Kudos to Ed Lazear for Being Willing to Sit in the CEA Hot Seat
Congratulations to Ed Lazear for taking on this burden of public service. It won't be easy. He should do a good job. We wish him well:
Bloomberg Printer-Friendly Page : Bush to Nominate Stanford's Lazear to Head CEA, Spokesman Says Jan. 30 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. President George W. Bush will nominate Stanford University economist Edward Lazear to be chairman of his Council of Economic Advisers, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said. Lazear, 57, a member of Bush's tax advisory panel last year, would succeed Ben Bernanke at the helm of the CEA. Bernanke was nominated to be Federal Reserve chairman, replacing Alan Greenspan. Unlike Bernanke, who is known as a macroeconomist and a monetary theorist, Lazear has specialized in microeconomic labor issues, worker compensation and productivity.
The CEA chairman will be one of the chief salesmen for Bush's economic agenda, which in 2006 will include an effort to urge Congress to make tax cuts permanent. Bush also is urging Congress to cut spending to reduce the budget deficit and seeking to allay concerns of U.S. workers as the nation competes in the global economy.
To contact the reporter on this story: Brendan Murray in Washington at brmurray@bloomberg.net










Bush's economic agenda, which in 2006 will include the continuing redistribution of wealth upward to the top 1% or donor class. What will Ed Lazear be able to do to stem the tide?
Posted by: dubblblind | January 30, 2006 at 03:35 PM
Is it really true that the CEA's chair's job is to be chief salesman for the President's economic agenda. That seems a distortion unique to this administration. I'm not saying that the CEA chair shouldn't be in basic alignment with the administration's goals, but chief salesman seems like a reversal of the way the lines of influence should go.
Posted by: elliottg | January 30, 2006 at 03:53 PM
Brad, there's a scene from Buffy, where she explains "that's not your friend. Your friend is dead. A demon is wearing his body. We're not killing your friend, we're killing a demon".
You saw it with Hubbard, and Mankiw.
Posted by: Barry | January 30, 2006 at 04:12 PM
You honestly think the job has any meaning, at this point? If he disagrees with their (insane) policy positions, they'll ignore him. If he makes noise about his disagreements, they'll find a way to fire him.
Posted by: Auros | January 30, 2006 at 04:42 PM
"Bush's economic agenda, which in 2006 will include an effort to urge Congress to make tax cuts permanent. Bush also is urging Congress to cut spending to reduce the budget deficit."
The Bush agenda is to redistribute income and wealth from the poor and working people to the haves and have mores. The strategy is very simple. Use huge tax cuts for the rich to create huge deficits. Then use the deficits as an excuse to cut government programs that benefit working people and the poor.
Posted by: Captain Video | January 30, 2006 at 07:55 PM
"Bush's economic agenda, which in 2006 will include an effort to urge Congress to make tax cuts permanent. Bush also is urging Congress to cut spending to reduce the budget deficit."
If they canceled the tax cuts, and reduced military spending to non-aggressive purposes only, wouldn't that put the budget close to a surplus?
Posted by: hirvi | January 30, 2006 at 10:33 PM
I don't think they will cut benefits to the poor. Benefits to the middle class are much, much, more expensive, and are the only place you are going to find a trillion dollars of cuts when the cruch hits.
You do understand that it is a trillion dollars? That 600 billion cut from government expenditures will reduce taxes paid in and necessitate even more cuts?
We don't have a trillion dollars, or close to a trillion dollars, in benefits to poor people in the federal government budget. Not remotely.
Posted by: wkwillis | January 31, 2006 at 04:20 AM
wkwillis, chopping aid to the poor won't solve the budget problems, true. But it's something that the right-wing really wants to do *and* it's good politics ('welfare queens', anybody).
Posted by: Barry | January 31, 2006 at 06:18 AM
"wkwillis, chopping aid to the poor won't solve the budget problems, true. But it's something that the right-wing really wants to do *and* it's good politics ('welfare queens', anybody)."
Yup. The vote to slash Medicaid and screw the poor over yet again is this week, I believe. It doesn't save much money from the budget, but at least worthless parasites will probably die.
Posted by: mds | January 31, 2006 at 10:02 AM
Yeah... Bush is naturaly born cowboy...
Posted by: red bull | May 02, 2006 at 07:20 AM