CEPR - Center for Economic and Policy Research

Multimedia

En Español

Em Português

Other Languages

Home Publications Blogs Beat the Press Brooks Left Himself Off the List of Budget Deal Villains

Brooks Left Himself Off the List of Budget Deal Villains

Print
Tuesday, 19 July 2011 04:19

Surely it was an oversight. In his column today, David Brooks lists all the various groups on the Republican side who made it difficult, if not impossible, to work out a deal with President Obama for large cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and other government programs. For some reason he forgot to include people like himself, ostensible moderates who routinely mislead the public about the budget.

As every budget expert knows, the large budget deficits we currently face are not the result of out of control spending, but rather the downturn caused by the collapse of the housing bubble. If the deficit were smaller right now, we would be seeing lower output and higher unemployment. Nonetheless, Brooks has been happy to contribute to the notion that spending and deficits are out of control.

Every budget expert also knows that the long-term story of exploding deficits is first and foremost a story of runaway private sector health care costs. The problem is not "entitlements." If we paid the same amount per person for our health care as people in other wealthy countries then we would be looking at budget surpluses in the long-term, not deficits. However, Brooks would rather blame entitlements in his columns, helping to convince readers that the problem is demographics.

Brooks also fundamentally misrepresents public sentiment. In today's column he tells readers:

"Opinion polls showed that voters are eager to reduce the federal debt, and they want to do it mostly but not entirely through spending cuts."

This is not really true. Opinion polls show that most voters, including most Republicans, do not want to see Social Security and Medicare cut. They also do not want to see many other large areas of spending, like unemployment insurance, or infrastructure spending, cut.

The public has been convinced by people like David Brooks that there are vast amounts of government money being spent on things like John McCain's Woodstock Museum. The polls indicate that they would like to see these items cut. However, all the arguably wasteful spending items in this category only amount to a small fraction of the budget. Eliminating them will not have a notable impact on the deficit.

Comments (2)Add Comment
Thank You
written by Marvin, July 19, 2011 10:30
All of these things seem like they should be obvious, but I guess that's not the case. People seem only willing to accept a one-way relationship between government and the private sector: the former hurts the latter. Don't even try to talk about revenue dynamics, automatic stabilizers, the concept of effective income. Thank you for actually writing something sensible.
...
written by izzatzo, July 19, 2011 10:31
The public has been convinced by people like David Brooks that there are vast amounts of government money being spent on things like John McCain's Woodstock Museum.


Have you no respect sir? McCain's father was an Admiral in the Navy when he was shot down in Vietnam. If anyone knows about out of control peacenik pot head Woodstock hippie deficit spending to support a war it's McCain.

Write comment

(Only one link allowed per comment)

This content has been locked. You can no longer post any comments.

busy
 

CEPR.net
Support this blog, donate
Combined Federal Campaign #79613

About Beat the Press

Dean Baker is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, D.C. He is the author of several books, his latest being The End of Loser Liberalism: Making Markets Progressive. Read more about Dean.

Archives