‘Sophisticated and Fact-Based’
David Brooks updates today his Tuesday column of concern, which I commented on not once but twice that day.
Tuesday, Brooks argued that “the Obama budget is a liberal, big government document that should make moderates nervous.” This argument apparently riled up the Administration enough that they called Brooks in for a convincing session. But the columnist wasn’t easily dissuaded from his starting assessment:
I didn’t finish these conversations feeling chastened exactly. The fact is, after years of economic growth, the White House still projects perpetual deficits of more than $500 billion a year. That’s way too much, especially with the boomers’ retirements looming. Moreover, Congress will likely pass the spending parts of the budget and kill the revenue parts, like the cap-and-trade energy tax and the limits on itemized deductions, thus producing much, much bigger deficits.
Plus, I’m still convinced the administration is trying to do too much too fast and that the hasty planning and execution of these complex policies will lead to untold problems down the road.
Notably, that’s not the end of the story. Brooks wraps up his column thus:
… the White House made a case that was sophisticated and fact-based. These people know how to lead a discussion and set a tone of friendly cooperation. I’m more optimistic that if Senate moderates can get their act together and come up with their own proactive plan, they can help shape a budget that allays their anxieties while meeting the president’s goals.
We all know it has been too long since we had a White House that was “sophisticated and fact-based.” In fact, those qualities were among the primary reasons many moderates (including this one) voted for Obama and cheered his early cabinet appointments. We can now hope that Mr. Brooks is right and that Senate moderates (today rather than in 2010) prove to be Mr. Obama’s Gingrich.
7 Responses to “‘Sophisticated and Fact-Based’”
I hope the idea of negotiating prevails over the idea of digging in and opposing everything.
George — me, too.
Think what you want of Gingrich (he is too far right for me) but he was a strong counter-balance to Clinton. I don't see that counter-balance existing right now. The GOP is in disarray, assuming Franken is seated the GOP will have even less power, and the Blue Dogs, Specter, Snowe, etc don't strike me as particularly powerful. Whether they can pull together their own proactive plan is debatable. It sounds to me like Brooks is a little starry-eyed from all the White House attention.
DaGoat,
The problem for the opposition is that they've been caught in a pincer movement between Obama on one side and Rush Limbaugh on the other. From here on out Republicans who oppose Obama can be tarred with “rooting for failure” while moderates run away from the hard-core GOP. There will be episodic and largely pro forma resistance to Obama's agenda, but nothing that will fundamentally alter it. The Snowe-Nelson-Collins-Lieberman caucus still matters, however – even with Franken.
Nothing has made me more confident of the plan than David Brooks' concern. He's the George Costanza of punditry.
problem for the opposition is that they've been caught in a pincer movement………..although just like the real Battle of the Bulge, fuel to sustain the offensive proved the undoing of the Jerrys. The fuel in this case will be substance to the recovery, not punditry.
Remember all those Brook's columns about how he was concerned that the Bush admin was moving too fast, running up deficits, not being bipartisan enough, and not telling us the true costs of the Afghan/Iraq conflicts?
Yeah, me neither.