Brooks: Those tax-hike blocking Republicans are just indecent

posted at 11:10 am on July 5, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

David Brooks writes in today’s New York Times that Republicans have been infected with a “psychological” faction that has made them unreasonable and nearly insane.  In fact, Brooks calls those Republicans who refuse to budge on tax hikes “indecent,” and can’t understand why they want to walk away from the deal of the century:

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.

Well, let’s back the train up the tracks just a little bit here.  The incoming Republicans who now resist tax hikes weren’t the ones spending the money in the first place.  The Democrats in Congress ran deficit spending to absurd new heights over the last four years, and some of the Republicans now in Congress were around for the relatively smaller debt increase from 2001-2006.  Neither group “pledged” to pay the money back, and Democrats to this day still aren’t pledging to do so.  Tim Geithner just got done explaining that all the current administration wants to do is reduce the amount of borrowing incrementally without having any plan to eliminate deficit spending ever.

If we are net borrowing every year, adding to debt, then we will never be in position to fulfill a “sacred pledge to pay the money back.”  That’s a rather large flaw in fiscal policy and in Brooks’ logic, which may be one reason why some of these Republicans don’t pay much attention to “intellectual authorities” like, er, David Brooks.

We can only fulfill that “sacred pledge” after we stop deficit spending.  Republicans, led by Paul Ryan, have a plan to do just that, at least at some point in the future, while Democrats want to keep right on creating deficits and hiking the national debt.  The Ryan plan does not rely on tax hikes and still manages to balance the budget in the future (although quite a few years into the future).  His plan does that by reforming the parts of the budget that have created most of the deficit pressure: entitlements and their tens of trillions in unfunded liabilities.  What, pray tell, is “decent” about continuing to make promises that cannot possibly be honored in Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security?  Brooks doesn’t seem to have an answer for that, either.

Republicans are resisting tax increases because Democrats aren’t serious about solving the problem.  Tax increases would only allow them to paper over the acute crisis while allowing the chronic disintegration of American fiscal standing, and that’s assuming that Democratic static tax analysis actually pans out by delivering the promised revenue from their increases.  The American people have seen this act before, where Democrats demand tax increases in exchange for structural changes in spending policy.  George H. W. Bush played the role of Charlie Brown to Congress’ Lucy in 1990, for which Democrats pilloried him as a liar with their “Read my lips” attack ads in 1992.

This time, Republicans want the structural changes first, and then we’ll see whether tax rates need to be adjusted — or better yet, the tax system that allows Congress to pick winners and losers dumped entirely for a flat tax, or consumption tax as its replacement.  That would be the “decent” approach, and one that actually solves the problem rather than allow Congress to continue denying its scope.

Update: Guy Benson says Brooks should join him on vacation.  Go read The Mother of All Fiskings, but this is worth highlighting:

Might I briefly interrupt Brooks’ festival of anti-Republican name-calling (say what you will about the man, he’s mastered the skill of bestowing leg thrills upon Times readers) to point out a small fact?   This “mother of all no-brainers” deal that Brooks accuses the GOP of turning down doesn’t exist. There is no deal on the table.  Period.   Why on earth should Republicans agree in principle to a theoretical deal before seeing and carefully considering the fine print?  Based on their opposition’s track record, they shouldn’t, and they aren’t.  Good. …

With all due respect, it is demonstrably false to claim that Republicans “do not accept the logic of compromise.”  Did Mr. Brooks sleep through the aforementioned tax deal in December?  Did April’sContinuing Resolution accord slip his mind as he penned this column?   In each of these high-profile cases, Republicans helped craft and pass profoundly imperfect compromises, angering many in their base, in order to keep the government running and avert all-out partisan warfare.  Some of us defended both actions as frustrating, but necessary, nods to divided government.  Frankly, David Brooks should still be orgasmic over these triumphs of bipartisan moderation.  Instead, he’s deliberately ignoring them to bludgeon Republicans into prematurely supporting a non-existent deal because…well, just because.

