Talk:Bruce Bartlett

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bartlett's critique of Bush[edit]

Bartlett on KQED radio show Forum on Monday Feb 27 2006, referred to Bush as a Dry drunk, I am wondering if that is an indicator of the dry drunk theory of Bush's signs of mental deficits gaining wider credence.

Funny how the person who left the above comment didn't want to use their name. -- Christine


How Did Bartlett Avoid Military Service?[edit]

Bartlett was in college from 1969 to 1973 as an undergraduate. This timeframe encompassed the height of the Vietnam War and predated the lottery system. Did Bartlett get a deferment and then, later, a safe lottery number? This is relevant because pressure reveals character, and the greatest pressure on Bartlett's generation came from the Vietnam War.

Bruce Bartlett blogged about this at http://www.capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/1769/my-military-service
where he says he was granted a deferment but before then, he had joined ROTC. He joined the Air Force upon graduating and was on active duty for about 90 days and was released into inactive duty.67.101.51.36 (talk) 04:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bartlett's WSJ article from August 2007[edit]

Bartlett wrote that the Church of Scientology created the FairTax. This is wholly innaccurate. The Church of Scientology was related to the Citizens for an Alternative Tax System (CATS). CATS was founded in 1990 by some members of the Chruch. CATS proposed a flat 17% consumption tax rate with no method of "fixing" the regressive nature of consumption taxes. The FairTax was developed by the Americans For Fair Taxation (AFFT). The AFFT began in 1995 and proposed a 23% inclusive consumption tax rate with a family size based "prebate" to 'fix' the regressive nature of consumption taxes.

Bartlett's WSJ article was rife with these types of falsehoods. He repeatedly wrote things that could have been verified or nullified with a simple check of any FairTax source, including the method of determining the prebate (Bartlett says income based, HR25 says poverty level and family size based), the inclusive vs. exclusive nature of the FairTax (Bartlett says 30% on top of current prices, HR25 says 23% of future prices), the funding for the Prebate (Bartlett says it is not included into the 'cost' of the FairTax plan, HR25 says it is fully funded and uses approximately 5% of the 23% rate) and the aforementioned Scientology link.

The article is severly flawed, and until Barlett and/or the WSJ retract it, or offer accurate corrections to it, his "current work" section should reflect his inability to do even the most basic research on his topic.

Wait a minute. Until the WSJ retracts the article, we should assume it is false? Does that strike anyone as remotely fair or balanced?----—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimintheatl (talk • contribs)
Nobody said anything about assuming something. There are several statements that are directly false. For example, the prebate is based on income (untrue), the prebate was not included in the FairTax rate studies (untrue), government was not included in the rate studies (untrue). These are not assumptions.. they are just false statements that can be proven without any doubt (look at the legislation or the studies). The article was just plain full of falsehoods and in my view he should retract it or correct it. So until he does, the IP above is saying this article has to show that he did include such false statements and was criticised for it. Morphh (talk) 17:46, 03 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, the Scientology/FairTax quote attributed to him is exactly what he said; however, that doesn't make his quote accurate. The quote needs to be labelled as an inaccurate opinion.

The Scientology/FairTax link was disproved in Tuesday Aug 28, 2007 issue of the Atlanta Journal Constitution, http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/shared-blogs/ajc/politicalinsider/entries/2007/08/28/on_john_linder_and_scientology.html. The other falsehoods can be disproved at the AFFT's main site, www.fairtax.org. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.210.187.162 (talk) 18:48, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why Jimintheatl keeps changing my edits as listed above without leaving any sort of comment, but I can assume you are either loyal to Bartlett and cannot see his faults, or you are actively and intentionally misrepresenting him in the same manner he misrepresented the Scientologists and the FairTax. Either that, or you are an staunch Anti-FT guy and you don't have a problem lying to support your cause. --Justin; Aug 29, 2007 1:25pm CDT

Seriously, Jim...Until or unless Bartlett or the WSJ offers a clarification or a retraction, you really need to stop putting words in their mouths. Bartlett wrote the article about the FairTax. His use of "it" in that sentence does not refer to some random NRST program, "it" is referring specifically to the FairTax.
I don't know why you have been so intent on continuing to lie all week, but it does not speak well for Wiki editors.
66.210.187.162 14:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Justin in Oklahoma[reply]

