A geek walks into a blog . . .

For those who have seen the conservative Heritage Foundation’s assessment of proposed immigration reforms: Don’t let it alarm you. They aren’t running the Republican Party anymore. Even Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) is hitting back at Heritage, and he’s not exactly what you’d call an enemy of the taxpayer. (In theory.) The prevailing message is that the majority of people reacting to this understand that a complete cost-benefit analysis of these reforms cannot leave out economic growth potential.

For those who have seen the libertarian Cato Institute’s response, written by one Alex Nowrasteh: Don’t let that alarm you, either, because others are able to say, essentially, “Hey, asshole, you forgot about the jobs” without throwing around terms like “static fiscal scoring” and “production possibilities frontier.” Such terms are the domain of policy analysts, which do not make up the majority of the Internet-surfing population, not even its politically engaged sector.

I can’t fault Nowrasteh for writing his response to Heritage the way he did. This is vocabulary in which he is immersed every day; at some point, he’s probably come to consider it obvious. That, of course, is a tragic flaw anyone can suffer if they’re knowledgeable enough about a topic. However, if you’re writing a blog – not the kind I write, which is a vanity project, but one’s employer’s official blog – you can’t write just for yourself and your co-workers.

If Nowrasteh was desperate to distinguish between static and dynamic fiscal scoring, he could have used the blog as a gateway to Cato’s comprehensive analysis of the Gang of Eight’s reforms, on which people who automatically understand this stuff are more likely to click. Or he could try a regular “wonk word” feature; wonk words can be helpful to people reading up on economic issues. But he didn’t have to do this:

The key flaw in Heritage’s 2007 study is its use of static fiscal scoring, rather than dynamic fiscal scoring, to evaluate that year’s immigration reform bill.

He did not have to put it in those terms. Short-term costs dumb; long-term growth smart. That’s it. It reminds one of a child screaming “Lookit what I can do!”

I work with a fair number of think-tankers and other academics as part of my job, and most suffer from this problem to a point. If they’re not rhyming off wonk words as if trying to impress a donor, they’re going to the opposite extreme and writing this:

They need to tell their elected representatives they are important.

Yeah, that sentence happened (also as the ending). My point: It is not only possible, but necessary, for people with graduate degrees to be understood by people who haven’t gotten past high school. Find the medium. It’s better for your publicity.

Disposal Day #164: Our evening with Frum

STORY #1: Age is many numbers

On Wednesday, I and my faithful companions – Steve, Ben and Gabe from Winnipeg – attended a speech given by political commentator David Frum at the University of Winnipeg. The event having been billed simply as “An Evening with David Frum,” we weren’t sure what the topic would be, although given his recent writings, we strongly suspected the focus would be on the future of American conservatism. But since he was talking to Canadians, he focused instead on the dysfunctions of the U.S. political system – and since most of us were students, he had an impressive focus on generational conflicts.

The narrative is simply this: The decline in the over-65 population and the growth in over-65 spending – meaning, entitlements – has contributed largely to massive U.S. debt. Some of the first spending to get cut with a fiscal crisis of that magnitude is for under-18 Americans; Frum mentioned in particular funding for post-secondary institutions, which explains in part why personal debt for students is so high. The question both parties will need to ask themselves is this: How will they be able to correct that imbalance before all the baby boomers die?

STORY #2: Work it

Except for a professor from the Politics department, who asked a question about social media (LAME!), I was the only female in the Q&A line, which is often the case at events like this. Here’s my question, as best as I can remember the exact wording: “Mr. Frum, you’ve written extensively on the topic of areas in which the Republican Party needs to undergo a renewal in order to attract more voters, specifically younger voters and immigrants. If you could look three or four election cycles into the future, what are some areas in which you think the Democrats will need to consider renewals?”

He responded as I would have expected, by bringing up the debate over Keystone XL and the division between pro-growth Democrats – meaning, unions, in some respects – and environmentalists. Right now unions are the likeliest demographic to abandon the Democrats, assuming state-level Republicans ease off on right-to-work legislation. But issues like Keystone would be very easy national sells.

STORY #3: This happened

Did anyone catch Frum’s blog post about the Bilderberg moment? (Pro tip: Don’t Google “David Frum Bilderberg.” The results will make your eyes roll all the way into your throat.) This happened twice, not in a row, and it was awesome. I can’t remember the last time I was in an audience that appreciated a Q&A smackdown – nay, a series of Q&A smackdowns – that much. I really, really hope someone got video of the two yahoos who delivered that comic relief.

Tweets from last night

8:22 p.m. CT: “Sounds like he’s calling for a grand bargain to avert sequester. So, nothing new.”

8:23: “Calls for “modest” Medicare reforms. Wonder how Congress will interpret that one?”

8:24: “Woooo! Simpson-Bowles shout-out! (And an Obamacare shout-out, which is less awesome.)”

8:28: “Makes the point that political gridlock is bad for the economy. Uh-huh.”

8:30: “Oh boy. The American Jobs Act is back. And this time it’s deficit-neutral. Fact-checkers, you know what to do.”

8:32: “Three new Manufacturing Innovation Institutes. He wants 15. Intriguing, but sounds a little Canadian.”

8:34: “‘Nearly everyone’s energy bill is lower because of it.’ FACT CHECK!”

8:36: “Wants a “bipartisan, market-based approach to climate change,” name-checks McCain/Lieberman, threatens exec. action. Wow.”

8:37: “‘Energy security trust?’ This’ll probably go nowhere.”

8:39: “Fix It First: funding repairs of most critically weak/damaged infrastructure, with private sector partnership. Not bad.”

8:42: “Calls for preschool expansion. I learned the alphabet at 18 months so I don’t really connect with this.”

8:46: “Affordability, value will be factored into federal college aid. Again, intriguing, but will that help much?”

8:48: “Cheers for comprehensive immigration reform: border security, pathway to citizenship, cutting waiting periods for preferred legals.”

8:49: “Supports #VAWA passage: good. Supports Paycheck Fairness Act: GOD.”

8:51: “Calls for minimum wage at $9. Any economists care to comment?”

8:53: “NEW tax credits? #facepalm”

8:57: “Promises more congressional notification of drone use and detention. Very helpful.”

9:01: “Trans-Pacific Partnership AND Trans-Atlantic Partnership. Nice.”

9:03: “Plays it politically safe on Egypt, Syria, Israel, Iran, North Korea, Russia.”

9:04: “Same goes for diplomatic security and having the BEST (and most equal) MILITARY EVAR.”

9:07: “A voting rights commission. Hope it delivers better results than the last few commissions!”

9:12: “Tone: We just need gun control legislation, period. Um, OK.”