The Republican-controlled House did in a few weeks what the Democratic-controlled Congress couldn’t do in a full year — pass a budget for FY2011.  That’s a data point that Brooks overlooked.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Yea. David Brooks speaks for the GOP.
Isn’t he a “TEABAGGER”?

SayNo2-O on July 5, 2011 at 11:15 AM

The Senate Rs should press their slacks a little more neatly, then David would go the other way on this.

rightwingyahooo on July 5, 2011 at 11:15 AM

But the members of this movement talk blandly of default and are willing to stain their nation’s honor.

Correcting David Brooks is useless.

Suffice it to say that he’s a leftist Canadian emigre (just like David Frum) who’s found a niche among Republicans, and is rapidly proving that the American Left does indeed have a patriotism deficit.

KingGold on July 5, 2011 at 11:15 AM

Perfect picture Ed

Brooks is clueless as usual….the crease gets in the way

cmsinaz on July 5, 2011 at 11:16 AM

Oh come on Ed, can’t we have a Casey Anthony verdict watch open thread?//

Knucklehead on July 5, 2011 at 11:16 AM

Beaver 9 PM “Gee Wally, why can’t these republicans just die” Ward ” Now Beave, GO TO YOUR ROOM!” 9AM June “Gee Ward, you were a little rough on the beaver last night.”

VegasRick on July 5, 2011 at 11:16 AM

The members of this movement do not accept the legitimacy of scholars and intellectual authorities.

Enter the Barracuda!

singlemalt 18 on July 5, 2011 at 11:17 AM

If only they could see the pants crease on the wall the way a New York Times “conservative” can.

Kensington on July 5, 2011 at 11:17 AM

We’ve done everything the Democrats’ way for years. Enough is enough.

Screw you, you limp-wristed Pinot Grigio drinker.

blatantblue on July 5, 2011 at 11:17 AM

The members of this movement have no sense of moral decency

And Brooksie has no sense, period. Why is this guy considered a Republican or conservative? Is it because he’s not an outright marxist?

Now, if you want to raise taxes on the bottom 50% who pay, what, 4% of the income tax, that might be an idea. But you aren’t going to get anywhere close to closing the deficit by raising taxes.

rbj on July 5, 2011 at 11:17 AM

Is it just me, or is it getting quite tiresome that the Democrat’s Only solution to virtually every problem is to raise taxes?

Chip on July 5, 2011 at 11:17 AM

Also, “Bobos In Paradise” was a lousy book of trite ideas from a mediocre writer.

Kensington on July 5, 2011 at 11:18 AM

It’s amazing how fast Liberals want the government to enforce morality, or at least their version of it, when it comes to financial matters. But if you get caught cheating on your life partner on a street corner during a Pride parade with an illegal alien while performing an abortion high on marijauna, the government better respect your privacy.

trubble on July 5, 2011 at 11:20 AM

And Brooksie has no sense, period. Why is this guy considered a Republican or conservative? Is it because he’s not an outright marxist?

rbj on July 5, 2011 at 11:17 AM

It’s because he’s a sensible man of the middle. I mean, sure he’ll go along with the slaughter of an unborn baby, but he’ll suggest a moment of silence afterwards (no praying, though — that would be too religious).

Kensington on July 5, 2011 at 11:20 AM

David Brooks

Heard him on a short segment on NPR with EJ Dione. There was no daylight between their views. Dione would say something, and in Brooks would just echo it. Ridiculous.

strictnein on July 5, 2011 at 11:21 AM

Brooks’ memory is highly selective. Just like the rest of the ‘intellectual East Coast elite’.

GarandFan on July 5, 2011 at 11:21 AM

members of this movement do not accept the logic of compromise

You should never compromise with someone who is wrong. What’s so hard to understand about that? If you give an inch they will take a mile.

Tommy_G on July 5, 2011 at 11:22 AM

The members of this movement do not accept the legitimacy of scholars and intellectual authorities.