It's clear to me that the WSJ article quote was removed because it reflects negatively on Bartlett. It is, however, precisely what he said, and anyone who read the actual WSJ article is well aware that he said it for the purpose of smearing Fair Tax supporters by labeling them as Scientologists. The quote should stay on his Wikipedia page forever--it offers deep insight into the mind of Mr. Bartlett. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.65.85.231 (talk) 15:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The removal of criticism regarding Bartlett's article is in violation of WP:NPOV policy. If your going to have a statement about his article, then you have to include the fact that he was criticized for stating false information. Some of these include the relationship to Scientology, the prebate being based on income, the prebate not included in the studies, that government was not included in the studies (it was included in the Beacon Hill and Gale studies), and stating that the JCT and Tax Panel studies were of the FairTax (neither are nor claim to be). There are others such as implying the states have no incentive (when they receive part of the collection) but whatever.. some of this was opinion and that is fine but there were many completely false statements and he was called out on it. As an economist that considers such things, he should have done a little more homework or as the comment on Scientology portrays, he intentionally tried to lie and smear the FairTax. Whatever his motive, the criticism is more important in this article then him actually writing the article. He's written many articles.. So remove the entire thing if you don't think it meets WP:WEIGHT but if you include anything about it, you must include that he was criticized for writing falsehoods. Morphh (talk) 0:40, 03 September 2007 (UTC)

Have you read the article in which Linder is quoted? Even he acknowledges that the Church of Scientology originally "thought they owned the field" on the issue of a national sales tax and that there is a connection, which he downplays, with the Fair Tax. Moreover, if you want to include criticism of Bartlett's article, citing the FairTax website and the bill's sponsor (Linder) is disingenuous at best. These are not objective critics, but proponents of the FairTax. Their saying that Bartlett made mistakes does not make it so; they have a vested interest in the debate (unlike Bartlett). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimintheatl (talk • contribs) 13:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Leo Linbeck rebuttal was also published in the WSJ. Yes they have a vested interest in disproving lies. For one, there were many verifiable false statements in the article. We're not listing them out.. Of course proponents are going to respond.. Bartlett is an opponent.. not a neutral party, he's written on the FairTax in the past. The sources are valid and meet all wikipedia requirements. You can not remove them without violating policy. The NST tax has been around for way longer then the 1990s. See Image:CROSSNG.JPG from 1933. Their is no connection to Scientology.. except they both proposed a NST. The FairTax didn't start as a NST - they were open to whatever the research found - it just happen to be a NST. CATS was big at the time but has no associate or connection to AFFT or any of the research, development, or legislation of the FairTax. This is just one of Bartlett's false statements. It was as low blow smear tactic... a distraction.. what does such a statement even have to do with tax reform... The others are extremely easy to prove if we want to go into them but I don't think it is necessary. Morphh (talk) 13:55, 03 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Linbeck's letter was hardly a rebuttal. Without getting specific, he issued a general dismissal of Bartlett's article. There is no way you can equate the comments of the President of the FairTax organization with those of Bruce Bartlett (who does not have an equivalent affiliation). What seems clear from these discussions is that the critics of Bartlett's opinions are FairTax proponents who disagree with Bartlett's opinions. Jimintheatl----
What opinion are you talking about? I'm very open to his opinion and he did present some things that were opinion. I have no issue with those statements. However, while everyone is entitled to their own opinion, they are not entitled to their own facts. Bartlett said the prebate was based on income (it is not - it is based on household size), he stated the prebate was not included in the rate (it is included - see the Beacon Hill and Gale studies that are very detailed), he said that government spending was not included (again it is included - see the Beacon Hill and Gale studies), JCT and Tax Panel were studies of the FairTax (they were not and never claimed to be - they studied other sales tax plans and stated so - in fact the Tax Panel came very close to studying the CATS plan - minus Corp income tax), Scientology could be an opinion.. though he has no evidence for such an absurd claim except they both have NST plans and CATS had one first (though NST plans have been around for years and years.. nothing new.. and several different legislation bills over the past decade - must all be Scientology!). Nothing ties AFFT and CATS together, the plans are different, the research was independent, none of the founders of AFFT or anyone associated with the legislation has any affiliation with Scientology. Come on.. quit defending this guy.. whatever you think about the plan this is just a low blow distraction. So don't make this out like Bartlett has a point of view and proponents disagree with his "facts". They were not facts.. the above points were false statements. He was called out on it and it needs to be stated. It is important to include that he stated falsehoods - it goes to his credibility to critique the plan. Morphh (talk) 0:36, 04 September 2007 (UTC)
Here's the thing: economics is not an exact science. One person's projections are another person's facts; sorry, that's economics. Here's the other thing: this plan comes from conservative/Libertarian Republicans. Bartlett is a Reagan conservative, a Ron Paul (i.e., Libertarian) conservative. The FairTax "movement" wants to portray him as some IRS/income tax cheerleader. Instead of attacking him, FairTax supporters would be better off looking at their own assumptions and asking asking why such a libertarian conservative thinks the FairTax is a house of cards. ----Jimintheatl
"economics is not an exact science"? Who's talking economics.. Is the rebate based on income? No economics here.. it either is or it is not.. no place for opinion. Is the prebate included in the rate studies? again it either is or is not. You can go to the detailed studies listed above and see the prebate included (Beacon Hill even states what the rate would be without the rebate.. no way to miss this). Again, no room for economics or opinion.. it is either true or untrue. Same for the government spending... the two major detailed and published studies have it. The point on the Tax Panel analysis and possibly the JCT could be argued as economics (even though they did not score the FairTax - he could probably stretch this into an opinion of the rate), so I'll give you that. However, I do find it odd that he used unpublished studies with unknown methodology that were not of the plan instead of the two detailed published studies in Tax Notes (and a third published by Arduin, Laffer & Moore Econometrics) of the actual plan - they do not use the accounting "tricks" described (they're peer-reviewed studies done in the university or by economic firms). "Instead of attacking him"? He mislead the public on a hot election topic that he should be well versed in (I'm not saying it was intentional but he should have been more accurate). He is being held accountable for his statements. Should nobody care that he included false information about a plan he was writing about? I'm not attacking him - I actually like Bartlett but I think he took some below the belt shots for demagoguery sake and didn't do his homework. I don't think the piece was up to his usual standard. Perhaps he had a late night when he wrote it... anyway - He made the bed.. now he has to sleep in it. Morphh (talk) 2:49, 04 September 2007 (UTC)
I think we may be giving too much weight to this one article in Barlett's biography. We only have one sentence on his book, with no criticism there. For this whole FairTax thing, I'm wondering if it would be better to just have the first and last sentence (of the paragraph we have). Bartlett wrote an article critical of the FairTax. Proponents said it was yada yada... two sentences may be more appropriate for this. Morphh (talk) 18:45, 05 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since Bartlett has repeated (and attempted to validate) his Scientology claim in The New Republic this week, (along with other innacuracies....still thinks the FT tracks household incomes) and it has been picked up at CBSNews...does this add any more info to Barlett's page?...i'll defer to morphh.

