Since I raised some concerns about David Brooks' column this morning, it's only fair that I note there's been some follow-up on the story.
To briefly recap, Brooks built his entire column today around a falsehood: the bogus claim that President Obama "hasn't actually come up with a proposal to avert sequestration," despite the detailed, already published plan, built on mutual concessions from both sides, the White House already released.
In the wake of considerable criticism, Brooks followed up today, saying he let his "frustration get the better" of him, which apparently led him to publish a claim that wasn't true. "I should have acknowledged the balanced and tough-minded elements in the president's approach," the columnist added, though Brooks still believes Obama's proposals "are not nearly adequate."
Though the walk-back is welcome, Greg Sargent helps highlight why Brooks still has some room to improve his argument.
Brooks has admitted error, but this is still fundamentally a dodge. After all, the plan put forth the other day by Democrats might not be "adequate enough" to make all our fiscal problems vanish forever, but it would, in fact, avert the sequester -- which Brooks says will be disastrous to the country -- through roughly equivalent concessions by both sides. It is, by definition, a compromise plan. Why, then, is this inadequate as a temporary solution?
More broadly, the basic overall question still stands: Is there anything Obama and Dems can offer to Republicans -- anything that falls short of essentially giving Republicans everything they want for little or nothing in return -- that would make them drop their no-compromise-on-revenues-at-any-cost stance? If so, name it. If not, then why are both sides equally to blame?
These need not be rhetorical questions. As I argued yesterday, it's hard to ignore the extent to which the president has played by the rules Brooks likes -- the president tried to stop congressional Republicans from crashing the economy on purpose; he accepted deep spending cuts; he adopted over $2.4 trillion in debt reduction even when economists said debt reduction shouldn't be at the top of the economic to-do list; he accepted far less tax revenue than his campaign platform sought; he put entitlement "reforms" on the table; he offered "grand bargains"; and with brutal sequestration cuts looming, he endorsed a 50-50 compromise that required concessions from both sides, all while leaving the door open to additional negotiations. That is, quite literally, everything that could reasonably be expected of an elected president.
Instead of praising, or even acknowledging, these efforts, Brooks has replaced inaccurate complaining with corrected complaining.
And then Brooks made one more mistake: he argued with Ezra Klein.
This interview is an absolute must-read -- really, it is -- but consider this exchange.
DB: In my ideal world, the Obama administration would do something Clintonesque: They'd govern from the center; they'd have a budget policy that looked a lot more like what Robert Rubin would describe, and if the Republicans rejected that, moderates like me would say that's awful, the White House really did come out with a centrist plan.
EK: But I've read Robert Rubin's tax plan. He wants $1.8 trillion in new revenues. The White House, these days, is down to $1.2 trillion. I'm with Rubin on this one, but given our two political parties, the White House's offer seems more centrist. And you see this a lot...
Ezra was far too polite to say, "Um, David, I don't think you know what you're talking about," but by pointing to the actual numbers, he didn't have to.
On a related note, we also talked yesterday about Ron Fournier's piece that argued Obama is to blame for the sequester, even if it's the result of Congress' intransigence, because the president is the president. Also in the interest of fairness, I should mention that Fournier has a follow-up of his own, though I'm afraid it wasn't especially persuasive, either.
Leave a Comment:
I think Mr. Brooks needs to take a step back.
In the debt deal, Boehner claimed that the Republicans got 98% of what they wanted.
Time for the Republicans to move a bit?
Brooks... never anchors his fluff to the basics of what is good and works but instead relies on the look and feel of things as if they count for more than appearances. And he seems to like to put on an act of "knowingness" that smacks more of arrogance - as if you don't really know, or shouldn't. That is a really smart thing when your audience are persons you count on to be helpless so you can rescue them.
This is the GOP and their pundits problem.....They are forced to support the failed ideology that histroical facts reveal. The GOP/CONServatives failed during the Bush/Cheney era on economics, security and the false notion that tax cuts for the wealthy are stimulative.....wrong, wrong and wrong again. Today, they wrongly believe that austerity promotes growth..when these positions have to be defended, they will fall short and deception, lies and distortions must be used to maintain this failed ideology........like my POTUS said....please proceed!!!! The majority of americans and the global community know the fallacy of their dumbed down arguments!!!
Brooks and his partner gergen used to sound semi sane on npr and pbs but occaisionally they would slip and show their true colors. Once they started appearing on flox thry completely shed their skins(yes like a snake) and let their true colors (white) show. Their nanti obama rhetoric should surprise no one at this point. Remember FAIR AND UNBIASED reporrting the flox mantra!!!
Don't Argue with Ezra Klein....
Doesn't that come right after "Don't get involved in a land war in Asia"
or in the middle east it would appear.
If I'm the NY Times and I'm reading this interview I'd be phoning the legal department and finding out how to rip up his contract. Then I'd go find someone who isn't so lazy and incompetent. The ignorance he displays - the demonstrably wrong assertion after assertion - my god it is completely unf-ingbelievable.
