David Brooks: I don't understand the new GOP

[^_^ 5,021]

The Mother of All No-Brainers

By DAVID BROOKS

The Republicans have changed American politics since they took control of the House of Representatives. They have put spending restraint and debt reduction at the top of the national agenda. They have sparked a discussion on entitlement reform. They have turned a bill to raise the debt limit into an opportunity to put the U.S. on a stable fiscal course.

Republican leaders have also proved to be effective negotiators. They have been tough and inflexible and forced the Democrats to come to them. The Democrats have agreed to tie budget cuts to the debt ceiling bill. They have agreed not to raise tax rates. They have agreed to a roughly 3-to-1 rate of spending cuts to revenue increases, an astonishing concession.

Moreover, many important Democrats are open to a truly large budget deal. President Obama has a strong incentive to reach a deal so he can campaign in 2012 as a moderate. The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, has talked about supporting a debt reduction measure of $3 trillion or even $4 trillion if the Republicans meet him part way. There are Democrats in the White House and elsewhere who would be willing to accept Medicare cuts if the Republicans would be willing to increase revenues.

If the Republican Party were a normal party, it would take advantage of this amazing moment. It is being offered the deal of the century: trillions of dollars in spending cuts in exchange for a few hundred million dollars of revenue increases.

A normal Republican Party would seize the opportunity to put a long-term limit on the growth of government. It would seize the opportunity to put the country on a sound fiscal footing. It would seize the opportunity to do these things without putting any real crimp in economic growth.

The party is not being asked to raise marginal tax rates in a way that might pervert incentives. On the contrary, Republicans are merely being asked to close loopholes and eliminate tax expenditures that are themselves distortionary.

This, as I say, is the mother of all no-brainers.

But we can have no confidence that the Republicans will seize this opportunity. That’s because the Republican Party may no longer be a normal party. Over the past few years, it has been infected by a faction that is more of a psychological protest than a practical, governing alternative.

The members of this movement do not accept the logic of compromise, no matter how sweet the terms. If you ask them to raise taxes by an inch in order to cut government by a foot, they will say no. If you ask them to raise taxes by an inch to cut government by a yard, they will still say no.

The members of this movement do not accept the legitimacy of scholars and intellectual authorities. A thousand impartial experts may tell them that a default on the debt would have calamitous effects, far worse than raising tax revenues a bit. But the members of this movement refuse to believe it.

The members of this movement have no sense of moral decency. A nation makes a sacred pledge to pay the money back when it borrows money. But the members of this movement talk blandly of default and are willing to stain their nation’s honor.

The members of this movement have no economic theory worthy of the name. Economists have identified many factors that contribute to economic growth, ranging from the productivity of the work force to the share of private savings that is available for private investment. Tax levels matter, but they are far from the only or even the most important factor.

But to members of this movement, tax levels are everything. Members of this tendency have taken a small piece of economic policy and turned it into a sacred fixation. They are willing to cut education and research to preserve tax expenditures. Manufacturing employment is cratering even as output rises, but members of this movement somehow believe such problems can be addressed so long as they continue to worship their idol.

Over the past week, Democrats have stopped making concessions. They are coming to the conclusion that if the Republicans are fanatics then they better be fanatics, too.

The struggles of the next few weeks are about what sort of party the G.O.P. is — a normal conservative party or an odd protest movement that has separated itself from normal governance, the normal rules of evidence and the ancient habits of our nation.

If the debt ceiling talks fail, independents voters will see that Democrats were willing to compromise but Republicans were not. If responsible Republicans don’t take control, independents will conclude that Republican fanaticism caused this default. They will conclude that Republicans are not fit to govern.

And they will be right.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/05/opinion/05brooks.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&pagewanted=print

[Obama 2012 1,714]

David Brooks.

[^_^ 5,021]

David Brooks.

That's the response I expected from Some Old Guy or Danno. You usually have more substance.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

That's the response I expected from Some Old Guy or Danno. You usually have more substance.

David Brooks is like Steven Colbert. They are both liberals who pretend to be conservatives. The difference? One you know is doing a comedy skit on a TV show...

Of course Brooks is going to prop up Democrats here (while looking like he's a Republican). It's what he always does and always has done in the recent many years. Maybe one day, long ago, he was a 'conservative' but hardly the truth in recent years.

The concessions by the Dems he praises simply aren't there. A $20 billion compromise here and there is pennies compared to the real 'compromises' that need to be made. Of course, the moron Brooks wants to raise taxes, when raising taxes solves nothing. It's Drastic spending cuts that need to happen, not 'compromise.'

[^_^ 5,021]

The Democrats have agreed to tie budget cuts to the debt ceiling bill. They have agreed not to raise tax rates. They have agreed to a roughly 3-to-1 rate of spending cuts to revenue increases, an astonishing concession.

...

The members of this movement do not accept the logic of compromise, no matter how sweet the terms. If you ask them to raise taxes by an inch in order to cut government by a foot, they will say no. If you ask them to raise taxes by an inch to cut government by a yard, they will still say no.

It's Drastic spending cuts that need to happen, not 'compromise.'

Like he said.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Like he said.

