Two months ago, the House adopted a budget resolution that outlines the Republican majority's ambitious plans to slow the growth of federal entitlement spending. If implemented properly, entitlement spending restraint can address the long-term fiscal imbalance in a way that promotes economic growth and freedom.

This book by Alan Viard and Robert Carroll proposes to completely replace the income tax system with a progressive consumption tax.

If you want redistribution, you better first produce growth. Which the Obama Democrats' policies have failed to do.

Supercommittee Republicans offered a plan to eliminate tax preferences and reduce tax rates, as in the 1986 bipartisan tax reform. They argued that high tax rates would squelch economic growth.  They didn't make the case that their proposals would also address income inequality. But Paul Ryan, in a paper based largely on a CBO analysis of income trends between 1979 and 2007, has done so.

Here’s the problem: The president never defines what he means by “fair.” And this is for a simple reason: his definition is simply not recognizable to most Americans.

Based on our reading of the evidence, the Supplemental Security Income-disabled children program has increasingly become a more general welfare program that in large part targets a population of able-bodied single mothers that overlaps with the TANF population.

The White House has proposed a “Buffett Rule” mandating that taxpayers earning more than $1 million pay at least 30% of their income in federal income taxes. The unfairness the Obama administration has identified is only one limited, albeit  eye-catching, manifestation of more systemic problems in the tax code.

Base broadening must be approached with caution because some base-broadening measures make the tax system less neutral, impeding economic efficiency. Also, income tax base broadening cannot eliminate, and may even reinforce, the income tax's central flaw--its penalty on saving.