OK. I’ll bite. What qualifications does it take to become an Intellectual Authority? A degree in a make work major, such as Political Science? Does your intellect become fluorescent if you double major in something equally useless, such as Philosophy or African American Studies?

Is this a union gig, complete with retirement at age 52?

MNHawk on July 5, 2011 at 11:23 AM

Remember, Brooks thinks TEA Partiers are Stupid.

portlandon on July 5, 2011 at 11:23 AM

Ed, I don’t think the “sacred pledge” was to be debit free. It was to pay off each individual bond as it matures. But that is still falling into the falacy that default is the only alternative to raising the debt ceiling.

Count to 10 on July 5, 2011 at 11:24 AM

The members of this movement do not accept the legitimacy of scholars and intellectual authorities.

Heh. I gotcher intellectual authoritism and scholarship right here!

a capella on July 5, 2011 at 11:27 AM

You’d think by now that Brooks would understand the difference between raising taxes and raising revenue. doing the former does not always lead to the latter, and after a certain point, reduces revenue. He should know this by now. He WAS around during the Reagan administration, wasn’t he? Cut taxes, reduce regulation and watch as the economic engine of America roars back to life. My god, what an ignoramus David Brooks is.

holygoat on July 5, 2011 at 11:30 AM

According to my local paper (The Cincinnati Enquirer), Brooks and Kathleen Parker are two of the conservative columnists we get to offset the hordes of liberal columnists that it also provides.

Not fair.

BuckeyeSam on July 5, 2011 at 11:31 AM

sycophantic camp following crease fetishist with a
jock sniffing obsession

DrW on July 5, 2011 at 11:32 AM

According to my local paper (The Cincinnati Enquirer),

Brooks and Kathleen Parker are two of the conservative columnists we get to offset the hordes of liberal columnists that it also provides.

Not fair.

BuckeyeSam on July 5, 2011 at 11:31 AM

the exact reason i dropped the AZ Republic two years ago…and i’ve never been happier.

DrW on July 5, 2011 at 11:33 AM

the Republican Party may no longer be a normal party.

This coming from the guy with the pants crease fetish.

PackerBronco on July 5, 2011 at 11:33 AM

He wants the GOP to stay at the 35 inch mark on Peggy Noonan’s yardstick. The Tea Party wants to move back beyond the halfway mark.

faraway on July 5, 2011 at 11:34 AM

The reason tax increases are OFF THE TABLE is because we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem.

All tax increases do is to enable higher spending when spending is already long since past the point of no return. If default means economic apocalypse, then Obama and the Democrats better get with the program.

And Brooks and the liberals (but I repeat myself) should try and understand that the only reason revenues are down is because the engine from which those revenues originate is down. Thank you President moron. Get the bloated, out of control government out of the way and let that engine roar and you’ll have all the revenues needed. At least to support rational spending no more than 18-20% of GDP, and preferably much, much less.

deadrody on July 5, 2011 at 11:36 AM

dick

winston on July 5, 2011 at 11:36 AM

Ask George Bush Sr. about making deals with the Democrats to raise taxes and cut spending.

pedestrian on July 5, 2011 at 11:40 AM

BuckeyeSam on July 5, 2011 at 11:31 AM

Oof. I get Parker in Buffalo, but at least I get Krauthammer, who’s much better.

KingGold on July 5, 2011 at 11:41 AM

Democrats got us into this mess, but Brooks and co. expect Republicans – who only control half of one branch of the government – to give up everything they stand for to get us out of it.

Give me a break. We just had an election in which the voters made it VERY clear whet they think about taxes and spending. Republicans are simply listenting to those voters, while Democrats and their media cheerleaders aren’t. More elitist thought, we know better than you rubes so you need to shut up and give us what we want.

Pennsylvania and New Jersey just got budgets done with no new taxes. These are not small states with small governments and few problems. Don’t tell me it can’t be done in Washington.

rockmom on July 5, 2011 at 11:42 AM

So does Mr. Brooks carry a balance on his credit card bill every month making the minimum payment and never planning to pay it back? Sure sounds like it.

txmomof6 on July 5, 2011 at 11:42 AM

OK. I’ll bite. What qualifications does it take to become an Intellectual Authority? A degree in a make work major, such as Political Science? Does your intellect become fluorescent if you double major in something equally useless, such as Philosophy or African American Studies?

Is this a union gig, complete with retirement at age 52?

MNHawk on July 5, 2011 at 11:23 AM

Now that you mention it . . . “intellectual” and “authority” don’t really belong together.

Intellectual implies that one is open to the facts as they are, not what an “authority” claims them to be.

It’s anti-science. Science should always be open to new facts, and whether they fit into theory, or said theory should be discarded.

There is no such thing as an “intellectual authority.” The second word is in direct opposition to the first.

Alana on July 5, 2011 at 11:43 AM

<strong>SHUT…UP…BROOKS!!

GEEZ, YOU STUPID MEATHEAD!

NEXT comes the obligatory Kathleen Parker Thread.

Shoot me.

Scoreboard44 on July 5, 2011 at 11:44 AM

It looks like Journolist is alive and well. Notice how Cohen’s and Brooks’ pieces are nearly identical. Wouldn’t be surprised to find many other such pieces out there this week following this exact meme.

Look for this to be the theme going forward.

Monkeytoe on July 5, 2011 at 11:44 AM

Brooks,

You hopeless idiot, above poster pointing out that we’ve done things the socialist way for what 80 years?

Your scholars are a bunch of morons and so are you. SOCIALISM FAILS EVERY TIME IT IS ATTEMPTED. No matter how mild it is done, socialism is simply abject failure.

And those who keep trying to foist more of it on us look more and more like dribbling simpletons that need to be hidden away in an attic somewhere.

dogsoldier on July 5, 2011 at 11:44 AM

OFF TOPIC:

Falls into the you-just-can’t-make-this-stuff-up category, unless you are “researchers from Boston and Harvard Universities and Finland’s University of Turku…”

Asia pollution blamed for halt in warming: study

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/04/us-climate-sulphur-idUSTRE7634IQ20110704

Note for oakland: even the researchers from Boston,, Havard and Turku Universities admit there has been no temp rise in ten years. File this away for later use, people.

Yoop on July 5, 2011 at 11:45 AM

The ole projection game again…

As liberals became more unhinged ove rhte past 40 years, hyper excellerating in the past 10 – the narrative will now turn the tables and claim Reps are the loony ones.

The original thought from Brooks is akin to a sheet of paper. And “compromise” isn’t a form of logic in politics – its a trojan horse of blackmail; normally used under the auspices of racism, sexism, class warfare, etc.

Now David, let me tell you what is insane and illogical: Trusting a liberal rag and its author who do the bidding of a failed and inept administration. Allowing the non producers of society to dictate to those who produce. Forcing a rate of return less than the investment costs.

Odie1941 on July 5, 2011 at 11:45 AM

Also, notice how “intellectual” is always defined as “things liberals believe”.

Monkeytoe on July 5, 2011 at 11:45 AM

And by indecent he means GOP members’ pants creases are shockingly sloppy.

ya2daup on July 5, 2011 at 11:46 AM

His Creasiness’ head will explode like that guy in Scanners when Obama fails to be re-elected.

Laura Curtis on July 5, 2011 at 11:47 AM

In August the treasury will bring in approximately $178 billion dollars for the month. The interest due on the debt during that month is abour $28 billion. The only people talking about defaulting on the debt are the progressives. Conservatives realize that we have more than enough incoming revenue to meet debt obligations.

paulsur on July 5, 2011 at 11:48 AM

And those who keep trying to foist more of it on us look more and more like dribbling simpletons that need to be hidden away in an attic somewhere.
dogsoldier on July 5, 2011 at 11:44 AM

Look for a strongly-worded letter of reprimand from attics everywhere that closes with the suggestion to try belfries instead, since they are the ‘go-to’ places for moon bats.

ya2daup on July 5, 2011 at 11:49 AM

I took an economics class in college. One of the ten principles outlined in the book was taxes are bad for business. Doesn’t matter how high or low the taxes are, taxing a business is just bad. When will people understand this?

