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?