Mike Murphy and David Brooks are Ignorant of Recent History
This morning, Ricochet pal Mike Murphy tweeted a link to the Economist magazine editorial that lambasted the Republican stance on no new taxes. Mr. Murphy's tweet:
Good editorial in the conservative Economist magazine on the DC debt talks: http://j.mp/rbKie7
Here's the bottom line from the allegedly "conservative" Economist magazine editorial:
Shame on them: The Republicans are playing a cynical political game with hugely high economic stakes… The sticking-point is not on the spending side. It is because the vast majority of Republicans, driven on by the wilder-eyed members of their party and the cacophony of conservative media, are clinging to the position that not a single cent of deficit reduction must come from a higher tax take. This is economically illiterate and disgracefully cynical.
In 1982, President Reagan negotiated a deficit reduction plan with tax increases that initially appeared to be $1 of taxes for every $3 of spending cuts. Guess what? The reverse was enacted into law, with $3 of tax increases for $1 of spending cuts. In 1990, President “No New Taxes” H.W. Bush negotiated a similar deal, with similar results. Democrats back-load spending cuts in the far out years, for tax increases today. Let's look at today’s news. I guarantee that in Obama’s $4 trillion of deficit reduction, 90% of spending cuts occur ten years from now. Boehner and Cantor have learned an important lesson from history. Why have Mike Murphy and David Brooks not remembered?
From David Brook’s brainless and disgraceful column last week:
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 billion dollars of revenue increases.
Mr. Murphy and Mr. Brooks believe the Democrats spin in the media that Obama is offering real cuts and real reforms in exchange for tax increases. Boehner and Cantor aren't falling for this trick. When I review history, trading taxes today for imaginary spending cut in ten years is not a good deal. Why are these two elite media “experts” so gullible? And why are they attacking their own side?
- Comment (59)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments:
Sep '10
Re: Mike Murphy and David Brooks are Ignorant of Recent History
Spot on, sir.
I cancelled my subscription when they lurched to the left. I could handle the liberal social stances, in order to gain the solid job they did on economics, but if Mike Murphy has gone all Lexington on us, then I say let Mr. Steyn open up on him with both barrels the next time the Three Amigos have their podcast.
Jul '10
Re: Mike Murphy and David Brooks are Ignorant of Recent History
Ken Sweeney: ...
Here's the bottom line from this editorial:
How dare the Republicans protect the American taxpayer from the excesses and abuses of the biggest, most useless spending spree in history! This is not a banana republic!!!
With Murphy getting his economic advice from a bankrupt UK, how can he go wrong??? C'mon Mike. You can do better than this.
Oct '10
Re: Mike Murphy and David Brooks are Ignorant of Recent History
Sisyphus
With Murphy getting his economic advice from a bankrupt UK, how can he go wrong??? C'mon Mike. You can do better than this. · Jul 11 at 12:31pm
Evidence that RINO disease expands between elections. As one of the few Ricochet folks that agrees with Mike Murphy's political candidate assessments, I was not surprised that establishment/elite/squish Republicans all think alike. David Brooks opened the door.
Aren't you shocked that they don't look at the history of similar deals and think that they were bad? They are truly RINO's that have no problem with expanding government, as long as "their side" is in charge.
Oct '10
Re: Mike Murphy and David Brooks are Ignorant of Recent History
Pseudodionysius: Spot on, sir.
I cancelled my subscription when they lurched to the left. I could handle the liberal social stances, in order to gain the solid job they did on economics, but if Mike Murphy has gone all Lexington on us, then I say let Mr. Steyn open up on him with both barrels the next time the Three Amigos have their podcast. · Jul 11 at 12:22pm
Tax collectors for the welfare state should form their own party. Oh, wait, it's called the Republican Party.
Re: Mike Murphy and David Brooks are Ignorant of Recent History
I thought Ross Douthat's take in today's NYT was pretty insightful. Here's an excerpt:
Spot on, no?
Nov '10
Re: Mike Murphy and David Brooks are Ignorant of Recent History
The Economist has a saint's day for John M. Keynes. It's a very socialist rag.
Sep '10
Re: Mike Murphy and David Brooks are Ignorant of Recent History
Diane Ellis, Ed.: I thought Ross Douthat's take in today's NYT was pretty insightful. Here's an excerpt:
Spot on, no? · Jul 11 at 1:42pm
I simply don't believe that Barack Obama wants anything but a very-much-to-the-left-leaning deficit deal. I see zero indication that Obama understands either the economics OR the politics of debt reduction.
Mar '11
Re: Mike Murphy and David Brooks are Ignorant of Recent History
But conservative socialist.
May '11
Re: Mike Murphy and David Brooks are Ignorant of Recent History
To Ricochet Management:
I am grateful that Mike Murphy and David Brooks have been willing to muck it up with us at Ricochet. Debate is good among us conservatives, even the squishy New York Times writer and Machiavellian consultant types.
Please have them on more often on the weekly podcast. I think that an extended debate can be very informative and potentially productive.
And Peter, help them see the error of their ways!
Jul '11
Re: Mike Murphy and David Brooks are Ignorant of Recent History
What Brooks and Murphy know was laid out in David Walker's book "Comeback America" and echoed well by the debt commission last December(findings all but ignored by this administration until recently). This road map encouraged a 3/1 4/1 type scenario that is theoretically being touted by the pea eater himself. In actuality, as has been astutely pointed out, it is a shell game with cuts very back loaded and in terms of SS,Medicaid, Medicare not even close to the actual number of what would be required to bring deficits down. Medicare needs massive reform and before the boomers saturate it, Ryans plan was not even close and whatever is being hacked out now will be even less so.