Sleeper on July 5, 2011 at 11:51 AM

So does Mr. Brooks carry a balance on his credit card bill every month making the minimum payment and never planning to pay it back? Sure sounds like it.

txmomof6 on July 5, 2011 at 11:42 AM

Also, the credit card is in his grandchildren’s name, and he isn’t making any payments.

Kensington on July 5, 2011 at 11:51 AM

And he’s bitching because the credit card company won’t increase his limit.

Kensington on July 5, 2011 at 11:52 AM

It looks like Journolist is alive and well.

Monkeytoe on July 5, 2011 at 11:44 AM

JournoList was the biggest media scandel to come out of the 2008 election. Sadly, so few people even know about it.

And yes, I think a version of JournaList 2.0 is up and running again. There are way too many coincidences lately to think otherwise…

Fallon on July 5, 2011 at 11:52 AM

It looks like Journolist is alive and well. Notice how Cohen’s and Brooks’ pieces are nearly identical. Wouldn’t be surprised to find many other such pieces out there this week following this exact meme.

Look for this to be the theme going forward.

Monkeytoe on July 5, 2011 at 11:44 AM

Coordinated effort to deflect the insanity of this admin and Dems alike. Coordinated effort to desperately place blame on those “Wasculy Wepublicans” – whcih also is a tie in to the meme “Bachman is a little crazy” .. so the little minions are now running with it.

The good part is most of your NYC liberal elites have better things to do than worry about the “po folks”… its Hamptons season.

And speaking of the Hamptons – why arent these multi-million dollar properties owned by die hard liberal millionaires assembleged and sold to offer housing projects and food for the poor folks they claim to love? I am quite sure a 12 bedroom 20,000 square foot home could house a good 25-30 people who were forced to buy a home they couldnt afford, and who happen to be black.

That would be the sane thing to do liberals.

Odie1941 on July 5, 2011 at 11:53 AM

A nation makes a sacred pledge to pay the money back when it borrows money.

I’m inspired. So let’s reduce the National Debt by 1/20 — roughly $700B — every year from now until it’s paid off.

cthulhu on July 5, 2011 at 11:55 AM

Alana: While I do not disagree with your general premise, you are conflating ‘intellectual’ with ‘scientific’ there.

You may not be able to have ‘scientific’ authorities, but you certainly can have intellectual authority. (Socrates would be one, for example.)

The problem is not that conservatives disrespect intellectual authority; we simply know that they’re wrong.

Scott H on July 5, 2011 at 11:55 AM

Why does anybody care a whit about what the New York Times’ “House Republican” has to say anyway? Just who is his audience? (I mean besides David Frum, of course.)

Cicero43 on July 5, 2011 at 11:56 AM

David Brooks, the quintessential “compassionate conservative”. A true “point of light” if ever there was one.

Alas, dorks like Brooks moan about staining the nation’s honor but never heard the phrase about by not defending your honor people will assume you have none. That’s what the conservatives are doing. Defending their position vis a vis the debt and taxes etc. If they give in, a al Brooks, they will once again prove they have no honor and are merely trollops with round heels to be ravished at will by the Dems. Brooks confuses “easy virtue” with honor. Talk about insane.

JimP on July 5, 2011 at 11:57 AM

Screw you, you limp-wristed Pinot Grigio drinker.

blatantblue on July 5, 2011 at 11:17 AM

Of all the insults thrown at Brooksy, this one will piss him off the most.

