David Brooks is disgusted at the Tea-GOP Zombies. In another bridge-burning column, he calls out the Tea-GOP Zombies for being not only ideological zealots “unable to accept compromise,” but also anti-intellectual morons having “no sense of moral decency.”
But before you cheer Brooks’ acknowledgement of what the rest of the planet realized long ago, consider what it is Brooks believes is morally indefensible versus what is reasonable and wise.
It seems those crazy Tea-GOP Zombies are immoral because they are preventing the presumably “moderate” GOP leadership from accepting the “deal of the century” on deficit reduction. They thus risk having voters conclude that the Tea-GOP has become nothing more than destructive fanatics who are “unfit to govern.” Uh, where have you been, Joe DiMaggio?
Though the Tea-GOP Zombies reject it for the wrong reasons, the “deal of the century” is not something the American people should want. Brooks can’t even get the most basic facts right. He claims this deal offers a 3:1 ratio of spending cuts to revenue increases. Uh, it’s more like 6:1 5:1, with revenues only 17 percent, but what’s a little math error when you’ve missed the larger point.
He claims it does nothing to imperil economic recovery, even though economists explain that any deficit reduction now will hurt the near-term recovery. Christy Romer points out that spending cuts will do more damage than tax increases; indeed, tax increases or spending cuts on the middle class are worse for the economy than increased taxes or spending cuts on the rich.
He claims the deal does not increase marginal tax rates, a favorite canard of those who can’t connect the dots when the feds deprive states of needed funding to prevent massive layoffs and cuts. States raise effective tax rates on public employees by cutting salaries and pensions and raising employee benefit contributions. If the tax rates on the rich were increased enough to avoid these de facto middle class tax increases, Brooks would be howling along with Cantor and Boehner about how unfair it all is and how foolish it is to raise taxes in a bad economy.
He claims the deal would put the country on a sound fiscal footing. Uh, no it won’t. In a rational world, sound fiscal footing needs solid growth and keeping productive workers employed and fairly sharing in the nation’s wealth, but this deal won’t help. We need an increase in tax rates or lower wealth transfers and subsidies for the wealthiest Americans for the simple reason those are unfair and wasteful. Those folks have hoovered up virtually all of the economy’s growth over the last two decades.
A sound fiscal policy would move to correct a maldistribution that is producing record poverty, record numbers of folks without health insurance, massive unemployment, starving education, and declining prospects for the bottom two thirds of Americans.
Even in strict budgetary terms, the long-run debt numbers are driven by the rise in private health care costs. While the reported “deal of the century” hacks away at Medicare and Medicaid (and Social Security cost of living adjustments, so they don’t cover actual cost of living increases) — programs that benefit primarily the middle class and poor — nothing suggests the folks at Joe Biden’s dining table have seriously tackled the industry’s greed, graft and market aggregation that are raising private health care costs faster than GDP growth.
So in the end, the “deal of the century” might cut $3 or $4 trillion from the federal debt but leave the national economy still at risk.
Nevermind that the negotiators are doing nothing to alter the continued looting and hoovering out of the American economy by an undertaxed, underregulated financial sector — heaven forbid we consider a financial transaction tax! Yet this is what Brooks calls “sound fiscal footing.”
The sad reality is that the supposedly sane, non-fanatic and fiscally responsible actors in Brooks’ morality play are themselves irresponsible loons facilitating the hollowing out of America. The Tea-GOP Zombies can at least claim they believe in what they’re doing, and their defense is ignorance and insanity. But only the most cynical hypocrites would claim there’s any coherent theory to what President Obama, the Democrat leadership and the supposedly “moderate” Republicans are now proposing to do to America.
A budget deal is supposed to help matters, not retard them. But there’s nothing here to actually help the American economy, nothing to resolve the housing decline, no theory or relevant precedent under which any sensible person can claim otherwise. There’s no help for the states, no protection for workers, no relief for the unemployed, no fix of a still broken health system, no funding for decaying infrastructure, no boost to education. There’s nothing here to end America’s ruinous $4 trillion wars nor question the “we can attack any nation or assassinate anyone, anywhere, anytime” mindset.
There’s no transition to an alternative energy future, no vision of any future that even catches up with what other modern nations already have and do. We once built transcontinental railroads to speed people and goods across the nation. The Europeans and Japanese now do this 2 or 3 times faster than we do. The Chinese are rapidly laying high speed rail tracks while we lay off teachers and argue about Amtrak.
Deal of the century? More like the deal that guaranteed America’s continuing decline. That’s the “no-brainer.” So who are the irresponsible idiots in this story, David?
Update, via Politico, we learn Brooks has the Tea-GOP confused about percentages, never mind currency sovereigns.
