Monday, November 15, 2010

ECONOMY - Analysis on Deficit Commission Proposals

I am posting this ONLY on the section on the "deficit commission" proposals.

"Shields and Brooks on Tax Cuts, Debt, Lame-Duck Congress, Bush Book" Analysis Transcript, PBS Newshour 11/12/2010

Excerpt

JIM LEHRER (Newshour): Sure. All right, what do -- speaking of tension, what do you make of the debate -- the deficit commission chairman's proposal for how to solve the deficit problem in the United States of America at the federal level?

DAVID BROOKS (New York Times columnist): First, I thought it was an excellent start to a discussion. It had a wide range of options, many of which are extremely painful. Those of us who own homes don't want to give up our mortgage interest deduction. I'm sure people in their 60s don't want to postpone the retirement age.

But the fact is, we're facing a national disaster, and we're going to have to do some really terrible things. In fact, they probably underestimated how many terrible things, because they have some rosy scenarios in there.

But they took the serious things that have to be done, and they threw them on the table. And so I think they did a great service to the country. I think the second thing they have done is, they have smoked out who is willing to have this conversation and who isn't.

You saw people on the right, like Grover Norquist, and people on the left, like some of the public sector unions, say: Hell, no. We are not talking about this. This is dead on arrival.

But then you had a lot of people, both Democrats and Republicans, saying: We hate this stuff, but we have got a real problem. We have got to talk about it.

And so I thought they have smoked out who is really serious about this thing. And then the final quick thing I will say, all these things are very painful. The idea that, politically, with this country where it is right now, could pass any of this stuff, it's fantasyland. The country has to change first.

JIM LEHRER: Fantasyland? Change the country first?

MARK SHIELDS (syndicated columnist): I hope it isn't fantasyland.

I mean, this is not an eat your spinach plan. This is an eat your spinach, eat your broccoli, and finish your brussel sprouts plan. And if the test for political courage is the ability to simultaneously alienate both the political left and the political right, then Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles have passed that test with flying colors. The...

JIM LEHRER: Well, we had it on our program last night. I mean, they were...

MARK SHIELDS: Exactly. No, they -- they -- and they had to do it, because the commission is not going to agree on anything. And they have forced the debate. David is absolutely right. By doing this, they have preempted the debate and forced others to address this.

There are two things about it I think that are crucial, Jim. First of all, people have been hiding about, saying we're going to settle -- balance this budget by hitting them, the, I don't know, rich people, taxes, or whatever, closing loopholes. Or we're going to hit by them taking away the benefits from these freeloaders.

He has basically said, it's us, OK? And they have...

JIM LEHRER: This isn't them. It's us.

MARK SHIELDS: That's right. And they have laid out the plan. And if you want to argue with parts of it, OK, fine. But you better come up with where you are going to come -- get the money. And I think that's crucial. The other thing they have done is, they have asked for shared sacrifice.

And, since Ronald Reagan beat Jimmy Carter -- Jimmy Carter lost in 1980 running -- accused of running on a platform of cold showers and root canal work. Reagan came along and said, I'm going to double the defense budget, cut your taxes by a third, and balance the budget.

Boy, that sounded great. That was a real formula for success. Of course he didn't do it. But, ever since then, every President, with the minor exceptions of George Herbert Walker Bush in his term and Bill Clinton in his first term, have basically gone on ouchless, painless prosperity.

There has been no shared sacrifice this century at all. And what they are saying is, are you up to it? Are you in the American tradition? Are you willing to do it?

DAVID BROOKS: I think that's the test.

JIM LEHRER: That's it, huh?

DAVID BROOKS: I mean, you got Marines and soldiers in Afghanistan sacrificing for their country. And you're not willing to give up your mortgage interest deduction or see a little raise in your capital gains tax?

I mean, that is the country -- that's the question the country really has to ask. And I would say it's up -- it's not -- the change isn't going to happen in Washington. There has to be a change in the country of voters saying, yes, I hate this, but I'm willing to do it, or else the politicians will go nowhere near it.

And so there has to be some surge in the country first of people saying, yes, we're serious about this.

JIM LEHRER: But how can there be a surge without an election? It is not going to happen then before 2012.

DAVID BROOKS: No. Well, social movements arise. We had the Obama movement arose. The Tea Party movement arose. People got organized. Institutions formed.

JIM LEHRER: So, it could happen?

DAVID BROOKS: And they changed the political dynamic. We would have to have a significant change in the political dynamic before politicians of either party will touch this.

I too expect these proposals to go nowhere, at least for the next 2 years. I also agree, that little will change until the American electorate changes.

AND the Tea Party movement is NOT it. They are only the "we don't want to pay for it" movement.

I DO expect the Republicans to manipulate EVERYTHING to make Obama look bad so the Republicans can win the Whitehouse in 2012. They will put the political interests of the GOP ahead of the interest of our country. Of course they see it as GOP interests ALWAYS = American's interests.

Side comment: I have edited the phrase "every President" above by capitalizing "President." This is because I was taught in school that when using a single word as a substitute for an official title, like President of the United States, you still capitalize it. IMHO there is a general deterioration of English even in the professions that should be practicing it, and this is just an example.

No comments: