Wednesday, August 8, 2007; A15

Last week, Robert J. Samuelson criticized think tanks as failing to offer reasonable ways to address "the huge budget costs of aging baby boomers" ["Making the Think Tanks Think," op-ed, Aug. 1]. Below are three responses to Samuelson's argument; more can be read at Think Tank Town, which features a regular lineup of such organizations debating public policy.

For almost two years, U.S. Comptroller General David Walker and I have traveled the country with analysts from two of Robert J. Samuelson's targets, the Brookings Institution and the Heritage Foundation. On our "Fiscal Wake-Up Tour," we make the same points and use the same numbers that Samuelson used in his column. We define the magnitude of the problem and the trade-offs that must be confronted. In question-and-answer sessions, we describe our respective ideas on specific solutions. And we all emphasize, as Samuelson did, the adverse generational consequences of doing nothing. One newspaper observed, "This group was clear, to the point, and scary as hell."

Other organizations have issued similarly blunt assessments. So why the friendly fire from Samuelson?

It boils down to tactics. Rather than defining the size of the problem and laying out a menu of realistic options, Samuelson wants the think tanks to produce competing plans. It is an interesting concept and one that I would be happy to endorse (although I am not convinced that dueling specifics is the best way to overcome today's poisonous political environment). I am not prepared, however, to assault the integrity of think tanks simply because they have not done what Samuelson wants, particularly when they produce reams of incisive material that both he and the Concord Coalition have used to raise public awareness of the problem.

Think tanks are not political parties. They are a collection of scholars who do not necessarily agree on specifics. Thus the absence of a competition among them on specific plans does not, as Samuelson implies, indicate venal motives. The problem is not timid think tanks. It is timid politicians.

-- R obert L. Bixby

Executive director, Concord Coalition

·

Samuelson's column combines a cheap shot with a questionable strategy. Thinktankers shun controversial recommendations, he says, because we will offend our "political mentors" or miss out on juicy government jobs. That is palpably absurd. Heritage Foundation analysts aren't looking for government jobs -- we want to slash government jobs. And conservative think tanks bitterly attacked the huge Medicare drug entitlement in 2003, breaking with our friends in the administration and Congress -- and with many major donors -- who strongly supported the bill.

Leading think tanks also don't flinch from carrying the entitlements debate outside Washington. On our "Fiscal Wake-Up Tour," we discuss ending entitlements as we know them; instituting tight long-term budgets for programs such as Medicare (with automatic benefit cuts if spending exceeds the budget); and making Medicare and Social Security available only to seniors who actually need help.

This is hardly Samuelson's image of spineless analysts who avoid tough issues.

Samuelson's other charge is that think tanks haven't put forward detailed proposals that politicians can advocate. Baloney. We've all laid out such plans. But to politicians, entitlements are the third rail because Americans haven't yet resolved their emotional and contradictory feelings about entitlements and intergenerational obligation. Another book-length compendium of detailed plans, as Samuelson proposes, would do nothing to resolve these deep-seated concerns. After all, Samuelson's own columns and his excellent book on entitlements have done nothing to shift the debate.

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