The Turnaround
Someone get help, David Brooks has been mugged by reality!
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.
…
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.
Even a blind squirrel can find a nut, sometimes. Where has Brooks been all this time? Well, it’s better late than never. All kidding aside, it looks like an important turning point in the media narrative. Brooks is basically making the kinder, gentler “economic sabotage” argument. It’s been frustrating watching the radicalization of the Republican party and the very serious media pretend it doesn’t exist, and Brooks has been a Republican party cheerleader and enabler. I’ll let Driftglass express my frustration – this is not a new thing, it’s simply the culmination of years of Republican doctrine:
The question remains, where were you, Mr. Brooks, when Reagan was instructing them that the government is always wrong, always evil? Where were you when the leaders of your Movement were teaching them that everyone not in the Movement was a Commie? That compromise was treason?
“The members of this movement do not accept the legitimacy of scholars and intellectual authorities.”
Yes, but where were you, Mr. Brooks, when the yahoo, bigot, militia-nuts and Fundy votes were being aggressively courted by your Party? When Young Republican gatherings became occasions for the endless burning of East Coast elites in verbal effigy? When anyone in the press not mindlessly spewing paranoid wingnut bile was denounced by your Party and Movement leaders as part of the Liberal Media Conspiracy?
Brooks needs to be careful. He’s starting to sound like one of those hippies, like Paul Krugman. In case you were wondering, the Republicans are already pooh-poohing Brooks’s concern. Republican hero Paul Ryan basically told Brooks to drop on his pointy head:
RYAN: What happens if you do what he’s saying, is then you can’t lower tax rates. So it does affect marginal tax rates. In order to lower marginal tax rates, you have to take away those loopholes so you can lower those tax rates. If you want to do what we call being revenue neutral … If you take a deal like that, you’re necessarily requiring tax rates to be higher for everybody. You need lower tax rates by going after tax loopholes. If you take away the tax loopholes without lowering tax rates, then you deny Congress the ability to lower everybody’s tax rates and you keep people’s tax rates high.
Tax cuts >>>> deficit reduction. If you have trouble figuring out Republicans, remember this equation.
Tags: David Brooks, Debt Ceiling, Republican Crazy
“If responsible Republicans don’t take control, independents will conclude that Republican fanaticism caused this…”.
Republicans are betting that they can spin the economic catastrophe as one created by President Obama. Given the past performance of the media, it is a safe bet for them.
The GOP powers were always the “money people”. Lately their poor cousins in the fields have risen in resentment. All these “poor” factions have united somewhat and it has divided the party, as was evidenced in the Fall of Castle here in little Delaware. It’s been festering for years, but the recent economic collapse has contributed to this divide. “A house divided can not stand”, so they say.
Shorter Delbert: Jiberty flibbitty…I’m crazy.
Republicans are betting that they can spin the economic catastrophe as one created by President Obama. Given the past performance of the media, it is a safe bet for them.
Look at what they did to Carter.
Actually, Puck, Clinton would be a better example with the Gingrich gov’t shutdowns. And that did not work well at all for the GOP as Clinton won re-election handily.
The Republican governors’ war on public unions may turn out to be an even worse misstep for the GOP than their budget demands, in terms of public opinion.
I worry that the Brooks column is a set-up for Boehner to take the deal so Brooks and the rest of the media can praise their maverick-ness.
Republicans have really painted themselves into a corner here. They either have to take the deal and declare victory (as a sane party would do – Brooks is telling them this) or if the Teapublicans refuse to budge, go back to the table and have to deal with Nancy Pelosi. They aren’t going to get much more than they have now, especially with Obama’s 14th amendment trump card. I suspect that the GOP is trying to get some kind of face-saving concession right now but it’s unclear what they can get now. The momentum has swung against them.
I agree Puck, the new GOP governors have given Dems an opening. They can argue this is what the GOP does – hurt the vulnerable to give breaks to the fatcats and shut down vital services when they don’t get their way.
What are the odds on a Republican Party split if the leadership agrees to a compromise (any compromise) with the White House? Will the debt ceiling debate be the final push that “forces” the Teapublicans to become a seperate political party?
To pass the budget, Boehner will have to come up with 25 Yes votes from reps who are not afraid of their local teabaggers. All the other Repubs would be free to vote No and campaign in full blowhard mode in 2012.