+++100000

portlandon on July 5, 2011 at 11:58 AM

The members of this movement do not accept the legitimacy of scholars and intellectual authorities.

Clearly Brooks is part of the Obama “movement”. I can tell because he has corn stuck to him. (Now that’s indecent!)

Extrafishy on July 5, 2011 at 11:59 AM

In August the treasury will bring in approximately $178 billion dollars for the month. The interest due on the debt during that month is abour $28 billion. The only people talking about defaulting on the debt are the progressives. Conservatives realize that we have more than enough incoming revenue to meet debt obligations.

paulsur on July 5, 2011 at 11:48 AM

Forget it. Washington Monument syndrome works very well, history shows that. Seen the democratics’ tv attack ads, ‘you only hurt the ones you love…’?

I’m afraid it has to get much worse before the democratics will drop the politics and the liberal media will set aside their worship of Chicago Jesus.

slickwillie2001 on July 5, 2011 at 12:00 PM

DB;dr

(HT: Ann Althouse)

Dusty on July 5, 2011 at 12:06 PM

Maybe it IS time to raise taxes. Let’s start with Social Security and Medicare taxes since those are the programs in the biggest hole. We should raise the income cap as well to about $200k since those highly paid academics, lawyers, and public servants need to do their part too.

Metanis on July 5, 2011 at 12:08 PM

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.

Brooks is intellectually retarded and morally bankrupt. The legislators who have spent us into insolvency have never had the slightest idea of how to “pay the money back” or any intention of doing so.

Brooks’ boy Obama the Marxist, faced with an increasing deficit and debt, did the opposite of what is rational and moral: he increased spending by 25%. And anyone with a brain can understand that increasing taxes won’t repay anything, and will make it harder to improve the economy and increase tax revenues though growth.

So is he stupid or dishonest, or both? I think both.

Jaibones on July 5, 2011 at 12:10 PM

The problem is not that conservatives disrespect intellectual authority; we simply know that they’re wrong.

Scott H on July 5, 2011 at 11:55 AM

We also don’t confuse “intelligent” with “credentialed.” Brooks is a credentialed moron.

PackerBronco on July 5, 2011 at 12:16 PM

There is no such thing as an “intellectual authority.” The second word is in direct opposition to the first.

Alana on July 5, 2011 at 11:43 AM

Remember Sheehan’s supposed “ultimate moral authority”. The left is so quick to want to anoint purveyors of “The One True Truth That Shall Not Be Questioned”. Perhaps it’s because they don’t like to think for themselves.

strictnein on July 5, 2011 at 12:17 PM

DB;dr

(HT: Ann Althouse)

Dusty on July 5, 2011 at 12:06 PM

Very nice.

strictnein on July 5, 2011 at 12:19 PM

Lord … just go away.

darwin on July 5, 2011 at 12:19 PM

I think the GOP should use this as an opportunity to scream not for tax relief but for tax reform. Pick your form. The point is that Dems had the White House and Congress for two solid years and did nothing about a problem that virtually all Americans can agree on–income tax simplification. Now, with a divided Congress and WH, tax policy will drift until early 2013. Obama isn’t serious about tax reform and tax simplification. Heck, he doesn’t know anything about these issues. The GOP should highlight it in the presidential race and in all Senate races where there’s a chance to pick up a seat. I emphasize this because I saw a Fox Panel on yesterday’s Special Report, and the small-business owner said that for him the problem isn’t so much the tax rates as it is the burden of compliance. I’ve prepared S corporation returns and partnership returns and the individual returns of those who have interests in such entities. These taxpayers hate the complexity. Granted, some things can’t ever be made simple, but the GOP should make it a priority to develop a tax simplification plank in the platform.

BuckeyeSam on July 5, 2011 at 12:22 PM

The Brooksian crowd seems to be living in an alternative universe. Over the last couple of decades, were our leaders in DC highly credentialed, or high school drop outs? The answer is that many (most?) of them are very highly credentialed. Even GWB is included in this group (with a better GPA than Kerry). But Brooks acts as if this is not the case when suggesting that people are foolish for not wanting to simple follow the thoughts of the person with the most letters after their name.

