On Tuesday, I wrote that the Obama budget is a liberal, big government document that should make moderates nervous. The column generated a large positive response from moderate Obama supporters who are anxious about where the administration is headed. It was not so popular inside the White House. Within a day, I had conversations with four senior members of the administration and in the interest of fairness, I thought I’d share their arguments with you today.
In the first place, they do not see themselves as a group of liberal crusaders. They see themselves as pragmatists who inherited a government and an economy that have been thrown out of whack. They’re not engaged in an ideological project to overturn the Reagan Revolution, a fight that was over long ago.There are, no doubt, those within the administration that do not see themselves as liberal crusaders. There are also, equally certain, those within the administration that do.
It would almost be comforting if Obama was among the latter. I am starting to suspect that he is amongst the former. He likes thinking of himself as thoughtful and moderate. It would be a reflection of the bubble in which he lives, if he views as thoughtful and moderate policies which Americans increasingly see as being hard left.
...Second, they argue, the Obama administration will not usher in an era of big government. Federal spending over the last generation has been about 20 percent of G.D.P. This year, it has surged to about 27 percent. But they aim to bring spending down to 22 percent of G.D.P. in a few years... I was invited to hang this chart on my wall and judge them by how well they meet these targets. (I have.)As Brooks suspects, this is very likely bs. Even Krugman expects the over. Which argues that "Obamatons" responding were -- less than effectively -- in the business of dis-information.
I suspect that they understand that if the economy is doing well in 3 years, they will be able to persuasively argue "see 30+% is good for the economy" and if the economy is still doing poorly, they will be able to persuasively argue "We obviously can't now cut programs Americans are depending on to get them through crisis". Leaving Brooks' chart politically meaningless.
Third, they say, Republicans should welcome the budget’s health care ideas. The Medicare reform represents a big cut in entitlement spending. It amounts to means-testing the system. It introduces more competition and cuts corporate welfare. These are all Republican ideas...I agree with this. Obama has shown a willingness to measure the efficacy of government programs. I think this a process Republicans ought to embrace and ought to ensure that the metrics used are as objective and comprehensive as possible.
We believe that free people making free decisions produce better results then centralized, politicized, bureaucrats making decisions for everyone else, and we should welcome initiatives that offer to provide data which demonstrates that.
Fifth, the Obama folks feel they spend as much time resisting liberal ideas as enacting them. The president resisted union pressure and capped pay increases for government workers. He resisted efforts to create mandatory veterans’ health benefits. The administration plans to tackle the suspiciously large increase in the number of people claiming disability benefits.Obama was the candidate of ivy-league, not blue collar, liberals. That he is resisting pressure from blue collar liberals, while enacting, virtually wholesale, the agenda of ivy-league liberals, is hardly comforting to moderates.
I didn’t finish these conversations feeling chastened exactly... Nonetheless, 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...If these conversations where, in fact, sophisticated and fact-based, Brooks failed to do them justice. What these people understand, I more suspect, is how to humor a somewhat conservative columnist.
No comments:
Post a Comment