Prominent policy analysts for the Brookings Institution's Hamilton Project remain wedded to the ideology that government intervention in the marketplace does more harm than good. Their vision damages the public's perception of government and promises to fall short of ensuring that the "rising tide" of economic growth does indeed "lift all boats." A recent paper released by the Hamilton Project — written by Jason Furman, who leads the Hamilton Project, Lawrence Summers, former Secretary of the Treasury and President of Harvard University, and Jason Bordoff, who is the Hamilton Project's policy director — articulates the ideology that pervades many of the think tank's products. The following excerpt is revealing: Industrial policies and direct market interventions can try to change the before-tax distribution of income. But ultimately such policies harm the economy—for example, excessively high living-wage laws can result in large job losses for low-skilled workers. Similar categorical statements about the efficacy of government intervention appear in other Hamilton Project products. To be sure, Hamilton Project authors see a place for a government that addresses inequality. But that role is constrained to taxation and budgeting decisions. Demands for higher spending and tax rates are tempered by strong concerns over long-term budget deficits and the effects that either might have on market structures and economic behavior. Furthermore, Hamilton authors appear to go out of their way to make negative statements about government, when their focus is on an affirmative vision. Indeed, a guiding purpose of Hamilton Project papers appears to be to ensure that the government is less assertive: Finally, extreme inequality threatens to undermine political support for a competitive market economy, the most successful recipe ever found for generating economic growth. Former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan (2007) has argued that "income inequality is where the capitalist system is most vulnerable. You can't have the capitalist system if an increasing number of people think it is unjust." Broad statements on the supposed harmfulness of government intervention reinforce anti-government beliefs that constrain the government's role in the economy. They give the impression that government inherently cannot do what is asked of it, which is different from asserting that governmental officials can and often do make mistakes, overreach or pursue unworthy goals. Research by Demos and its partners has shown many people oppose an active government on the grounds that government intervention is ineffective or does not benefit the public. This perception also shows up in the mass media. Articles in a recent edition of the New York Times Magazine made repeated claims about the futility of government intervention. Coincidentally or not, the magazine featured a profile of Hamilton Project author Lawrence Summers. Not all economists have such dim views of government. One recent paper by two MIT economists asserts that labor market interventions — in combination with behavioral changes and a more progressive tax code — are necessary to reduce inequality. The paper also found that stronger workforce protection is compatible with high levels of economic growth, as it was in the "Golden Age" of American economic growth that lasted from World War II to the early 1970s. A growth-generating market economy and strong labor protections are not mutually exclusive, according to the MIT scholars. Health care is another example of where government intervention can be more effective than an unrestricted market. The U.S. health care market is one of the most unregulated of industrialized nations — as well as the most expensive. Peter Orszag, chief of the Congressional Budget Office, suggested in testimony before the Senate Budget Committee that increased government intervention could bring health care prices down. As a result, the government could nearly eliminate the long-term fiscal imbalance. The Hamilton Project paper also implicitly validates social norms that, according to the MIT economists, increase inequality. The Hamilton authors do not make the claim that inequality is unjustified, and make only modest claims that inequality harms the economy. By their silence, in a paper dedicated to inequality, the authors validate common beliefs that all market outcomes are justly achieved and that inequality is good for everyone. Implicitly validating these beliefs could make inequality even worse, as researchers have found that such social norms could have a strong influence on the distribution of wealth. But there is something is very wrong with the way the American economy works. The divergence of productivity gains and growth in the median income — or what workers produce and what they earn — shows the new economy is not rewarding workers for increases in their productivity. It is well-understood that the last three decades of strong economic growth has not resulted in substantially higher incomes for much of the middle class and the poor. The market is neither rewarding production fairly nor benefiting everyone. The tide is rising, but only a few boats are being lifted. Some market outcomes are not justly achieved, just as government intervention in labor markets could produce a fairer, more efficient distribution of economic reward. The Hamilton Project paper categorically rules out necessary and potentially powerful tools for significantly reducing inequality and, at the same time, may promote a message that could worsen the very problem they set out to address.