In The Conversation, David Brooks and Gail Collins talk between columns every Wednesday.Tags:
Alex Wong/Getty ImagesPresident Obama spoke about the budget proposal, among other things, at a news conference on Feb. 15.Gail Collins: David, I can tell that you’re picking up on my feeling that we should have more arguments. So continue, please.
The Republicans view the president’s budget as mind-blowingly absurd.
Most of the conversation is calm and detail oriented. There’s a lot of talk about applying research criteria so we can evaluate programs more effectively. For example, most Pell grants seem effective, but summer Pell grants may be less so. The emphasis is on getting the small stuff right.
Gail Collins: Presidential budget proposals only exist to be mauled and destroyed by Congress. The one thing I took from the whole Obama presentation was: I’m ready to talk about serious cutting when you people are, but in the meantime, let’s not go crazy and destroy the economic recovery.
I take it you got a different message from the other side?
David Brooks: Talk with Republicans is like riding around in a screaming race car at Daytona. Republicans are morally offended by Obama’s cowardice. The country faces a great big whopping fiscal problem and he’s punting on every issue.
I don’t believe the Republicans are genuinely surprised.
David Brooks: Obama told the members of the Simpson-Bowles commission that he would back them up all the way, Republicans continue, and yet when it comes time to actually commit, he stabs them in the back, ignoring their diagnosis of the scope of the problem and passing on their ideas. Instead of seriously addressing the country’s problems, his budget adds $7.2 trillion in new debt over the next decade.
Gail Collins: The Simpson-Bowles commission plan needed 14 votes to be approved and sent to Congress and it didn’t get them. More important, among the members voting against it were the current heads of the House Budget and Ways and Means committees. Who do you need to have a sane discussion about reducing entitlements? The House Republicans. Who did not support the commission report? The House Republicans.
J. Scott Applewhite/Associated Press Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, chairman of the House Budget Committee.Obama talks about being responsible, the Republicans conclude, but then he comes out with this. They claim to be genuinely surprised and angry.
David Brooks: I, of course, wonder what the endgame is. The president has clearly decided not to lead on fiscal matters. He’s daring the Republicans to go first. The positive interpretation is that once Representative Paul Ryan and his fellow Republicans talk about addressing entitlements and other serious deficit reduction measures, he will join them in that difficult place.
Gail Collins: Paul Ryan, as you know better than I, has already addressed many of the entitlement issues. With a plan that his caucus doesn’t support. I think it makes sense for the president to wait and see what Congress comes up with. They won’t follow his lead anyway.
The president has clearly decided not to lead on fiscal matters.
For the Republicans, the cynical interpretation is that Obama will sell them out, demagogue them for cutting benefits to old people and cruise to re-election.
Gail Collins: Here’s what the Republicans need to do if they’re serious about improving Social Security: Say that everything’s on the table, including raising the cap on the payroll tax. Here’s what they need to do if they’re serious about fixing Medicare: Say that they’re willing to discuss ways to improve the health care law. Everybody knows the law could be made more effective when it comes to controlling costs. But nothing’s going to be done if the Republicans are only willing to talk about repeal.
David Brooks: I’m beginning to think the Republicans, in their alarm and anger, are being goaded into walking into the entitlement minefield on their own. They are telling themselves that if they take on Medicare and Social Security, the country will be with them.
Gail Collins: Both parties have spent the last decade assuring the public that the economy can be fixed, the budget balanced, taxes lowered and Medicare and Social Security protected. Neither side has the high ground — although as I said before, the Republicans were the culprit most recently, during the health care debate.
I think it makes sense for the president to wait and see what Congress comes up with.
David Brooks: My basic take is that the White House is good on the micro and horrible on the macro.
Gail Collins: How can you suggest they can’t see the big picture? Remember health care reform?
David Brooks: On the budget, the White House is good at evaluating programs, but the scale of their cuts is absurdly small, given the problems. The Republicans are bad on the micro but good on the macro. Especially when it comes to this year’s budget, they don’t even pretend to evaluate programs for effectiveness, but at least they understand the scope of the problem.
Charles Dharapak/Associated Press Representative Eric Cantor of Virginia, House majority leader.David Brooks: Politically, I’m almost thinking that Obama has been setting the Republicans up all along. He teased them with the deficit commission, raising hopes that the debt would be addressed. Then he pulled back. When they leap into the breach, he’ll strike. Great for the second term, ruinous for the country, of course.
Gail Collins: If that’s the most ruinous scenario on the horizon, I can proceed forward with equanimity.