Bartlett is a former presidental economic advisor. The WSJ is THE premire economic newspaper in the world.

Exactly how much more weight could there be? This isn't the rantings of some third rate talk radio guy from the south, after all.

Oh wait....that's probably part of the problem right there.

Love you long time 66.210.187.162 16:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC) justin from oklahoma[reply]

I'm really surprised he restated the same falsehoods. The first one could be written off as ignorance.. the second time is malicious - a lie / deception. Guess he cares little about the truth. Since he has written a second article, I would agree that this adds more weight in the article. Guess I'll start to refer to him as Liar Liar paints on fire Bartlett. Morphh (talk) 20:04, 07 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A prominent economist. "The premiere [sic] economic newspaper in the world." VERSUS "liar, liar pants on fire?" I know who I believe. ----Jimintheatl

What do you mean - you know who to believe? Are you suggesting that these are not false statements? Don't take my word for it - look for yourself. Don't make me out to be some nut. H.R.25 (FairTax Act) Sec. 302. defines the rebate (it is based on family size - not income). Beacon Hill study] see Section III A & B - that define the rebate based on family size and what the rate would be with and without the rebate (the study includes the rebate as does Gales study and every other study I have examined). See also Section III D(2) and elsewhere for inclusion of Government - again as does the Gale studies. These are the latest studies 2006 & 2005 of the actual FairTax plan. However, Bartlett chooses studies that are not of the plan (admitted by the both the JCT and Tax Panel - I don't even think the FairTax was out when the JCT did there study). Beacon Hill, which includes Boston University and Suffolk University economists found the rate to be 23.82% inclusive (contradictory to Bartlett's statement that "professional revenue estimators have always concluded that a national retail sales tax would have to be much, much higher than 23%"). Arduin, Laffer & Moore Econometrics also defended the 23% rate. I'm not making this stuff up and not defending the opinion on what the rate would need to be.. just Bartlett's statement that they have always found it to be much, much higher. I was joking btw with the paints on fire statement but seriously.. just click a couple of the links to the bill and study - there is no need to believe me or Bartlett - Don't let his "prominent economist" supertitle keep you from learning the truth... everyone makes mistakes. I'm just surprised he repeated them. Morphh (talk) 17:58, 08 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your point of a prominent economist writing in the premiere economic newspaper is the very reason such false statements need to be pointed out. Not only the statements but in many cases he uses it as the base of his argument. For example, "The FairTax does this by sending monthly checks to every household based on income. Aside from the incredible complexity and intrusiveness of tracking every American's monthly income." So not only does he get the "based on income" wrong, he uses it to state the "incredible complexity and intrusiveness of tracking every American's monthly income", which the FairTax does not track income at all. So this entire argument is a complete fabrication. There is no amount of opinion that can make it true. I mean come on.. Bash the FairTax.. but at least bash it with truthful statements. There is enough to demagogue without having to resort to misinformation. It is not the fact that he dislikes the FairTax that bothers me, but that he is putting out false information that confuses the debate. Morphh (talk) 0:37, 09 September 2007 (UTC)

