David Brooks and the No Brainer
I'm a big fan of David Brooks. He writes well -- especially his socio-political books like Bobos in Paradise -- and is always a thoughtful, principled critic of the right. Even though, um, he's supposed to be on the right.
That's how places like the NYTimes thread that particular needle: the liberals on the editorial page criticize conservatives, and the conservatives on the editorial page criticize....conservatives. But that's not what we're here to talk about.
In today's NYTimes, Brooks writes a particularly provocative column. He calls it "The Mother of All No-Brainers," and he suggests that Republicans are being foolish -- well, worse than foolish: "fanatic" and lacking "moral decency."
Brooks' point is that Republicans are letting a perfect opportunity slip by. Democrats are offering huge concessions in order to raise the debt ceiling, and Republicans are missing the big picture:
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.
Republicans aren't "normal" because they're held hostage to a fanatical zero-tax faction -- he doesn't mention it by name, but it's pretty clear he means the Tea Party -- and for Brooks, this is hard to take. The deal he says is on the table is a "no brainer." Republicans should congratulate themselves, take the deal, and save the country.
Which I probably would agree with. Except: what deal is this, again? Where is it? Is it written down somewhere? Was it reported in some news outlet that I missed? I have a pretty solid system -- Google Alerts, Google Reader, even a bookmark file called "RicoScan," which I use multiple times a day to keep up -- but I somehow missed the actual Democratic proposal.
I didn't miss the Democratic senators statements to the press, the bloviating, the meretricious Obama press conference. I heard those. What I missed was the deal. I'd love for Brooks to point out where that was offered.
In specific terms. With actual numbers and stuff. And bear in mind: they didn't even pass a budget when they were in control of Congress.
The idea that Republicans in the House -- or taxpayers anywhere -- should simply trust a collection of dishonest, spendthrift, irresponsible, and derelict leaders without seeing something in writing -- well, talk about having no brain.
- Comment (24)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Re: David Brooks and the No Brainer
In order to keep us all on one conversation, if you're commenting on this post, why not post it under Mollie's post below? That way we'll all be talking together.
(Mollie and I posted on the same topic within minutes of each other....)
May '10
Re: David Brooks and the No Brainer
Well said, Rob. Even the written agreements are probably revised more comprehensively than most Hollywood scripts before finally being called to a vote.
Jul '11
Re: David Brooks and the No Brainer
Can Mr. Brooks be fitted with a tracking device that will monitor how much time he spends in conversation with conservatives vs. liberals?
Re: David Brooks and the No Brainer
I'm breaking the rules and commenting here. I like this headline from Tim Carney:
Sep '10
Re: David Brooks and the No Brainer
All Trekkies know that the Democrats have the written agreement under cover of their cloaking device while David Brooks waits patiently in the neutral zone, with the oxygen reserves on low. Oxygen deprivation causes hallucinations.
May '11
Re: David Brooks and the No Brainer
Invite Mr. Brooks to the next podcast!
Jul '10
Re: David Brooks and the No Brainer
These people understand that to accept so much as one dollar of tax increases legitimizes the trope that lack of revenue, rather than insane spending, is the problem.
These people understand that spending cuts negotiated with Democrats are ephemeral, but tax increases are forever.
These people are tired of socialism being cloaked in the guise of moral decency.
May '10
Re: David Brooks and the No Brainer
uh... If we have a deal to cut the deficit by $3-4 trillion, why do we need to increase revenue by less than 1%?
May '10
Re: David Brooks and the No Brainer
A footnote: Can we please for the love of all that is holy drop this absurd chatter about "revenue increases"? We all know it's a euphemism for higher tax rates. We also know that higher tax rates frequently (always?) lead to less of the good or service taxed, which frequently (always?) leads to lower revenues. I refuse to indulge this assumption that higher taxes equal higher revenues. If you don't believe me, ask the luxury yacht industry in Maine.
May '10
Re: David Brooks and the No Brainer
Very good, Rob; you're coming along nicely. Now, next time, try to write the post without the "I'm a big fan of David Brooks" stuff at the beginning, or we'll have to report you to Ann for another RINO intervention session.
Jul '10
Re: David Brooks and the No Brainer
Because once the principle that we can tax our way out of trouble is established, the sky is the limit.
Jul '10
Re: David Brooks and the No Brainer
Rob Long: In order to keep us all on one conversation, if you're commenting on this post, why not post it under Mollie's post below? That way we'll all be talking together.
(Mollie and I posted on the same topic within minutes of each other....) · Jul 5 at 7:49am
You mean I can't dis the babbling Brooks in both threads? There is enough dispicability to go around! I am not a big fan of David Brooks, he belongs on the paper of Walter Duranty and Jayson Blair.
