Bruce Bartlett is a former senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis of Dallas, Texas. Before joining the NCPA, he was deputy assistant secretary for economic policy at the U.S. Treasury Department, where he served from September 1988 to January 1993. In 1987 and 1988, Bartlett was a senior policy analyst in the Office of Policy Development at the White House.
From 1985 through 1987, he was a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C.
Between 1976 and 1984, Bartlett held numerous positions on Capitol Hill. In 1976, he served on the staff of Rep. Ron Paul of Texas as a legislative assistant. In 1977, he joined the staff of Rep. Jack Kemp of New York as a special assistant and staff economist. While with Kemp, Bartlett helped draft the famous Kemp-Roth tax bill. Between 1979 and 1980, he worked for Sen. Roger Jepsen of Iowa as chief legislative assistant. In 1981, Bartlett joined the staff of the Joint Economic Committee of Congress as deputy director, becoming executive director in 1983. Bartlett is a prolific author, having published over 900 articles in national publications, including The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post, as well as many prominent magazines such as Fortune. In 1996, one of his columns inspired Bob Dole's 15 percent tax reduction plan.
Bartlett has also written for important academic journals and published four books, including Reaganomics: Supply-Side Economics in Action, published in 1981.
The world has changed a lot since 1995, and I've decided that there are better ways for me to express myself.
One of the things that surprises me so far in the race for the White House is that none of the Republicans is positioning himself clearly as the anti-Bush. I think there is a yearning for such a candidate among the Republican electorate.
Many people are worried about global warming today. They fear that the polar ice caps will melt, raising sea levels and creating environmental chaos. Such concerns are not new. The historical record tells us of many warming episodes—and subsequent cooling periods—that have bedeviled humans for thousands of years.
Back during World War II, the Allies were successful in largely cutting off Germany’s oil supply. To maintain their war effort, the Germans figured out how to make synthetic oil from coal. Later, the South Africans perfected the German technology in order to cope with international sanctions.
The immigration bill may be dead for now, but the political forces behind it have not gone away. Those will continue to impact both major political parties for many years to come. The basic force is that Hispanics are increasing as a share of the population. According to the latest data from the Census Bureau, there were 44.3 million Hispanics in the United States as of July 1, 2006, constituting 14.8 percent of the population. And they are the fastest growing ethnic group, accounting for about half the growth of population during the previous year—1.4 million out of a total increase of 2.9 million.
One of the things that bothers me about the immigration bill is the view held in the White House and Congress that “something” must be done; the option of doing nothing is not an option. It is my experience that when this idea takes hold, it is almost inevitable that something bad will result.
As some readers of this column may know, the first "real" job I ever had was working for Congressman Ron Paul back in 1976. I went to visit him a few months ago and was pleased to see that he had not changed much at all since the days when I was a legislative assistant on his congressional staff.
As someone who has been highly critical of George W. Bush’s repeated violations of conservative principles for some years, last week brought some vindication. His endorsement of an immigration reform bill that is widely viewed as offering de facto amnesty for illegal aliens seems to have finally gotten to many of those who have defended him down the line and attacked people like me as conservative turncoats.
It now seems almost certain that Paul Wolfowitz will leave the presidency of the World Bank. It’s only a matter of negotiating the terms of his resignation.
I hadn’t planned on writing another column about Hillary Clinton, but the one I wrote last week has been so widely misunderstood that I feel compelled to do so.
As each day passes, it becomes increasingly clear that the Democrats will win the White House next year. It’s not quite 1932, but it’s getting close to a sure thing. All the energy is on their side, they are raising more money from more contributors, and there is little if any enthusiasm for any of the Republican candidates—even among Republicans.
is the case every year, the deadline for paying one’s federal income taxes on April 15 brought forth many news features on the burden of taxation. This year was no different, with one article by former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer in the Wall Street Journal getting particular attention.
What was really interesting about my article, however, was the reaction to it. A University of Oregon economics professor named Mark Thoma posted a long commentary on it on his blog. I posted a response, which led to many other comments, including a couple from Paul Krugman, a Princeton economics professor and New York Times columnist.
Just in time for tax filing season, the Tax Foundation and Congress's Joint Committee on Taxation have compiled some useful facts about the federal tax system. Following are a few worth thinking about as taxpayers write their annual checks to Uncle Sam.
I recently made a life-changing decision, which, to those under the age of 30, will probably sound ridiculous. I finally decided that I trust the Internet enough to stop subscribing to a number of publications that are now easily available online.
One of the reasons why I wish columnist Ann Coulter hadn't used the F-word in a recent speech—the one that is a derogatory term for being gay—is because it gave liberals yet another excuse to label all conservatives as homophobic, racist and sexist, which writer Rick Perlstein did last week in the New Republic.
Of course, the president has every right to fire any political appointee in his administration for any reason, political or otherwise. In hindsight, it would have been far better if the administration had just said so from the beginning instead of wrongly implying that the attorneys were fired for cause.
While conservatives still believe that the major media are biased against them, one hears more and more criticism coming from the left. Indeed, judging by what one reads on the left-wing blogs, there are many liberals out there who truly believe that the major media now have a conservative bias.
Indeed, judging by what one reads on the left-wing blogs, there are many liberals out there who truly believe that the major media now have a conservative bias.
A few months ago, I caused a bit of a stir by suggesting that the best way for libertarian ideas to advance is by destroying the Libertarian Party. Since it cannot win, due to the nature of our political system, it is impotent and only ends up crushing the spirits of libertarian-minded political activists.
Department of Homeland Security Stacked With Pro-Amnesty Attorneys Ahead of Illegal Immigration Fight | Katie Pavlich
Obama: Oh no, the Failure of Obamacare Doesn't Reflect my Management Style at All | Sarah Jean Seman