They dug the hole, are still digging, and he’s upset we’re trying to take away their shovel.

strictnein on July 5, 2011 at 12:23 PM

The members of this movement do not accept the legitimacy of scholars and intellectual authorities.

Same leftist story. If you don’t agree with the left you’re crazy, stupid, indecent, not fit to wear the mantle of human.

Yawn.

darwin on July 5, 2011 at 12:26 PM

Perhaps if Republicans could quote Niebuhr…

SukieTawdry on July 5, 2011 at 12:27 PM

I’m pretty sure the scholars and intellectuals he’s talking about got us into this mess.

mchristian on July 5, 2011 at 12:37 PM

George H. W. Bush played the role of Charlie Brown to Congress’ Lucy in 1990, for which Democrats pilloried him as a liar with their “Read my lips” attack ads in 1992.

Ronaldus Magnus also fell victim to that bait and switch. Congress promised him 3 dollars in spending cuts for every dollar in tax increase in the TEFRA bill. Reagan trusted them, and Lucy pulled the football at the last minute, there were no spending cuts.

I’ve heard several Dhimms recently suggest the same ratio, $3 in spending cuts for each $1 in tax increases. This time we need to forget the football, and kick Lucy.

iurockhead on July 5, 2011 at 12:37 PM

The members of this movement do not accept the legitimacy of scholars and intellectual authorities.

Why David, you do understand!

I reject your lefty intellectual authoritah.

disa on July 5, 2011 at 12:44 PM

Odie1941 on July 5, 2011 at 11:45 AM

Exactly. You don’t get past the first sentence without thinking this is really an attempt to get the anger out. Unfortunately for them, it really does nothing more than highlight this issue with the self. This journalism is a rotting corpse that needs a final resting place.

RDE2010 on July 5, 2011 at 12:46 PM

There is no such thing as an “intellectual authority.” The second word is in direct opposition to the first.

Alana on July 5, 2011 at 11:43 AM

Remember Sheehan’s supposed “ultimate moral authority”. The left is so quick to want to anoint purveyors of “The One True Truth That Shall Not Be Questioned”. Perhaps it’s because they don’t like to think for themselves.

strictnein on July 5, 2011 at 12:17 PM

And that word “authority” just looks so…authoritarian.

RDE2010 on July 5, 2011 at 12:50 PM

The only reason we are subject to Brooks thoughts are the assertion he is a conservative. He is not. He voted for Obama and has continuously advocated for the Democratic point of view. He is an impersonator.

pat on July 5, 2011 at 12:51 PM

Republican party elite poster boy strikes again.
next up…he endorses Chairman Maobama for a second term.

james23 on July 5, 2011 at 1:04 PM

Are we sure this isn’t just some Iowahawk parody and the NY Times was somehow hacked and this slipped in?

If that’s not the case. . . .could he just please publish the list of “Intellectual Authorities” he’s thinking of. . . . . .??

Narniaman on July 5, 2011 at 1:16 PM

Mr. Brooks writes:

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.

This is not true. Rather, some of us want the government to cut (by the inch, foot, yard, furlong, whatever…) as an entirely standalone act – just once – prove that it is even possible – we need to see it, to believe it.Then, having done that, we can discuss raising taxes.

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.

Lied to. Lied to. Lied to. Lied to. liedtoleidtoliedtoliedto! Suddenly, Mr. Brooks is surprised by skepticism. (Hint: we’ve been lied to!)

massrighty on July 5, 2011 at 1:18 PM

could he just please publish the list of “Intellectual Authorities” he’s thinking of. . . . . .??