May '10
Re: David Brooks and the No Brainer
There is one reason to reject any such deal as laid out. Even if Brooks' principle has a certain logic to it, the Left has done this to us twice before, and never kept the deal.
This is the endless Lucy-with-the-football-placekick-hold charade. We were there in 1982 with TEFRA, we were there in 1991 with "No gnu taxes" (gulp). In every case, there was an apparently solid deal. In every case, the taxes went up as promised. In every case, the spending went up faster, not down.
Therefore, we offer a deal that statutorily reduces spending across the board by a specific set percentage, and returns Gramm-Rudman-Hollings in any year the required reduction does not materialize.
In the same legislation, we authorize some specific tax increase to take effect 6 years out provided that the spending cuts of X% have been met, and the annual deficit is under $Z billion. Further, "pay-go" is statutorily in place, but only in the context of the overall statute- if you want more for "Y", you find the cuts elsewhere, unless a supermajority raises revenue.
That way you cut spending with certitude by a known figure.
Re: David Brooks and the No Brainer
Duane Oyen for president! Duane, would you post this proposal on the Member Feed? I'd like to move it over to the Main Feed as a response to David Brooks.
Nov '10
Re: David Brooks and the No Brainer
Agree Duane's proposal is directionally sound. Here's the $64K question: Who's going to develop the marketing campaign to get this this concept across to Joe and Josephine Sixpack? The REPs have been decidedly poor on this front.
Jul '11
Re: David Brooks and the No Brainer
Duane Oyen: ....Therefore, we offer a deal that statutorily reduces spending across the board by a specific set percentage, and returns Gramm-Rudman-Hollings in any year the required reduction does not materialize.
In the same legislation, we authorize some specific tax increase to take effect 6 years out provided that the spending cuts of X% have been met, and the annual deficit is under $Z billion. Further, "pay-go" is statutorily in place, but only in the context of the overall statute- if you want more for "Y", you find the cuts elsewhere, unless a supermajority raises revenue.
That way you cut spending with certitude by a known figure. · Jul 5 at 10:10am
Statutorily indeed - I'm not sure of the wisdom of binding future legislatures in that way, and can't they just repeal this law when they wish to? We need a spending branch of government that will act out of principle, either actually out of principle or out of fear of the electorate. The electorate has to make the government do what is wanted. I don't think you can band-aid over these basic needs of a democracy "statutorily."
Nov '10
Re: David Brooks and the No Brainer
The Sound of One Man Laughing
Statutorily indeed - I'm not sure of the wisdom of binding future legislatures in that way, and can't they just repeal this law when they wish to? We need a spending branch of government that will act out of principle, either actually out of principle or out of fear of the electorate. The electorate has to make the government do what is wanted. I don't think you can band-aid over these basic needs of a democracy "statutorily." · Jul 5 at 11:15am
Balanced budget amendment to the constitution. Hard to get adopted but just as hard to get it removed. Well worth the try though!
Edited on July 5, 2011 at 8:26pmDec '10
Re: David Brooks and the No Brainer
Kenneth: These people understand that to accept so much as one dollar of tax increases legitimizes the trope that lack of revenue, rather than insane spending, is the problem.
These people understand that spending cuts negotiated with Democrats are ephemeral, but tax increases are forever.
These people are tired of socialism being cloaked in the guise of moral decency. · Jul 5 at 9:07am
Dammnit Kenneth, you know I hate it when we agree.
Never the less, well said indeed.
Jul '11
Re: David Brooks and the No Brainer
Okay, you've proposed a band-aid that could actually work. (Though I'd like to see the wording of this amendment.) But you didn't touch my point, that if the people want a balanced budget, they have to elect people to balance it, make 'em do it, and if they don't, draft them into the daily-pie-in-the-face club.
I mean, why a balanced budget amendment? If we can't of/by/for the people get our balanced budget, why not just put a budget itself into the constitution?
Robert Promm Balanced budget amendment to the constitution. Hard to get adopted but just as hard to get it removed. Well worth the try though! · Jul 5 at 11:25am
Edited on Jul 05 at 11:26 am
Mar '11
Re: David Brooks and the No Brainer
To understand the Brooks piece it is necessary to understand the core elements of neoconservatism, and Brooks himself. Neoconservatives have no principles at all, they believe in nothing and seek nothing more than pulling the Republican Party away from what neocons think of as antiquated ideas (such as limited government, unbridled capitalism, and low taxes) and forcing them to adapt to the current political climate. Neoconservatives have always been critical of principled Republicans and conservatives who believe in the ideals upon which the republic was founded. Essentially, what Brooks is saying is that Republicans need to accept the fact that Americans no longer desire limited government and limited taxation, and that in order to be a viable political party the GOP must embrace some elements of the progressive-socialist ideology.