“If we are net borrowing every year, adding to debt, then we will never be in position to fulfill a ‘sacred pledge to pay the money back,’” Morrissey wrote. “ That’s a rather large flaw in fiscal policy and in Brooks’ logic, which may be one reason why some of these Republicans don’t pay much attention to ‘intellectual authorities’ like, er, David Brooks.”
Uh, if we have healthy growth so that the GDP is expanding at a rate faster than the debt, then the aggregate debt can increase every year but it becomes a smaller and smaller percentage of GDP. So there is no problem paying it back, even in their framework. Of course, this requires fourth grade math.



32 Comments

Interesting. You take the Village Idiot to task for behaving like a complete idiot and I am amazed the Village Idiot actually had a thought.
If Brooks – one of the staunchest defenders of the GOP with the NYT – thinks the GOP is in trouble, it’s in trouble.
The GOP Brooks imagines in his defense no longer exists.
Nope…hasn’t since the late 70s. But then the America the tea party mental fringe imagines, never existed.
Thanks as always for a great post.
Hooray for Danny’s arrival.
Blessings,
Agree, even though Bobo, as usual, gets it wrong, whilst simultaneously getting something correct for a change.
Per usual, Bobo wants socialism for the super wealthy & corporations ONLY, whereby those in the middle get our incomes *redistributed* upwards to enrich the already obscenely & filthy rich. Same old, different day.
Yeah; that 3:1 cuts v. revenue lie really gravelled me, too, Scarecrow. And here he was trying to pretend to some honesty. ;o)
Poor Mr. Brooks, I feel sorry for him.
.
When he brings his wife and kids to the Escape Pod, the people he thinks are his friends are going to laugh and shut the door in his face.
Sorry, but funding for escape pod development has been cut.
David Brooks has often said he knows nothing about economics. Why won’t anyone believe him? Is it because they can’t imagine him ever telling the truth or not spinning a Rovian misperception?
I’m not the least interested in what Brooks says, what worries me is that Obama sounds a lot like him.
F*******CCCKKK!
Fast Eddie Rendell: We should tax the people not paying taxes
Oh great, now democrats will run on taxing those freeloading poor people
Why do people call msnbc liberal when they give airtime to that old cun*?
I’m seriously wondering if working on fixing the country is better than just sitting back and watching rome burn and seeing libertards experience what we’re trying to save them from
“because they are preventing the presumably “moderate” GOP leadership from accepting the “deal of the century” on deficit reduction.”
First, if you think that caving into “Big Fucking Deal” oe Biden, or Barack “Class Warfare” Obama is going to win the GOP votes, you are barking up the wrong tree.
Second, take a look at them polls: Obama is so unpopular on the economy, on the deficit, on the debt, that it can’t get much worse for him. He is in Jimmy Carter territory now when it comes to those numbers. If his numbers drop any more his party may abandon him altogether.
Third, if you think that David Brooks is not considered a laugh riot amongst anyone to the right of Saul Alinsky or Jeremiah Wright, you folks don’t know much of anything.
You want to see trouble? Check out the new polling that Stan Greenberg’s firm did on Obama and the Democrat Party: they are less popular than the clap right now. I bet that report on Friday that the Dems spent $288,000 per job in the failed stimulus will make the Dems even more unpopular.
You folks are headed for an electoral disaster next year. Read the papers, read the blogs, take a look at the polls. One cousin of mine who is a life-long Democrat said that they see Jimmy Carter II coming for his party next year, and he knows it. If you don’t, you are either lying or in denial.
Possibly both.
Why would I vote for Obama?
He’s telling the poor to bend over and spread their cheeks for the sake of the .01% of the 1% of the people in the country
He’s protecting bankers and telling the poor to fend for themselves
I won’t vote for republican social darwinist bullshit even if it’s a democrat proposing it
Buck Ofama, he too bushes policies to the next level
Bush Obama is a 2004 republican and the republican party is the john birch society
A pox on both of their houses!
I don’t know why you are worried about Brooks. It’s Obama and Biden and Reid and Schumer etc. who are treating us like boxes of tea ready to be thrown overboard.
Was I reading they’re going to cut SCHIP and Medicaid. Didn’t Democrats spend the latter part of the Bush years defending these and we elected Obama to do what even Bush didn’t?!!!
You can’t make it up anymore.
I wish all we had to worry about was David Brooks.
Morrisey thinks we have a “sacred” pledge to pay off the debt? What an idiot. We were on track to do that until the the last (I hope) Prez Bush cut taxes to prevent it.
