This is what David Brooks claims in his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Bold on Both Ends" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/12/opinion/brooks-bold-on-both-ends.html?_r=0). Brooks writes:
"We’re living in a country where 53 percent of children born to women under 30 are born out of wedlock, according to government data. Millions of people, especially men, are dropping out of the labor force. Nearly half the students who begin college are unable to graduate within six years. The social fabric for people without college degrees is in shambles.
Yet President Obama is not offering proposals commensurate with those problems. Under his budget, domestic discretionary spending would be lower as a share of G.D.P. than it was under Reagan, both Bushes and Nixon. When it comes to this category, Obama’s budget would take us back to Eisenhower levels.
The president is increasing total revenues to a historically high 20 percent of G.D.P. by 2023. Federal spending would remain at a way-above-average 22 percent of G.D.P. But Washington still can’t seem to devote enough money to address the challenges faced by the less-educated and ease the segmentation of America.
. . . .
Right now, we are the North Korea of fiscal policy."
Observing that "America faces two giant problems: social unraveling today and cataclysmic debt tomorrow," Brooks concludes:
"Party leaders could postpone the debate about tax revenues. They could accept higher deficits short term. Most important, they could embrace a deal-making framework that would direct attention toward urgent needs: discretionary programs for now, structural entitlement reforms that accumulate over time."
And now for a JG Caesarea challenge: Having read Brooks's opinion piece from start to finish, tell me how many times the word "discretionary," as in "discretionary spending," "discretionary programs" and "discretionary budget category," appears? No peeking!
Three . . . two . . . one (like counting down the time it takes for one of Kim Jong Un's ballistic missiles to crash into Tokyo or Seoul) . . . pencils down! Answer: Five.
Whereas Brooks calls for "a different trade-off — not a balance between taxing and spending, but a balance between greater discretionary spending in exchange for structural entitlement reform," who is going to be given control over all that discretionary stuff? Me? You? Michelle, who thought it appropriate to be accompanied by a cast of gold-braided military social aides when she appeared at the Oscars?
Don't get me wrong - Brooks is right: America's social fabric is unraveling, but where is the tailor or seamstress who knows how to patch the widening holes? I don't think you'll find that special person parked beside the water cooler at any federal agency or wandering around the West Wing.
Maybe we should wait for answers from Chelsea Clinton, who has now taken on a chief of staff and appears ready to embark upon a career in politics destined to return her to the White House (http://freebeacon.com/chelsea-ponders-political-future/), unless her plans are hijacked by Sasha or Malia, several decades hence.
It's not going to have a happy ending, and busy as I am digging holes in the garden, I have no time to watch.
No comments:
Post a Comment