OK. We get it. You're a Fair Tax zealot. But your zealotry is blurring the distinction between fact and opinion. You need to step back. If all your citations are from Fair Tax sponsors/proponents, something is missing from your case, i.e. objectivity. -----Jimintheatl

Where am I blurring the distinction between fact and opinion? Tell me how stating the prebate is based on income is an opinion? The source is the bill in Congress that states it in black and white. Just because proponents are the only ones screaming about it does not make it any less true. As far as zealotry, we're not arguing for or against the FairTax here - we're talking about Bartlett. We could be speaking of a flat tax proposal and it would be the same. I've worked on most of the Tax articles in Wikipedia, including other countries, and FYI I think there are better solutions out there then the FairTax plan. However, I have studied the plan extensively for several years and it bothers me when tax reform proposals don't get a fair shake (not due to their merits but because people are putting out misinformation). Morphh (talk) 12:59, 09 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lost job[edit]

Cut 3 paragraphs:

Bartlett alleges that he was fired from his position at the National Center for Policy Analysis, a "conservative research group based in Dallas," for criticism of President Bush's economic policies, which he believes were anathema to the pre-existing values and beliefs espoused by the NCPA.
In a press release, the NCPA asserted that it had dismissed Bruce Bartlett from his role as a senior fellow at their institute after he had submitted a manuscript of his book to its president, John C. Goodman.
While the NCPA claimed that Bartlett had reneged on an earlier promise to write a book strictly devoted to economic and tax policy-rather than a blistering polemic devoted to the perceived failings of individuals within a specific administration-Bartlett asserted that his firing was retribution for criticizing President Bush, that he had fulfilled the terms of the contract agreed upon, and that his dismissal was an illustration of how enthralled conservative pundits, members of conservative think tanks and policy institutes, and seemingly independent Republican strategists were to the dictates of the Bush administration.

Is this really a controversy? Outside the Beltway wrote:

Bruce Bartlett, a Republican commentator who has been increasingly critical of the White House, was dismissed on Monday as a senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, a conservative research group based in Dallas.
In a statement, the organization said the decision was made after Mr. Bartlett supplied its president, John C. Goodman, with the manuscript of his forthcoming book, “The Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy.” [1]

Is there anyone who disputes that he was "fired"? Or that the reason for dismissal was for criticizing Bush in the manuscript he showed his boss at NCPA? --Uncle Ed 21:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No one is disputing that he was dismissed from his position, but yes, there are people who disagree-namely, his former superiors-with the allegation that he was dismissed merely because he criticized the Bush administration. Ruthfulbarbarity 00:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's clear that the firing should be discussed. That it was motivated by his criticisms of Bush seems to be a common opinion (see http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6800, which mentions it as an aside). If there are credible sources arguing that it was not politically motivated, they should obviously be included. JustinBlank (talk) 23:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The New American Economy (new book)[edit]

I noticed he had a new book out, so I added a Works section as other authors have, complete with ISBNs. I would suggest those of you who have more knowledge and interest in him review and update the rest of the article, as there will probably be more views of it soon. Flatterworld (talk) 16:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is Bartlett still a "conservative economist?"[edit]

It seems possible that he is now more middle of the road, or even liberal. Let's keep an eye open for secondary sources that may turn up, saying so.144.35.45.98 (talk) 00:54, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bruce Bartlett. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:43, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links[edit]

There are twenty-one entries in the "External links". Three seems to be an acceptable number and of course, everyone has their favorite to add for four. The problem is that none is needed for article promotion.
  • ELpoints #3) states: Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.
  • LINKFARM states: There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate.
  • WP:ELMIN: Minimize the number of links. -- Otr500 (talk) 01:07, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:ELCITE ...and access dates are not appropriate in the external links section. Do not use {{cite web}} or other citation templates in the External links section. Citation templates are permitted in the Further reading section.
Trim links and remove maintenance tag. -- Otr500 (talk) 23:12, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bruce_Bartlett&oldid=1205776073"