Brooks and Murphy are guilty of believing what they want to believe rather than what is. That is the osmosis effect when you associate around those drinking hope and change.
Jul '10
Re: Mike Murphy and David Brooks are Ignorant of Recent History
Diane Ellis, Ed.: ...
Barack Obama wants a right-leaning deficit deal....the more conservative-seeming the final deal, the better for the president’s re-election effort. In that environment, Republicans have every incentive to push and keep pushing. Since any deal they cut will be used as an election-year prop in 2012, they need to make sure the president actually earns his budget-cutting bona fides.
Spot on, no?
It follows the same pattern as every other Lefty analysis, how do we get past the House to FDR's magic pot of money? Following that logic, it is only a matter of time until we are just one more bloated, oafish, incontinent, ungrateful Euro-state. We'll be begging a broken Germany for a bailout with protest signs displaying the swastika like our spoiled, insipid, oafish Greek comrades.
It is all very convincing to the birds in the cages lined by the Times' product.
Oct '10
Re: Mike Murphy and David Brooks are Ignorant of Recent History
We have a spending problem, not a revenue problem. Period. Period. I mean, really - PERIOD.
When we see ample evidence that a Congress and a president can and have cut spending significantly (not on paper bills but in actuality, as evidenced by the passage of time measured in years), then, and ONLY then, will I consider tax-based solutions.
Mar '11
Re: Mike Murphy and David Brooks are Ignorant of Recent History
Ken Sweeney:
Mr. Murphy and Mr. Brooks believe the Democrats spin in the media that Obama is offering real cuts and real reforms in exchange for taxe increases. Boehner and Cantor aren't falling for this trick. When I review history, trading taxes today for imaginary spending cut in ten years is not a good deal. Why are these two elite media “experts” so gullible? And why are they attacking their own side? ·
Good questions for Mr Murphy, next time he graces us selfish conservatives with his presence on the Podcast, though I think Mr Sweeney would make a better guest.
Mr Murphy's naivety on doing a deal with Mr Obama is breathtaking - I hope Mr Boehner is not taking his advice (it seems he isn't).
And, yes, the Economist has become a lefty rag.
And Mr Douthat is a younger David Brooks - you have to be that way to last long at the NY Times (ask Bill Kristol).
Aug '10
Re: Mike Murphy and David Brooks are Ignorant of Recent History
Very disingenuous to say the Economist is conservative. Either he didn't actually read it or is comparing it to NYT. That they describe Obama as "deplorably insouciant" doesn't burnish their credentials as conservative. We have a word for that : totally clueless. We deal with it more strenuously. We take that attitude as a challenge, not an invitation to join in the march towards the abyss.
The Brits may consider the Economist to be conservative, but they also allow defacto sharia law and arrest homeowners who defend themselves. This not the Albion of old.
It's very interesting who they have recruited to pile on at this juncture. It's all about the benjamins and the phone lines in lower Manhattan must be burning up.
May '10
Re: Mike Murphy and David Brooks are Ignorant of Recent History
Every argument that Murphy made on the podcast, Ricochet member Duane Oyen has made with better arguments and more consideration. I would prefer to hear Duane on the podcast.
Michael Cham:
And Peter, help them see the error of their ways!
I'm still waiting on Peter to address Mike's claim that Reagan and Bachmann stood/stand for different ideals.
Re: Mike Murphy and David Brooks are Ignorant of Recent History
Sisyphus
Diane Ellis, Ed.:
Barack Obama wants a right-leaning deficit deal....the more conservative-seeming the final deal, the better for the president’s re-election effort. In that environment, Republicans have every incentive to push and keep pushing....
It follows the same pattern as every other Lefty analysis, how do we get past the House to FDR's magic pot of money? Following that logic, it is only a matter of time until we are just one more bloated, oafish, incontinent, ungrateful Euro-state. We'll be begging a broken Germany for a bailout with protest signs displaying the swastika like our spoiled, insipid, oafish Greek comrades.
It is all very convincing to the birds in the cages lined by the Times' product.
I disagree with your analysis of this article. Douthat isn't arguing for one course of action over another; he's merely trying to explain the GOP leadership thinking in the negotiation process. He's explaining to Brooks that they aren't crazy at all, but actually rather smart, calculating negotiators.
Nov '10
Re: Mike Murphy and David Brooks are Ignorant of Recent History
I am so confused. I thought that even Obama understood that raising taxes during a recession was a bad idea. Does Obama actually believe his own administration's hype that we are in a recovery? Does The Economist? If so, they can't be too economically literate. I understand that David Brooks and Mike Murphy don't worry too much about jobs for themselves, but are they unaware of the general unemployment situation?
Maybe this is some complicated game they're playing--get Obama to raise taxes during a recession in order to guarantee a Democratic defeat in 2012?
Aug '10
Re: Mike Murphy and David Brooks are Ignorant of Recent History
I could live a very happy life without there being a next time.
May '10
Re: Mike Murphy and David Brooks are Ignorant of Recent History
Listening to the podcast, I got to wondering.
Has Mike Murphy ever referred to a prominent Democrat pol as "crazy"?
And what percentage of the vote did his candidate get in California last year?
Sep '10
Re: Mike Murphy and David Brooks are Ignorant of Recent History
mesquito: Listening to the podcast, I got to wondering.
Has Mike Murphy ever referred to a prominent Democrat pol as "crazy"?
And what percentage of the vote did his candidate get in California last year? · Jul 11 at 3:31pm
Good questions.