They have to cater to their base that have been dumbed to a point of unreasonableness while at the same time react to their puppet masters to gain control and power.......extremely difficult. They need ignorance, cater to it and now are being controlled by it....and...on the other hand the wealthy few are wondering did they not spend enough to control their interests? This is a true catch 22 position to be in when the demographic majority has had enough of this insane BS>>!!!!!
So far Republicans have raised taxes, and Democrats have done nothing in return but demagogue Republicans for going along with Obama's sequester. Gee what a surprise.
Shooter
If we have already raised taxes why are the republicans so keen to keep the loopholes open?
Especially considering they had talked up closing them all through the Presidential election campaign
Really? You're going to hide behind semantics?
Which part of Republicans have already raised taxes are you having trouble understanding? They aren't going to raise taxes again whether it's via rates or deductions.
Except for cutting $1.2T dollars in July 2011...but why quibble with unpleasant details that make your entire post moronic.
Go have a beer, son; clearly you've had a hard week and your brain isn't firing on all cylinders....ever.
Which part of Republicans have already raised taxes are you having trouble understanding?
Doing what should come naturally to sane people does not earn you a special treat. Especially when you whine and stamp your petulant feet.
The guy who calls it "Obama's sequester" takes umbrage at a response for "hiding behind semantics."
You can't make this $#!% up! Only thing that would be funnier is if the accusation of hiding behind semantics made absolutely no sense in context. Oh, wait, got that too.
Shooter,
Republcians have decided to hide the hard job of dealing with out deficit issues by engaging in a series of discrete events. Sequestration is just the current of those events. So far we have cut programs and increased taxes. There is nothing magical that says we only get to raise taxes once, or that this time we can only cut programs or entitlements. If closing loopholes will save headstart or keep elderly Americans in their homes and not eating dog food, which is apparently your goal, then I am for closing loopholes. Why aren't you?
I am also for cutting defense so that our armed forces are staffed rationally. We really need to close our bases fronting the old Soviet empire. Many of those countries are now our allies. None of them is the kind of threat that requires a standing army facing a non-existant enemy. We own nearly all of the carrier battle groups in the world. Why? Most of the others belong to our allies.
It's not a matter of semantics...we actually WANT THE THE DAMN MONEY!
Or would you just prefer we anex Grand Cayman?
M, announcing cuts isn't the same as actually cutting. Can you point to any cuts? I think not, which demonstrates Obama's veracity.
Nose, sane people don't borrow 42% of what they live on. Especially when they aren't going to pay any of it back.
Steve, pointing out that Obama is demagouging his own plan isn't semantics, it's hypocrisy. But as always, IOKIYAD.
Shooter,
Look at the first post. Mine.
Boehner said that in the debt deal the Republicans got 98% of what they wanted.
Out of all of these threats, the Republicans raised taxes ONCE. They also said before that THEY wanted to close tax loopholes. That's now off the table for them.
Forget it bud. The Republicans have simply shot themselves in the foot again. If they let these cuts go through, they won't be able to win election for coroner.
And Shooter, this is why you have no idea what you are talking about: http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3840. They already agreed to Cuts over the next 10 years. That's money we are NOT GOING TO SPEND EVERY YEAR FOR THE NEXT 10 YEARS. THOSE ARE SPENDING CUTS.
While I'm sure you have no idea how the government budgetary process works, I can assure you that these cuts are real. They were made strategically and total 1.5T over 10 years.
Please stop lying about the Budget Control Act and its impact and what it has accomplished. These are permanent cuts to the budget. They are not "announced cuts" and any way...why would John Boehner and Republicans be all happy about getting those cuts when they got them if they were not real cuts?
You make no sense. Shut up, sit down, and go do some research. Then, when you actually know what you are talking about come back and have an intelligent discussion involving actual, instead of non-reality-based (or your fantastical interpretation thereof), policy.
Good heavens, the community can't deal with diversity.
There blanks goes hiding behind semantics again.
The community can deal with diversity, what they can't deal with ignorant lying right wing trolls like you.
Deal with it.
M Peters....if a department has a $1 Billion budget this year and has been given a projected budget in 5 years of $2 Billion, do you consider it a cut if the budgeted amount for the 5th year is reduced to $1.8 billion? Is that a 10% cut?
If that is the case, then it becomes very easy to say you cut the budget. Simply propose totally outrageous increases and then agree to reduce them.
just saying..
Wait, Steve -- you expect Brooks to use actual numbers accurately and in meaningful context when writing about the budget? That's not fair! You might as well ask him to dance the role of Odette in Swan Lake en pointe; he just doesn't have the skills. (Hey, he's the one who went off on that awful dance metaphor.) Of course the American Ballet Theater would never hire Brooks to dance, while the New York Times... oh, never mind.
