David Brooks may sound a bit doom and gloom in his latest piece in the New York Times, but they are the realities a Democratic President will face if elected.
When Reality Bites
By DAVID BROOKS
There’s a big difference between the Republican and Democratic campaigns: The Republicans have split on policy grounds; the Democrats haven’t. There’s been a Republican divide between center and right, yet no Democratic divide between center and left.
But when you think about it, the Democratic policy unity is a mirage. If the Democrats actually win the White House, the tensions would resurface with a vengeance.
The first big rift would involve Iraq. Both Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have seductively hinted that they would withdraw almost all U.S. troops within 12 to 16 months. But if either of them actually did that, he or she would instantly make Iraq the consuming partisan fight of their presidency.
[snip]
Both campaigns now promise fiscal discipline, as well as ambitious new programs. These kinds of have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too vows were merely laughable last year when the federal deficit was running at a manageable $163 billion a year. But the economic slowdown, the hangover from the Bush years and the growing bite of entitlements mean that the federal deficit will almost certainly top $400 billion by 2009. The accumulated national debt will be in shouting distance of the $10 trillion mark. With that much red ink, the primary-season spending plans are simply ridiculous.
It’d be 1993 all over again. The new Democratic president would be faced with Bill Clinton’s Robert Rubin vs. Robert Reich choice: either scale back priorities for the sake of fiscal discipline or blow through all known deficit records for the sake of bigger programs. Choose the former, and the new president would further outrage the left. Choose the latter and lose the financial establishment and the political center.
This is the debate that Democrats have been quietly rearguing during the entire Bush presidency. The left wing of the party is absolutely committed to winning it this time. It will likely demand the clean energy subsidies and the education spending, the expensive health care coverage and subsides to address middle-class anxiety. But no Democratic president can afford to offend independent voters with runaway spending. No president can easily ignore the think tank establishment, which is rightfully exercised about the nation’s long-term fiscal health. (more…)
If folks do not start thinking about this kind of stuff now, the same people out there now who are now caught up in the rapture of love with Obama (I’m talking about folks out there who cannot tell you at least two of his positions) will be forced to defend this mess for the next four years JUST–LIKE–THEY–DID–WITH–CLINTON.
Although Obama is left of Clinton, I don’t believe he will be any further from the left than Bill Clinton if elected. As David Brooks pointed out in his piece, Obama would be a fool to pull out the troops earlier than what our generals are recommending. And how will his backing off a campaign promise be spun? “This is President Obama’s way of reaching across the aisle”.
As far as the national budget goes, you can’t promise fiscal discipline and announce million/billion dollar initiatives in the same breath. I refer to that as digging a hole to fill another. Saying stuff like “We should take that money we are spending in Iraq and use it to help the poor in our country” will guarantee a candidate a lot of cheers, but has anyone stopped to realize that we have been waging war against poverty since President Lyndon B. Johnson’s administration? That was back in 1964—yeah, an over 40 year old war–and poverty still persists.
Now I know for many of you out there, a post like this automatically has placed me in the ‘Obama (or Clinton) hater’ category simply because I am not one of those basking in the glow of the possible first Black president. While that is certainly a great milestone that I will gladly celebrate with family if it happens, I tend to be one of those folks whose mind is already on Monday morning right in the middle of a great weekend. Like it or not, Monday morning is coming for Obama and all the fine speaking in the world will not be enough to out-maneuver himself away from these very important issues. Label me as you wish, but like I stated in an earlier post, it may very well turn out that I will end up defending Obama as soon as folks begin turning on him for his inability to walk on water.
John Quincy Adams nails it: “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
So does Lady Nancy Astor: “The trouble with most people is that they think with their hopes or fears or wishes rather than with their minds.”
For my solid Democratic readers out there, here is your bone (if you need it).
As far as a McCain presidency goes, I feel that he will take the Republican party further from its base: Conservatives. Despite all of his mea culpa speeches (I heard that he is supposed to be on Sean Hannity’ radio show in yet another attempt to gain confidence with conservatives), his record speaks louder than any campaign promise he could make at this point. I think that he will continue spend like there is no tomorrow just like President Bush. As far as his position on the war goes, he also would be foolish to play D.C. general.
Pick your poison.
