared a BBA could be ratified and enforced in the middle of recession or when the deficit was still large would have a chilling effect on near-term economic growth.”

– Macroeconomic Advisers concludes that “the only way to implement a BBA without some fiscal drag is to ratify it when the budget is in balance or surplus. Of course, then we wouldn’t have needed the BBA to achieve balance in the first place.” Moreover, even if a BBA went into effect when the budget happened to be in balance, it would be economically undesirable.

The report observes that, even under this best possible circumstance, placing a BBA in the Constitution would create “new and powerful uncertainties,” in part because “[t]he economy’s ‘automatic stabilizers’ would be eviscerated” and “discretionary counter-cyclical fiscal policy would be unconstitutional.” “We believe,” Macroeconomics Advisers writes, that “this would change cyclical dynamics. Recessions would be deeper and longer,” and the uncertainty by itself could “retard economic growth” even during normal times.

The Macroeconomic Advisers analysis indicates that any version of the balanced budget amendment would do significant harm to the American economy, a view that mainstream economists broadly share.(emphasis mine)

It doesn’t take a great genius – well, maybe it does – to figure out that a BBA is antithetical to a stable and growing economy. Yet, the GOP continues to push it. Every GOP presidential candidate has stated publicly and in debates that they support the BBA currently being pushed by the GOP. Given the analysis by Macroeconomic Advisers, either these candidates are economically illiterate or they are pandering to an economically illiterate base.

I’m not sure which is worse from these candidates: that they fail to understand macroeconomics or that have chosen not to educate the GOP base.

Presidents and legislators should know more than average, busy, hardworking voters. After all, the main reason we hire these people is for their expertise, not because they’d be great pals over a beer at a backyard barbeque.

Editor’s note: Do the nation a favor, pass this information along to your friends and colleagues.

Links:

Macroeconomic Advisers on BBA

CBPP Macroeconomic Advisers Appendix

Reagan Adviser Bruce Bartlett’s Wall St Pit column on the BBA

%d bloggers like this: