"GOP No Longer a 'Normal' Party" - David Brooks

[Toro]

... many important Democrats are open to a truly large budget deal. President Obama has a strong incentive to reach a deal so he can campaign in 2012 as a moderate. The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, has talked about supporting a debt reduction measure of $3 trillion or even $4 trillion if the Republicans meet him part way. There are Democrats in the White House and elsewhere who would be willing to accept Medicare cuts if the Republicans would be willing to increase revenues.

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.

A normal Republican Party would seize the opportunity to put a long-term limit on the growth of government. It would seize the opportunity to put the country on a sound fiscal footing. It would seize the opportunity to do these things without putting any real crimp in economic growth.

The party is not being asked to raise marginal tax rates in a way that might pervert incentives. On the contrary, Republicans are merely being asked to close loopholes and eliminate tax expenditures that are themselves distortionary. ...

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.

The members of this movement do not accept the legitimacy of scholars and intellectual authorities. A thousand impartial experts may tell them that a default on the debt would have calamitous effects, far worse than raising tax revenues a bit. But the members of this movement refuse to believe it.

The members of this movement have no sense of moral decency. A nation makes a sacred pledge to pay the money back when it borrows money. But the members of this movement talk blandly of default and are willing to stain their nation’s honor.

The members of this movement have no economic theory worthy of the name. Economists have identified many factors that contribute to economic growth, ranging from the productivity of the work force to the share of private savings that is available for private investment. Tax levels matter, but they are far from the only or even the most important factor.

But to members of this movement, tax levels are everything. Members of this tendency have taken a small piece of economic policy and turned it into a sacred fixation. They are willing to cut education and research to preserve tax expenditures. Manufacturing employment is cratering even as output rises, but members of this movement somehow believe such problems can be addressed so long as they continue to worship their idol. ...

If the debt ceiling talks fail, independent 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.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/05/opinion/05brooks.html?_r=4&ref=davidbrooks

Thoughts?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

First thought: Overspending by $1.6 Trillion must be the new Normal

Second thought: Yes, we need to raise revenues and only a Failed Leader would even suggest raising taxes on a struggling economy. In the USA a growing economy raises revenues: cut taxes and spending, regulations and increase energy supply.

 

[Robert]

... many important Democrats are open to a truly large budget deal. President Obama has a strong incentive to reach a deal so he can campaign in 2012 as a moderate. The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, has talked about supporting a debt reduction measure of $3 trillion or even $4 trillion if the Republicans meet him part way. There are Democrats in the White House and elsewhere who would be willing to accept Medicare cuts if the Republicans would be willing to increase revenues.

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.

A normal Republican Party would seize the opportunity to put a long-term limit on the growth of government. It would seize the opportunity to put the country on a sound fiscal footing. It would seize the opportunity to do these things without putting any real crimp in economic growth.

The party is not being asked to raise marginal tax rates in a way that might pervert incentives. On the contrary, Republicans are merely being asked to close loopholes and eliminate tax expenditures that are themselves distortionary. ...

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.

The members of this movement do not accept the legitimacy of scholars and intellectual authorities. A thousand impartial experts may tell them that a default on the debt would have calamitous effects, far worse than raising tax revenues a bit. But the members of this movement refuse to believe it.

The members of this movement have no sense of moral decency. A nation makes a sacred pledge to pay the money back when it borrows money. But the members of this movement talk blandly of default and are willing to stain their nation’s honor.

The members of this movement have no economic theory worthy of the name. Economists have identified many factors that contribute to economic growth, ranging from the productivity of the work force to the share of private savings that is available for private investment. Tax levels matter, but they are far from the only or even the most important factor.

But to members of this movement, tax levels are everything. Members of this tendency have taken a small piece of economic policy and turned it into a sacred fixation. They are willing to cut education and research to preserve tax expenditures. Manufacturing employment is cratering even as output rises, but members of this movement somehow believe such problems can be addressed so long as they continue to worship their idol. ...

If the debt ceiling talks fail, independent 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.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/05/opinion/05brooks.html?_r=4&ref=davidbrooks

Thoughts?

It is being offered the deal of the century:

Well I'll be damned and here I thought it was for the good of the Nation. So this twit thinks the Repubs should just be exploding with joy that they even received an offer ya how about blow it out your ass hmmm.

 

[kaz]

Typical brain dead liberal rampant hypocrisy and ad homenim attack because they are too intellectually devoid to argue any other way. And the NY Times is speaking for moderation, LMAO

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Typical brain dead liberal rampant hypocrisy and ad homenim attack because they are too intellectually devoid to argue any other way. And the NY Times is speaking for moderation, LMAO

I was slow to pick that up...it must have been an attempt at comedy by Brooks. I didn't see it until just now

 

[Stephanie]

LOL, poor David Brooks. He had jumped the shark. who gives a shit what he has to say.

I suppose he is going to TELL US the Democrat party IS FRIGGEN NORMAL..

 

[cloudy]

Not to worry though, if we had the DON as president, the solution would be simple, "you're all fired".

 

[WillowTree]

Who appointed David Brooks to define "what's normal." Hell, the jury thought Casey Anthony was normal. fuck normal.

 

[VaYank5150]

First thought: Overspending by $1.6 Trillion must be the new Normal

Second thought: Yes, we need to raise revenues and only a Failed Leader would even suggest raising taxes on a struggling economy. In the USA a growing economy raises revenues: cut taxes and spending, regulations and increase energy supply.

Didn't 42 House Republilcans help to eliminate the Ethanol subsidy? That, in their spin, is a tax increase. Why do you suggest that raising taxes in a struggling economy would reflect poorly on the President?

 

[Avatar4321]

Normal has always been overrated. I'd rather strive for exceptional.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

First thought: Overspending by $1.6 Trillion must be the new Normal

Second thought: Yes, we need to raise revenues and only a Failed Leader would even suggest raising taxes on a struggling economy. In the USA a growing economy raises revenues: cut taxes and spending, regulations and increase energy supply.

Didn't 42 House Republilcans help to eliminate the Ethanol subsidy? That, in their spin, is a tax increase. Why do you suggest that raising taxes in a struggling economy would reflect poorly on the President?

Is your icon a Failed Leader?

That's cutting spending, Dear

 

[VaYank5150]

First thought: Overspending by $1.6 Trillion must be the new Normal

Second thought: Yes, we need to raise revenues and only a Failed Leader would even suggest raising taxes on a struggling economy. In the USA a growing economy raises revenues: cut taxes and spending, regulations and increase energy supply.

Didn't 42 House Republilcans help to eliminate the Ethanol subsidy? That, in their spin, is a tax increase. Why do you suggest that raising taxes in a struggling economy would reflect poorly on the President?

Is your icon a Failed Leader?

That's cutting spending, Dear

No, per GOP babble, it is a tax increase. Unless of course, they voted for it, right?

 

[Toro]

Question.

If Ronald Reagan was offered 80% of what he asked for, would he take the deal?

 

[Toro]

FTR, gun to my head, if I had to make a bet right now, Romney is President in 13.

 

[uscitizen]

This entire thread is based on the incorrect premise that the Republican party was once normal.

 

[Stephanie]

This entire thread is based on the incorrect premise that the Republican party was once normal.

oh so witty one. I ONCE thought many many moons ago the Democrat party was somewhat Normal, but that was then. Now they have been taken over by radical environmentalist, commies, perverts, labor Unions who give not one hoot bout the rest of the people WHO DON'T BELONG TO ONE..
The Democrat party has become a DANGER to our country and US PEOPLE. it's a shame more idiot people don't see that.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Thoughts?

"Democrats trying to blame the Republicans for the shitty economy FAIL!"

 

[RDD_1210]

Good article with some excellent points. A rational person would see that compromise involves 2 sides conceding something to meet a common point. A rational person would acknowledge that the fastest way to fix a financial issue is to BOTH cut spending and increase revenue.

But we aren't dealing with rational here. We are dealing with people who's sole goal is to get re-elected. Let's be honest, they have their own best interests at heart, not the nations.

 

[Sallow]

It ceased to be a "normal" party starting with the election of Ronald Reagan. It's been getting worse since.

 

[Sallow]

Good article with some excellent points. A rational person would see that compromise involves 2 sides conceding something to meet a common point. A rational person would acknowledge that the fastest way to fix a financial issue is to BOTH cut spending and increase revenue.
But we aren't dealing with rational here. We are dealing with people who's sole goal is to get re-elected. Let's be honest, they have their own best interests at heart, not the nations.

This would be true if we were talking about a business. The government is not a business. I put up a thread about a week ago to illustrate that government spending fosters business (of course no conservative was able to make that connection).

Government cutting spending during a time of financial distress is lunacy.