“Christy Romer points out that spending cuts will do more damage than tax increases”
Let’s be clear: Spending cuts will increase unemployment and so will tax increases — of any kind. What Obama is insisting on here is pure insanity. Having trapped himself by accepting the faulty right-wing meme that there is a “deficit crisis,” and that the deficit must be decreased to spur confidence so that the economy will turn around, the stupid fuck doubles down by insisting that tax increases match spending cuts. Touting that tax hikes will hurt the country less than spending cuts, he actually wants credit for limiting the damage that cutting the deficit will cause. But, oh wait, reducing the deficit wasn’t supposed to cause any damage; it was supposed to help. Well, you know what he means.
Obama is a fucking catastrophe for millions who voted for him. He will leave them far worse off than when they voted for him. Whether you think he’s evil or ignorant — arrogant or in over his head — there is no doubt that he is a disaster for all those who expected change they could believe in. And the damage will not end here. He will continue to give up more and more of the ground won by progressives who made his election possible.
Massive fail — or betrayal, take your pick.
It’s getting hard to tell who’s on OUR side and who’s on THEIR side. I suppose “the enemy of my enemey is my friend” might apply here.
That 3:1 figure….is that NEW math?
Yup. They’re fixin’ to make things much, much worse. IF only they would just stick to doing nothing.
please provide a link to any statement that proves your assertion that he insists that tax increases match spending cuts.
Our side is the 99% of us who willingly or unwillingly maintain the established order. We are the majority.
Their side is the 1% who through force and/or high falutin gobbledy gook make sure the feudal order is maintained. Our feudal lords include every god damn politician you see in DC.
never trust a man who blinks and smiles at the same time as he is talking! I don’t know who worse; Brooks or George Will..
Brooks needs to chill the fuck out. The GOP is certainly going to take the deal in the end. They are just seeing how many millions of people Obama is going to sacrifice to sweeten the pot before they agree to it. Having such a spineless asshole of a Democratic President willing to impose the Republican agenda and give it bipartisan cover is a rare opportunity and one they are taking full advantage of
Well, after listening to the surrender littany on Hardball (It used to be Softball but I think Marshmellow is better now), I think Brooks is not giving the Tea Party folks enough credit. Just heard some Dem BRAG about means testing Medicare. What a lovely idea, means testing Medicare, i.e., eventually turning Medicare into Medicaid and we know how much those Democrats are going to fight for Medicaid.
I may have to join the Tea Party. They seem to know how to get results and who knows it might be easier to convince them to represent me than Senators Yale and Harvard (who I expect will not vote to have their Senate entitlements means tested).
“Uh, it’s more like 6:1, with revenues only 17 percent, but what’s a little math error when you’ve missed the larger point.”
That’s roughly 5:1, Scarecrow.
Yep. Thanks for the catch. What’s “a little math error” ??
I should have been clearer. Since April, he was insisting on a “balanced approach” that was defined as a 3:1 match — spending cuts to tax increases (which he calls “tax reform.”)
The balanced approach at the moment is about 5:1 — spending cuts to phony loophole closings and subsidy eliminations.
In a recession, calling for ANY tax increases to match spending cuts — at any rate of matching — is really insane. Substituting tax increases for spending cuts is only a little less insane.
“Christy Romer points out that spending cuts will do more damage than tax increases…”
Wait…is the same “Christy Romer” who predicted that if Porkulus was passed in 2009 that the unemployment rate would not go above 8%?
That Christy Romer? The one who has been completel debunked?
well, you have “maybe” half of that right. In a recession BOTH spending cuts and tax increases are bad for a recovery. And, most economists will assert that spending cuts will cause MORE damage to a fragile recovery than tax increases on the wealthy do.
What we really need to do is to get the recovery going and worry about our debt and deficit in the out years. About two years from now. There shouldn’t be ANY spending cuts for the next two years.
yep, except the porkulus that Romer was arguing for within the administration was 1.5 trillion. It might have been large enough to really work. But, Obama sided with the republicans to keep it under 1 trillion.
Question: Do you think Obama would prefer a 5:1 match — spending cuts to tax increases to reduce the deficit — or a 1:1 match? Which would you prefer? Which is the lesser of two evils? Which one really represents a “balanced approach”?
Nope, that’s not a correct statement of what her studies showed. She was asked to come up with a suggested stimulus size that assumed the level of recession– GDP reduction and unemployed as they understood it in December 2008, which turned out to be optimistic by the time they got to early 2009. Even then, she recommended at least $1.2 trillion. Her recommendation made sense given the assumptions. The president chose not to follow it, and he chose not to correct the stimulus later when they realized the assumptions were wrong. I don’t think Romer is the person to blame for others’ decisions.
Great article you’ve written, is this your first website blog or have you been doing this a while? I’d be interested in reading some more of your things. Links please?
auto transportation
copyright dispute