TW: Brooks has been reading the blog apparently (...or not). But I agree with his sentiment if not his entire approach. There is an emerging meme from the Republicans that any reform of health care or energy policy must be postponed to "deal with the current crisis" (I even saw a couple of Republicans try to say opening up stem cell research was a distraction amidst the "crisis"). Is there a risk of trying to do too much, of course. But I STRONGLY disagree with the notion that Obama should put all aside to focus exclusively on the short/medium term crises.
One, as I have mentioned previously we will need to stimulate aggressively in the short run to mitigate (not eliminate) the risks of a severe depression. Many are rightly (if in some cases belatedly and cynically) concerned about our fiscal deficits going forward. To me the reconciliation is for our government to acknowledge and actually begin to act on the long-term fiscal challenges faced by our country. Health care (and to a lesser extent social security) is the primary cost factor that must be addressed.
Two, the world was headed to a bad place relative to energy consumption and supply prior to the demand collapse. Investment in new energy sources has plunged in the past 12 months and will continue to do so. Unless we wish a repeat and worse of the price spikes of '06-08 then we must also address this challenge.
Three, ultimately the Republican effort to postpone initiatives is cynical politics to avoid addressing the above whilst the Democrats are electorally strong. I assure you their next gambit is to put repeal of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy off into a farther and farther future even if that only exacerbates the fiscal deficits.
Brooks also argues that the Republicans should outline a plan to reduce the deficits. As I have railed about incessantly to do so would contravene the entire premise of Reaganomics since 1980. The Republicans refuse to seriously address the big costs (social security, health care, defense) while proposing endless tax cuts with their only hope residing in ephemeral "supply side voodoo" whereby lower tax rates result in higher tax revenue.
I agree with Brooks that Obama's economic forecasts are too optimistic. The Republicans would use this as an excuse to postpone the energy, tax and health care initiatives indefinitely or take them off the table entirely. I would say roll them back a year or even two if necessary but create the programming and processes so that at the proper time something can actually get done to address these crucial challenges.
From David Brooks at NYT:
"The Democratic response to the economic crisis has its problems, but let’s face it, the current Republican response is totally misguided. The House minority leader, John Boehner, has called for a federal spending freeze for the rest of the year. In other words, after a decade of profligacy, the Republicans have decided to demand a rigid fiscal straitjacket at the one moment in the past 70 years when it is completely inappropriate.
The G.O.P. leaders have adopted a posture that allows the Democrats to make all the proposals while all the Republicans can say is “no.” They’ve apparently decided that it’s easier to repeat the familiar talking points than actually think through a response to the extraordinary crisis at hand.
If the Republicans wanted to do the country some good, they’d embrace an entirely different approach.
First, they’d take the current economic crisis more seriously than the Democrats. The Obama budget projects that the recession will be mild this year and the economy will come surging back in 2010. Democrats apparently think that dealing with the crisis is a part-time job, which leaves the afternoons free to work on long-range plans to reform education, health care, energy and a dozen smaller things. Democrats are counting on a quick recovery to help pay for these long-term projects.
...Second, Republicans could admit that they don’t know what the future holds, and they’re not going to try to make long-range plans based on assumptions that will be obsolete by summer. Unlike the Democrats, they’re not for making trillions of dollars in long-term spending commitments until they know where things stand.
...Third, Republicans could offer the public a realistic appraisal of the health of capitalism. Global capitalism is an innovative force, they could argue, but we have been reminded of its shortcomings. When exogenous forces like the rise of China and a flood of easy money hit the global marketplace, they can throw the entire system of out of whack, leading to a cascade of imbalances: higher debt, a grossly enlarged financial sector and unsustainable bubbles.
If the free market party doesn’t offer the public an honest appraisal of capitalism’s weaknesses, the public will never trust it to address them. Power will inevitably slide over to those who believe this crisis is a repudiation of global capitalism as a whole.
Fourth, Republicans could get out in front of this crisis for once. That would mean being out front with ideas to support the wealth-creating parts of the economy rather than merely propping up the fading parts. That would mean supporting President Obama’s plan for global stimulus coordination, because right now most of the world is free-riding off our expenditures. That would mean eliminating all this populist talk about letting Citigroup fail, because a cascade of insolvency would inevitably lead to full-scale nationalization. It would mean coming up with a bold banking plan, rather than just whining about whatever the Democrats have on offer.
Finally, Republicans could make it clear that that the emergency has to be followed by an era of balance. This crisis was fueled by financial decadence, and public debt could be 80 percent of G.D.P. by the time it’s over. Republicans should be the party of restoring fiscal balance — whatever it takes — not trillion-dollar deficits as far as the eye can see.
If Republicans were to treat this like a genuine emergency, with initiative-grabbing approaches, they may not get their plans enacted, but voters would at least give them another look. Do I expect them to shift course in this manner? Not really."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/10/opinion/10brooks.html?ref=opinion
No comments:
Post a Comment