Is this why we seem to get screwed far too often? Even the pundit class is confused as hell, and then chooses to pass along such confusion to us lay people! -Kevo
Brooks isn't confused, he just slipped up this time. He's a BS artist; he doesn't care whether what he's saying is true or not, as long as it makes the Republican line sound reasonable to non-Republican NYT readers and NPR listeners. The Republican talking points insist the president hasn't presented a plan and the GOP has, even though that's exactly the opposite of the truth. He usually disguises their dishonesty well enough to get away with it, but for once he didn't.
Yeah, it's a shame NPR puts that hack on all the time and presents him as a reasonable republican when he gets everything wrong, and has been wrong for decades. NPR was always a wet noodle but after Bush stacked the deck by threatening their jobs they became republican-wet noodles.
Um , Steve, it's 2.4 trillion in DEFICIT reduction, not debt reduction. It's more or less enough to stabilize the debt as a fraction of GDP, but it doesn't reduce it in absolute dollars at all. Or at least that's my understanding; am I wrong?
You're right. What we need to years-upon-years of significant surplus to reduce the debt. And we aren't gonna get that until we significantly raise taxes and cut spending, to get a surplus budget. A Balanced Budget shouldn't even be a thing we shoot for at this point, because that doesn't do anything to actually reduce our accrued debt. A responsible Congress would be looking for ways to not just maintain what we have already spent on the credit card without getting more, but should be looking for ways to reduce the actual debt on the credit card at the same time.
This means we should be raising rates, slashing loopholes, and cutting spending, particularly in Defense and significantly after the War in Afghanistan is over in 2014...and by significantly, I mean like IN HALF of the 2014 budget in 2015.
There is an antidote for confusion: Ezra Klein.
We don't need surplus to fix the debt. All we need is balanced budgets, and the debt will be paid off over time. With a surplus we could pay it off faster, but given interest rates of essentially zero, there's really no need.
As to "Shooter"s argument: Rs agreed to tax increases, but on a far smaller segment of the population than was originally proposed. Ds compromised on that. Ds have agreed to many more billions in spending cuts than Rs have accepted in revenue, and Obama has proposed more. That's fact. In drawing a line at a piddling increase in revenue, while suddenly taking off the table even the highly-touted and lowly-specified Romney/Ryan loophole closing, they've made clear that they simply don't care what happens to everyone but their sponsors. Education, roads, health care, research, environmental protection: who cares, right?
yeah... "Rs agreed to tax increases" like Palestinians agreed to land concessions.
Repubes are all about taking and stealing anything and everything they can. Here is a idea. Dont let them run out of things to steal, just take everything the repubers have and own and want and then, after they are destitute bankrupt and broke, negotiate with them. See what they are willing to trade away.
Remember this. If repubes own everything, your death is their savings.
Brooks' days are numbered. As the big media slowly, agonizingly, realize that indeed the people are aligned with democratic (small d) rather than aristocratic values, and with Democratic (big D) policies rather than GOP ones, this sad excuse for a human being will be shown the door.
Fournier's follow-up certainly was "less than persuasive." It essentially boiled down to, "I'm not the president, don't ask me what to do."
Um, weren't you the guy just criticizing the president for not doing enough? Is it really that unreasonable to ask what more you think he should be doing?
And this is why people are confused. If the GOP or GOP-lite don't 'like' what the President is doing, then he is doing NOTHING. And the media protects these...LIARS. Not weasel speak. They are LIARS. Fournier is stupid. WHO HAS THE FREAKIN' VOTING POWER??? Yes, the President has the bully pulpit. He can make you look dumber than whale spit but he can't VOTE. Just because he's 'the PRESIDENT, god dammit!' doesn't mean he can do it by himself. These are two deceptive, manipulative columns. They should get their press passes revoked.
There may come a time (soon) when blowhards will not exchange words with Ezra Klein.
BOEHNER IS BAD AT HIS JOB. The fool boehner doesnt even know what his job is. He is supposed to write laws and present them to the executive branch for approval. His job is NOT to negotiate with the executive branch. He is paid $274,000 a year and is stealing from the public bc he does not do his job. He wants to keep getting paid $274,000 a year bc he believes he can get away with not doing his job, critisizing the president, and stealing from taxpayers.
But that is how criminal minds think. You will discover that cons, extortionists, hijackers and hostage takers all follow the same playbook. Boehner must have read it.
How Brooks keeps his job is beyond me, he hasn't written anything worthwhile in YEARS!
The biggest lie of all here is that David Brooks is a "moderate". He is not. He is a conservative. He may appear moderate in comparison to the Republican party, but the problem with this is that the Republican party are crazier than a box of cracker jacks.
Yeah, it's a shame NPR puts that hack on all the time and presents him as a reasonable republican when he gets everything wrong, and has been wrong for decades. NPR was always a wet noodle but after Bush stacked the deck by threatening their jobs they became republican-wet noodles.