Narniaman on July 5, 2011 at 1:16 PM

Himself. Mr. Frum. Ms. Noonan. Mr. Krauthammer. Mr. Krugman. And like that.

massrighty on July 5, 2011 at 1:20 PM

Foster Brooks was the one I always trusted for advice.

countrybumpkin on July 5, 2011 at 1:23 PM

The members of this movement do not accept the logic of compromise, no matter how sweet the terms.

First of all, the terms being offered by Democrats are not that “sweet.”

Second, why would anyone want to compromise with people who are pushing policies that have been shown time and again to utterly fail?

UltimateBob on July 5, 2011 at 1:26 PM

let’s back the train up the tracks just a little bit here.

I swear, I love me some Ed Morrissey!!

Oh, and Brooks was broadsided by the caboose while drooling over the crease in Obama’s trousers. HAH!

TN Mom on July 5, 2011 at 2:00 PM

Now David, let me tell you what is insane and illogical: Trusting a liberal rag and its author who do the bidding of a failed and inept administration. Allowing the non producers of society to dictate to those who produce. Forcing a rate of return less than the investment costs.

Odie1941 on July 5, 2011 at 11:45 AM

Exactly!

TN Mom on July 5, 2011 at 2:04 PM

Brooks is a jerk, loving the attention from the Left that this gives him. It’s really that simple.

Esthier on July 5, 2011 at 2:39 PM

The only reason we are subject to Brooks thoughts are the assertion he is a conservative. He is not. He voted for Obama and has continuously advocated for the Democratic point of view. He is an impersonator.

pat on July 5, 2011 at 12:51 PM

Sadly, it’s a profitable career path. There will always be a demand for token fake-conservatives in the liberal old media.

slickwillie2001 on July 5, 2011 at 2:49 PM

Reuters article…

The paper raised the prospect of more rapid, pent-up climate change when emerging economies eventually crack down on pollution.

Don’t you just love it when scientists use obscure technical terms like “pent-up”. That’s a sure mark of rock-solid research.

drunyan8315 on July 5, 2011 at 3:16 PM

David Axelrod is indeed Ellsworth Toohey. Did you know that brooks and Axelrod go way long back? Like Toohey this guy believes in setting up people in all the right places. It takes long time but once its done you can reap the rewards. And with Brooks type of Republican, he’s hitting pay dirt.

I have long suspected that Brooks whether he’s ranting about Palin or tea parties or this latest incoherent rant, is just transcribing WH talking points. They spew this bilge at the watercooler and he basically stenographs it for them.

promachus on July 5, 2011 at 3:47 PM

Was it not the so called “legitimacy of scholars and intellectual authorities” that said we must pass the bailout & must pass the stimulus plan or we would face 8% unemployement and a housing bubble?

I believe those are now in the rear view mirror and problems are escalating.

What a douche!

generouse on July 5, 2011 at 7:19 PM

This “mother of all no-brainers” deal that Brooks accuses the GOP of turning down doesn’t exist.

Well as Nancy Pelosi said; “We have to pass the bill before you know what’s in it.”

Herb on July 5, 2011 at 8:07 PM

I think Brooks is gay for Obama.

MCGIRV on July 5, 2011 at 9:13 PM

Brooks is so full of sheeeit he can’t see. It’s the dems that have been infected with

a “psychological” faction that has made them unreasonable and nearly insane

And, I’d submit that “nearly” be edited out…

Gohawgs on July 6, 2011 at 1:08 AM

Projection: A defense mechanism by which your own traits and emotions are attributed to someone else.

{^_^}

herself on July 6, 2011 at 6:35 AM

Regarding only the logic of Brooks’ ‘moral decency’:

First, only being willing to pay back loans if the lender agrees to lend you again the first amount plus interest plus spending cash is extortion – which is so wrong that it is illegal.

If you say it’s not extortion because you intend to pay back the money by borrowing the first amount plus interest plus spending cash from other lenders instead of the first lender is a Ponzi scheme – and this, too, is so wrong that it’s illegal.

flicker on July 6, 2011 at 9:48 PM

Comment pages: 1 2