regarding martin feldstein <u+2019>s <u+201c> squaring trumponomics with reality <u+201d> (op-ed, nov. 15): the democrats, with substantial media support, will gladly step into the populist vacuum created by any trumponomics reality check regarding entitlement spending. mr. feldstein points out that the social security trust fund is most likely to be exhausted within the next 20 years. however, democrats always win an entitlement-funding game of chicken until a crisis is imminent<u+2014>not two decades away. the populist approach to ensuring social security solvency is to raise payroll taxes on higher-income workers and reduce or eliminate benefits paid to higher-income retirees. businesses and investors are chomping at the bit for a donald trump administration infrastructure spending surge, so mr. feldstein<u+2019>s suggestion that a better reality-squaring approach would be to defer that surge is unrealistic. the trump and clinton campaigns rarely touched on the need to deal immediately with unsustainable increases in government debt while also stepping up national defense outlays. my advice to president-elect trump is to follow through on his tax-reform plans, tweak nafta and other international trade relationships (for substantive or cosmetic gains), to not play chicken with democrats on entitlement reform in 2017 and to proceed with an infrastructure package. mr. feldstein<u+2019>s proposed agenda is fiscally sound with more long-term growth benefits, but it is one that fits the reagan era, not 2017. more than half of the electorate and most in the media wanted hillary clinton to be president, and wanted more government spending and benefits. that is the reality mr. trump will face when setting his first-year economic priorities. phil dorsey williamsburg, va. martin feldstein<u+2019>s final point is that government revenue would be devoted to <u+201c>reducing the national debt.<u+201d> the problem is that requires a government budget surplus. the current deficit is in the neighborhood of half a trillion dollars a year. i don<u+2019>t think there will be enough savings from repealing obamacare to cover that. and, as he well knows, reducing the deficit means either cutting federal spending, increasing taxes, or both. those are contradictory fiscal policies. a century ago when i was in grad school my monetary-theory professor said, <u+201c>some day the country will find itself with the economy in good shape along with a persistent government budget deficit. what happens when the next recession hits?<u+201d> she gets full marks for long-term forecasting. em. prof. tony lima california state university, east bay hayward, calif. for what purpose did the government deliberately have the social security trust fund accumulate a surplus in previous years, if not to be able to pay out more than would be coming in later on? during the years that social security taxes brought in more than what was needed for current beneficiaries, the increases in the trust fund<u+2014>lent to the government<u+2014>made the operating deficit of the federal government look smaller than it actually was. now that was a real accounting gimmick! social security is a basically sound system. president-elect trump<u+2019>s promise not to reduce benefits<u+2014>and increasing the eligibility age would clearly be a reduction in benefits<u+2014>can be kept by reasonable increases in the fica tax. the sooner this is done, the smaller the increase will need to be. paul delespinasse mr. feldstein recommends that we defer work on our roads, bridges and other infrastructure until we have an economic downturn. i suggest that mr. feldstein take a ride around his local community to witness the terrible state of many of our roads and bridges. or take a look at the department of transportation<u+2019>s website to see the billions of dollars that our drivers are already spending for vehicle repair due to poor road conditions. we don<u+2019>t need to wait until an economic downturn to pass a long-term transportation bill that will systematically and effectively solve our infrastructure problems. james e. carter avon, conn.
readers disagree with mr. feldstein<u+2019>s advice - wsj
noauthor