Not exactly. There are more fiscal conservative Democrats who always agree to spending cuts, but the important ones and the majority don't concede much of anything.

[^_^ 5,021]

Not exactly. There are more fiscal conservative Democrats who always agree to spending cuts, but the important ones and the majority don't concede much of anything.

The deal the Democrats are offering is 17% revenue increases, 83% spending cuts.

That is the deal the GOP is saying no to.

[mawilson 2,133]

If the Republican Party were a normal party, it would take advantage of this amazing moment. It is being offered the deal of the century: trillions of dollars in spending cuts in exchange for a few hundred million dollars of revenue increases.

Don't be silly, no-one's offering trillions in cuts.

[mawilson 2,133]

The deal the Democrats are offering is 17% revenue increases, 83% spending cuts.

I don't believe these lying sacks of shіt.

Last time they offered $100 billion $74 billion $61 billion in "cuts", the actual cuts amounted to virtually nothing - a mere rounding error in a $3.8 trillion budget.

[Danno 1,228]

That's the response I expected from Some Old Guy or Danno. You usually have more substance.

DAvid Brooks ....a conservatives, conservative.

(didn't want to disappoint)

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

How is the guy not a conservative?

[scandal 951]

The members of this movement do not accept the legitimacy of scholars and intellectual authorities. A thousand impartial experts may tell them that a default on the debt would have calamitous effects, far worse than raising tax revenues a bit. But the members of this movement refuse to believe it.

This is the point which to me is most depressing about discourse in this country. I'm fine with our politicians and pundits having sharply opinionated and argumentative opinions. But just when exactly did we go off the cliff by attacking, mocking, and slandering scholarship? When did attacking the credentials and scholarship of economists who study and support Keynesian policies, or evolutionary biologists who research our origins, or climate scientists who study the disturbing trends of manmade climate change become acceptable? There's a growing tendency by people in responsible positions in government and the media who ought to know better than to use the vituperation they do. Peer reviewed academic scholarship is the hallmark distinguishing characteristic of our society that has accelerated the quality of our lives, our medicine, or engineered marvels, our modern economy. Those who disdain scholarship and intellectualism frankly remind me of just so many Brown Shirts gleefully tossing books onto the bonfire. They share the same intolerance for ideas and truth, and are blinded by ideology.

[Andy H 1]

This is the point which to me is most depressing about discourse in this country. I'm fine with our politicians and pundits having sharply opinionated and argumentative opinions. But just when exactly did we go off the cliff by attacking, mocking, and slandering scholarship? When did attacking the credentials and scholarship of economists who study and support Keynesian policies, or evolutionary biologists who research our origins, or climate scientists who study the disturbing trends of manmade climate change become acceptable? There's a growing tendency by people in responsible positions in government and the media who ought to know better than to use the vituperation they do. Peer reviewed academic scholarship is the hallmark distinguishing characteristic of our society that has accelerated the quality of our lives, our medicine, or engineered marvels, our modern economy. Those who disdain scholarship and intellectualism frankly remind me of just so many Brown Shirts gleefully tossing books onto the bonfire. They share the same intolerance for ideas and truth, and are blinded by ideology.

[Sergi9 110]

This is the point which to me is most depressing about discourse in this country. I'm fine with our politicians and pundits having sharply opinionated and argumentative opinions. But just when exactly did we go off the cliff by attacking, mocking, and slandering scholarship? When did attacking the credentials and scholarship of economists who study and support Keynesian policies, or evolutionary biologists who research our origins, or climate scientists who study the disturbing trends of manmade climate change become acceptable? There's a growing tendency by people in responsible positions in government and the media who ought to know better than to use the vituperation they do. Peer reviewed academic scholarship is the hallmark distinguishing characteristic of our society that has accelerated the quality of our lives, our medicine, or engineered marvels, our modern economy. Those who disdain scholarship and intellectualism frankly remind me of just so many Brown Shirts gleefully tossing books onto the bonfire. They share the same intolerance for ideas and truth, and are blinded by ideology.

Willie Hornton

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

A normal Republican Party would seize the opportunity to put a long-term limit on the growth of government. It would seize the opportunity to put the country on a sound fiscal footing. It would seize the opportunity to do these things without putting any real crimp in economic growth.

Is David Brooks one of the few people left in this country that actually believes the Republicans are worried about the debt and the deficit? Where has he been the past few decades? And where has he been the past few months? This isn't about the deficit and this sure isn't about the debt. The GOP has signed onto a budget blueprint that addresses neither the deficit nor the debt. They have signed onto a blueprint that won't balance the budget for decades to come - it actually won't ever balance the budget unless we are to believe that we'll see sustained 5% economic growth and sustained unemployment rates far below what is widely considered full employment. Their blueprint will add trillions upon trillions of dollars onto the debt and yet they refuse to raise the debt ceiling. These two positions - support of the Ryan plan and refusal to raise the debt ceiling - are incompatible. Without raising the debt ceiling, the Ryan plan will be bust before it ever goes into effect. One would have to divorce oneself from reality to hold both these positions. They're not deficit hawks. Even a blind man can see that clearly.

Edited July 6, 2011 by Mr. Big Dog