Think Tanks Talk Back

Discussion Policy

Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.

That's why leading think tanks are focused on understanding and changing public perceptions about the values and risks involved in controlling entitlements, to improve the climate for political debate. That's why Brookings and Heritage have joined others in talking directly to real Americans and why we are working to structure public dialogues to explore ways to craft serious reform.

-- Stuart M. Butler

Vice president for domestic and economic policy studies, Heritage Foundation

Samuelson suggests that think tanks aren't proposing specific solutions to the demographic and budgetary crises facing the country. As the recipient of more than my fair share of angry e-mails from people who haven't appreciated some of the specifics our think tank has recommended, I would respectfully disagree.

Samuelson is right, of course, that one of the important roles of a think tank is to provide bold policy solutions to help move the political discussion forward. That is what the New America Foundation has been doing for years. I have suggested means-testing benefits not just for future generations but for wealthier current and near-retirees. On the revenue side, we have published pieces recommending cutting the home mortgage interest deduction, replacing the estate tax with a low-exemption inheritance tax and introducing a broad-based energy tax.

In December 2005, New America issued a report, written by me and former officials in the Bush and Clinton administrations, that outlined a comprehensive Social Security reform. The plan -- declared solvent by the program's actuaries -- reduces benefits (by progressively altering the "primary insurance amount" formula, for those who want real specifics), increases the retirement age to 68, increases the payroll tax cap to cover 90 percent of wages and requires workers to save an additional 1.5 percent of wages to help cover their retirement costs. We didn't try to sugarcoat the recommendations, instead hoping that the plan would serve as an example of the kinds of compromises that will be involved in fixing Social Security.

-- Maya MacGuineas

Fiscal policy program director

New America Foundation

< 2