David Brooks: Calling for a Spending Freeze in the Middle of a Recession is Insane

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Just yesterday I argued that respectable figures of the political establishment are reluctant to call obvious stupidity "stupid," especially when it comes to truly painful ideas like a spending freeze in the midst of the economic crisis.

To his credit, the NYT's David Brooks said on ABC's "This Week" today what many are of his colleagues have been unwilling to say.

Describing Republican leaders, Brooks said, "The problem with them and the problem with Limbaugh in terms of intellectual philosophy is they are stuck with Reagan. They are stuck with the idea that government is always the problem. A lot of Republicans up in Capitol Hill right now are calling for a spending freeze in a middle of a recession/depression. That is insane. But they are thinking the way they thought in 1982, if we can only think that way again, that is just insane."

On this, Brooks couldn't be more correct. But what I'm especially impressed with is his willingness, in this case, to lay it on the line. There's no sugar-coating -- what Republican leaders are proposing is "insane." There's no defense for such madness, and Brooks did the audience a service by saying so.

At the risk of sounding picky, I'd just add one small caveat, though. GOP lawmakers are "stuck with Reagan" and a pre-recession mindset; this much is obvious. But what occasionally bears repeating is that they don't even remember Reagan especially well. Reality may be blasphemous in some Republican circles but the inconvenient truth is Reagan raised taxes. He raised them several times. The conservative Republicans -- with Gingrich and the WSJ editorial page, I mean that literally -- who are whining incessantly about President Obama's proposed tax increases on the wealthy are the same ones who complained bitterly about Reagan's tax increases in 1982.

Brooks is right; conservative Republican lawmakers want desperately to turn back the clock to how they perceive the 1980s. But they're not only wrong about today's economy, they're not even getting the '80s right.

They were wrong about Reagan's tax increases. They were wrong about Clinton's tax increases. They were wrong about Bush's tax cuts. And now, they're wrong again about Obama's tax policy while simultaneously pushing "insane" ideas.

If they could just let the grown-ups talk for a while, we'd all be better off.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/

[DEDixon 39]

I really don't ever see either side spending less than we bring in .... not even the Republicans. The only time the Repubs want less spending is when they aren't the majority (I'm a Repub so I can say this). The only difference between the 2 parties is how they spend the money. There is always an emergency, something we can't do without, something we can't pay for with cash, but we absolutely need it or else we'll fall apart. I'm so tired of the BS that although I read the news, I haven't turned the TV on in over a year (honestly).

These days, since the Politicos don't care about the level of spending, I absolutely don't care.

So Obama, since I no longer care about spending, if you can hear me, go ahead, introduce a 5 trillion dollar stimulus bill and I'll write my representatives here in CA to support it (but haha.. they are dems so fat chance they won't support it). You know, I don't want to suffer so I'm all for spending our way out of this mess and then after we are out of this mess, let's over spend some more on health care, schools, our antiquated electric grid, our crumbling bridges, the levies which are about to break everywhere in the USA, and let's not forget medical research (from AIDS to toenail fungus). I'm all for it Obama. And as for the Republican that is going to take your place, well since you didn't spend enough on the military, we going to have an emergency on our hands so I'm all for catching the military up again, it is just money, what the heck. The new Republican President is also going to want to address the emergency on our borders, you know, since you didn't spend enough there either. HAHA! Both parties create their own emergencies. You are really sick if you have your faith all in one party, by the way.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

David Brooks: A thinking conservative. As such, these days he's part of an endangered species. Hope we can save them.

How Obama team answers its critics

By David Brooks, New York Times

Published Friday, March 6, 2009

On Tuesday, I wrote that the Obama budget is a liberal, big government document that should make moderates nervous. The column generated a large positive response from moderate Obama supporters who are anxious about where the administration is headed. It was not so popular inside the White House. Within a day, I had conversations with four senior members of the administration and in the interest of fairness, I thought I'd share their arguments with you today.

In the first place, they do not see themselves as a group of liberal crusaders. They see themselves as pragmatists who inherited a government and an economy that have been thrown out of whack. They're not engaged in an ideological project to overturn the Reagan Revolution, a fight that was over long ago. They're trying to restore balance: Nurture an economy so that productivity gains are shared by the middle class and correct the irresponsible habits that developed during the Bush era.