Sphere: Related Content
February 12th, 2008 at 6:53 am
If the majority of people of this country decides that we want to provide healthcare or anything else in this country we would be able to do it easily. That is why Obama is trying to build a “working” majority. I find it funny how when we need money for wars there is no problem, no complaints about where the money comes from. But as soon as we start talking about providing services to people all of sudden there is a cry about money. Where will the money come from? Have you seen the defense budget of this country??? It is freaking outrageous. Where are “conservatives” when it comes to that? We can take 1/20th of that budget and pay for everything you have stated here plus more.
I can not explain it any better than this site:
http://www.yorkgrassroots.org/usbudget101.html
PLEASE watch the cartoon! It will answer every one of the typical questions I know you are about to ask.
February 12th, 2008 at 11:32 am
I find it very interesting that you would refer to a site that uses a WARTIME budget to prove how the US has ‘left behind’ the poor. If you want to really want to get an idea of just how much the US has spent on fighting poverty, start from the Johnson administration. The numbers I keep finding on multiple sites range from 5-8 trillion dollars. Of course, this is a drop in the bucket compared to what the private sector has contributed over the years. Yet despite all of this generosity, we sit here in 2008 still whining about poverty. If those who regularly fall back on the tired “We need to cut funding to Iraq and channel it to help fight poverty” line are so fiscally conservative all of a sudden, why is there little talk from them about cutting programs that do not work? Answer: Because cutting a program–regardless if it works or not–could make one look too mean and insensitive. So you continue throwing money at the problem not necessarily to solve it, but to provide a limited self-esteem fix for the giver. Living out here in one of the richest states in the union, I have plenty of examples I could point to on this.
BTW: The site you mentioned also uses the website ‘Iraq Body Count’s’ numbers to show just how many civilians have been killed in the war. The only problem with their numbers is that they are including the civilians killed by the terrorists and the terrorists themselves! Read who you wish, I just saying that I have to cross check some of the sites I read as well as folks have a tendency of doctoring facts based on what they want to believe.
February 12th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Have you seen the defense budget of this country??? It is freaking outrageous.
As a percentage of GDP, its what? Compared to say the WWII, Vietnam or Korean war eras. Educate me.
February 12th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
Duane,
I wasn’t making any commentary about the war on Poverty.. If I were to do so I would say it is B.S. There is no war on poverty and never has been.. It is a slogan… Kinda like War on Terrorism (which is a tactic not a country or group of people).
Also the 2008 budget that is shown at the site I linked does include war costs. But this is VERY SMALL part of the total defense budget.. If you look at the other graghps (follow the “additional charts” link) you will see plenty of other graphs from previous years that do not include the war. The differerence is about 4-5%… Does it makes you feel better to say that defense spending is 54% of all descretionary spending vs 59%?
Also you question the sites data. This is not the only site that I saw with this data on it. It was just the cleanest and most professional one. And if you follow the additional charts link you will see much more data. The data is straight from official sources as far as I can tell. If you see any descrpencies then so be it. Please point them out. I didn’t go there looking for body count numbers or anything like that. Nor did I see any when I went there after reading your comment.
Purple A.
Who cares what the percentage of the GDP it is?? Wasted money is wasted money. $400 billion dollars a year is $400 billion dollars… I don’t care if it is .00000001% of the GDP. What percentage of te GDP is any of the social programs you want to do away with?
I am a hell of lot more likely to die from cancer than a terrorist attack or a nuclear attack on Chicago… So if you “conservatives” want to protect me from something so bad, then please protect me from that.
February 13th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
I was born in 1969 so the why I see it the governement has been actively but unsuccessfully fighting the war on poverty my entire life. But guess what? There are still poor folks all over the place! The only people who appear to have benefitted from this “poverty war” are all of the folks that now work within this ovegrown social services network that the war on poverty has created.
So today we have numerous black folks spending a great deal of money (most loans and government grants) to get an advanced education so they can provide social services to poor folks yet these people all continue to be poor!
Somehow the majority of the “providers” are unable to identify that them themselves are actually drinking from the same Welfare cup as the people they service. Both parties get a government check that is derived from government transfer payments that all come from our taxes. Sick, isnt it!
I used to work as a contractor for a city “social service” agency. The office was located in a part of town were the only people actually generating income inthe community were the merchants (all immigrants) Just about every black person I could identify that was making an income in excess of $35,000 was working for the state or federal government.
Sometimes when we get to wondering as to why we have messed up streets and schools in our communities we need to think about were our tax money actually goes.
Somehow we do not have money to pay a blackman to fix our communties but we seem to be able to find all the money necessary to give out welfare checks and pay for stupid “how to raise a baby” classes for irresponsible teenage girls and the “feel good” adults that teach this crap!