The defectors might face primaries or brickbats from the kooky right, but not much odds of a GOP split.
And then the budget goes on to President Lieberman, or whichever conservadem Senator is appointed President this time around.
You mean 25 Rs plus the whole D caucus? I doubt Boehner has the skills for that. He would have to start negotiating with Pelosi and would probably lose concessions he’s gained.
I see this as Brooks’ opportunity to increase his “seriousness” cred with the media meta freaks.
It’s low hanging fruit and he should not be applauded.
I agree with Von Cracker. This too shall pass.
As far as lifting the debt celing goes, I don’t think that every single dem, and every single repub are politically motivated. I do believe a great number of them on both sides are politically motivated, But I also believe a good number on both sides of the aisle are not politically motivated. What no one seems to be talking about as a real possibility for the inability of the congress to move forward, Is that we are in deep trouble. Deep trouble. There is no good answer. The only good answer is to start from scratch, And unfortunately for the current administration, there just is not enough time now, to start all over, and try and balance the budget. If a new administration gets elected in 2012, Then they should start from the beginning, lay out how much money we take in, and then allocate government spending accordingly. And don’t spend one penny more than we take in. That is the only physically responsible thing to do. Anything other than that type of thinking is basically saying we are spoiled brats that want to spend more money than we have, and leave our children and grand children to pay for it. That is just not physically responsible in the public sector, or the private sector, ever.
Physically responsible? You’re a parody aren’t you?
@ Rusty The only good answer is to start from scratch
Tax the living daylights out of the rich to balance the budget and eliminate the debt and start over from there.
it should be criminal that politicians and the media fail to point out that a country is not an individual.
An individual has a limited lifetime, has working years and retirement years. A country does not–it is perpetual. There is a major difference in appropriate approaches given the vastly different characteristics of a country versus an individual. To apply the same rules for an individual as to a country is pure folly.
However, there are parallels–approaches that are applicable. An individual sets aside savings during good times (working years) in order to reap the benefits during lean years (retirement). Similarly, a country should set aside reserves during good times (economic peaks) in order to use these reserves during lean times (recessions).
To ‘spend only what you have’ would suggest that working folks set aside nothing for retirement–an incredibly unwise approach.
Rather, a country should deficit spend during downturns, and build reserves during good times. THESE are appropriate lessons to transfer from individual good practices to nation good practices.
Similarly, a country should set aside reserves during good times (economic peaks) in order to use these reserves during lean times (recessions).
Not quite. You have hit upon not a similarity but yet another difference between an individual and a country. The difference is in the concept of a debt-backed currency.
US currency is backed by the faith and credit of the United States – our ability to repay. So during times of prosperity, we should be growing the economy by investing in ourselves and increasing our “ability to repay,” not by stuffing cash in a vault somewhere. We can always print more money, but our national productive capacity is what gives us the ability to add value to that money.
And during the lean times we need to be simultaneously assisting those in need, and also investing in ourselves at an even more acute pace. Thus deficit spending. Which is where we are today. It is a big play, so the onus is on our leaders to execute the stimulus correctly.
The US should never save money in a vault like individuals do. Or in a bank. Which bank would you put the Federal cash in? The one that gave you the biggest campaign donations? If the bank got into trouble, would it get bailed out first? Would regulators go easy on the bank?
And then there would be irresistable pressure to put the Federal reserves into private equities for a bigger return. Greenspan in 2001, talking about the surplus (which turned out not to be a problem):
To spend what you have wouldn’t have gotten us very far in the Revolutionary War or WWI or WWII. According to Rusty here, we wouldn’t have had the funds to mount these efforts so we should not have done them. Certainly the Revolutionary War was worth going into debt over.
And individuals go into debt all of the time for cars and houses. If people saved to pay cash for these things there would be a very great deal about our lifestyles that would be very different.
One more thing — when individuals have a financial crisis, not only do they look to cutting back the expenditures they can, but they also look to raise additional revenue. That is usually called a second job.
our accumulated national debt is large enough that rather than accumulating assets in good times, we can instead be paying down debt, BUT ONLY IN GOOD TIMES.
we are far from the point where our national government can consider ‘private asset accumulation.’