David Brooks: GOP Spending Freeze Idea Is "Insane," Party Too Stuck On Reagan

[Wetzelbill]

Brooks: GOP Spending Freeze Idea Is "Insane," Party Too Stuck On Reagan

New York Times columnist David Brooks said on Sunday that it was "insane" for Republicans in Congress, including every GOP member of the House, to support a spending freeze in the middle of a recession.

Tying such proposals to an intellectual simplicity exhibited by Rush Limbaugh, the conservative scribe also said the party was too obsessed with pursuing the legacy of Ronald Reagan in a drastically different time.

"The problem with them and the problem with Limbaugh in terms of intellectual philosophy is they are stuck with Reagan," Brooks said during an appearance on "This Week with George Stephanopoulos." "They are stuck with the idea that government is always the problem. A lot of Republicans up in Capitol Hill right now are calling for a spending freeze in a middle of a recession/depression. That is insane. But they are thinking the way they thought in 1982, if we can only think that way again, that is just insane. And there are a lot of Republicans like David Frum ... who are trying to say Reagan was right for his era, but it is time to move on. And there are just not a lot of them on Capitol Hill right now, and I think the party is looking for that kind of Republican."


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/08/brooks-gop-spending-freez_n_172838.html

[readmoreoften]

1. Well, neocons don't really have a problem spending for reasons of "national defense"

and fixing the economy might be one of those "crises" they love so much.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

2. I could go along with a limited spending freeze

Stop spending on Iraq, Afghani wars.
Stop spending on Homeland Security Administration.
Stop spending on DEA.
With all that, we could afford single-payer universal health care, and have a little left over for schools.

But the Republicans probably aren't thinking of stopping war spending, just social program spending.

[ProfessorGAC]

3. His Message Is A Little Confusing

Really, who had an economic policy more rooted in spending buckets of money, than Reagan? A spending freeze isn't a homage to Reagan. It's the exact opposite of what Reagan did.

So, i'm a little confused as to what Brooks is really talking about.
GAC

[Wetzelbill]

4. He means a few things.

He's talking about freezing spending on domestic programs. Reagan stopped spending on social programs and blew billions in other areas.

But he's also alluding to the GOP myth of balancing the budget, at least a little bit anyway. He mostly means the refusal to spend on domestic programs and projects though. Reagan didn't give a shit about infrastructure etc, just the same as these guys do, and he started the childish process of ridiculing things in a budget, sort of the Beavis and Butthead: "Heh heh heh volcano monitoring" culture.

[ProfessorGAC]

5. Spending Is Spending, No?

My point was that even Reagan didn't actually achieve any economic improvement absent spending. If Reagan doesn't throw that extra billions at things (that you and i agree were unnecessary), then the economy doesn't recover from the oil shock recession of the late 70's/early 80's.

Reagan didn't do anything but spend, spend, spend, spend. The GOP has NEVER actually reduced gov't. I think we completely agree on that.
GAC

[Wetzelbill]

7. oh yes

I was just putting on my RW thinking cap, lol.

[AB_Positive]

6. Japan tried getting tight fisted during their depression.

Economists (in hindsight of course) roundly blamed that move for lengthening the recession they had and compounding problems when the rest of the world was booming.

This is NOT the time to freeze spending. Of course that's exactly what the party of no would say.