The budget, they continue, isn't some grand transformation of America. It raises taxes on energy and offsets them with tax cuts for the middle class. It raises taxes on the rich to a level slightly above where they were in the Clinton years and then uses the money as a down payment on health care reform. That's what the budget does. It's not the Russian Revolution.

Second, they argue, the Obama administration will not usher in an era of big government. Federal spending over the last generation has been about 20 percent of GDP. This year, it has surged to about 27 percent. But they aim to bring spending down to 22 percent of GDP in a few years. And most of the increase, they insist, is caused by the aging of the population and the rise of mandatory entitlement spending. It's not caused by big increases in the welfare state.

The White House has produced a chart showing nondefense discretionary spending as a share of GDP. That's spending for education, welfare and all the stuff that Democrats love. Since 1985, this spending has hovered around 3.7 percent of GDP. This year, it's about 4.6 percent. The White House claims that it is going to reduce this spending to 3.1 percent by 2019, lower than at any time in any recent Republican administration. I was invited to hang this chart on my wall and judge them by how well they meet these targets. (I have.)

Third, they say, Republicans should welcome the budget's health care ideas. The Medicare reform represents a big cut in entitlement spending. It amounts to means-testing the system. It introduces more competition and cuts corporate welfare. These are all Republican ideas.

Over the long run, Obama has insisted that health care reform will be deficit-neutral. Many experts believe this will force Democrats to reduce the tax exemption for employee insurance benefits in order to raise revenue. This idea is at the core of most conservative reform proposals.

Fourth, the White House claims the budget will not produce a sea of red ink. Deficits are now at a gargantuan 12 percent of GDP, but the White House aims to bring this down to 3.5 percent in 2012. Besides, the long-range debt is what matters, and on this subject President Obama is hawkish.

He is extremely committed to entitlement reform and is plotting politically feasible ways to reduce Social Security as well as health spending. The White House folks didn't say this, but I got the impression they'd be willing to raise taxes on the bottom 95 percent of earners as part of an overall package.

Fifth, the Obama folks feel they spend as much time resisting liberal ideas as enacting them. The president resisted union pressure and capped pay increases for government workers. He resisted efforts to create mandatory veterans' health benefits. The administration plans to tackle the suspiciously large rise in the number of people claiming disability benefits.

I didn't finish these conversations feeling chastened exactly. The fact is, after years of economic growth, the White House still projects perpetual deficits of more than $500 billion a year. That's way too much, especially with the boomers' retirements looming. Moreover, Congress will likely pass the spending parts of the budget and kill the revenue parts, like the cap-and-trade energy tax and the limits on itemized deductions, thus producing much, much bigger deficits.

Plus, I'm still convinced the administration is trying to do too much too fast and that the hasty planning and execution of these complex policies will lead to problems down the road.

Nonetheless, the White House made a case that was sophisticated and fact-based. These people know how to lead a discussion and set a tone of friendly cooperation. I'm more optimistic that if Senate moderates can get their act together and come up with their own proactive plan, they can help shape a budget that allays their anxieties while meeting the president's goals.

[I'm Gone 60]

The problem with Brooks is he's a RHINO.

[Ban Hammer 13,355]

It raises taxes on energy and offsets them with tax cuts for the middle class.

so where is the benefit again for the middle class?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The problem with Brooks is he's a RHINO.

Then so was Reagan. That label is meaningless. The Far Right Extremists of the party (led by Limbaugh) keep the GOP in a current state of irrelevance, given the history of what their policies have done to this country.

Edited March 9, 2009 by Mister Fancypants

[I'm Gone 60]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Brooks_(journalist)

Brooks, who some consider a conservative, describes himself as being originally a liberal.

[I'm Gone 60]

Brooks is one of the ones that the MSM pull out when they want to be fair and balanced and have a conservative on the panel/show. Just like McCain was the MSM favorite Republican and you see what running him did for the Republicans and listening to people like David Brooks will bring them more of the same.