OUR MISTER BROOKS! Eve Arden wasnt a whiz with math. How about David Brooks? // link // print // previous // next //
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 3, 2010
The fruit of a forty-year script: Were off on a mission of national import. For that reason, we will postpone, until Monday, our discussion of yesterdays New York Times report concerning the Baltimore schools.
In our view, that report is the fruit of a forty-year script. Right from its very first paragraph, its almost perfectly novelized. Weve read this script a million times. Because this report is a true masterwork, it deserves a careful review.
That said, New York Times columnist David Brooks isnt a whiz-bang with numbers either. Or so it seemed when we read his new column concerning those Bush tax cuts.
Are big major journalists bollixed by math? Thats what Andrew Alexander said in Sundays Washington Post (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 11/29/10). Apparently hoping to prove the mans point, Brooks writes the following about the approach hed like Obama to take to the deficit problem. In his headline, Brooks describes what follows as his tax reform vision:
Say what? Lets start with the numbers:
Brooks proposes a plan which would reduce the federal deficit by $61 billion a year. Given the massive size of projected deficits, its hard to see how such a reduction addresses the alleged fiscal disaster which has Washington tearing its hair. That said, Mister Brooks makes no attempt to relate this figure to the size of those projected deficits. Reading his column, citizens are given no way to relate this crucial number to those which define the size of the problem.
Having puzzled at this basic number, lets turn to that passages logic:
Brooks praises the Wyden-Gregg plan because it would be more progressive. That may be so (trust but verify!), but we were struck by the logic of his next words of praise: The Tax Policy Center found it would reduce the tax bill for most families making less than $200,000. The word most is quite imprecise, of course. But if were trying to deal with disabling deficits, why would we adopt a plan which would lower the tax bill for most families making less than $200,000? If we lower taxes on all those people, wouldnt that make our deficit problem worse? One more question: Doesnt this imply that future revenue shortfalls can all be addressed by those in the top few percent?
Please understand: Brooks seems to propose that most families pay even less than they currently do under Bushs tax rates.
Does Mister Brooks proposal make sense? Truly, we have no idea. At best, his column strikes us as D-plus workthe kind of work which typifies our groaning public discussions. Perhaps theres a logic here which escapes us. But how can a reader tell if Brooks proposal makes basic sense? He provides a number defining the size of his solutionbut none defining the size of the problem! And a decades-old dreamscape seems to be present: Brooks seems to suggest that we can solve this allegedly monstrous problem while asking almost everyone to pay fewer taxes, not more.
So it goes when our biggest journalists discuss the nations biggest problems. By happenstance, the Times presents seven letters today dealing with the debt-and-deficit problem; several letters, from regular Joes, seem a bit less dreamy. Two different writers flatly say that all Bushs tax cuts should be repealedthat everyone should return to the Clinton tax rates. In this third letter, an enterprising woman in Georgia seems to agree:
Frankly, were amazed this woman is still employed after grilling her fellow employees that way. But she too suggests that wed be better off if we simply restored all the Clinton tax rates. Please note: Under Mister Brooks more magical plan, this woman would likely be asked to pay even less than she does under Bushs tax rates.
(For the record, $28 per month adds up to $336 per year. Never mind how we got that.)
Would it make sense to return to the Clinton tax ratespresumably in a gradual way, so as to avoid threatening economic recovery? Weve rarely seen the matter discussed! You see, Obama supports retaining the bulk of Bushs tax cuts; for this reason, tribal journalists of the left routinely act as if this makes indisputable sense. Only Republicans can be wrong in this childish pseudo-journalism. In todays letters, three private citizens make a fairly basic proposala proposal which is rarely discussed in the woolly provinces inhabited by our celebrity press corps. But then, your nations intellectual culture is brokenits broken on various sides.
Ah, those famous D-plus elites! One letter came from an academic. The professor suggested this:
See there? The professor seeks to save $700 billion (over ten years) by restoring the upper-end Clinton tax rates. He thereby eschews the additional $3.2 trillion (or $2 trillion; or whatever) which would be gained by restoring all the Clinton rates. But note the additional bonus here: The professor wouldnt apply that $700 billion to deficit reduction at all; he would apparently use this money to lower middle-class tax rates even further. He seems to propose lowering the bulk of Bushs tax rates, with no deficit reduction at all.
Do you think the letters editors noted the apparent oddness of this proposal? Our public discussions rarely make sense. We will guess that they didnt.
Back to Our Mister Brooks: On Sunday, Alexander claimed that major journalists are frightened by numbers, lousy with math. Five days have passed since he lodged this vile charge. Dare anyone say he was wrong?
South of the border: One of the letters, from Francois Furstenberg, raises an intriguing point about Senate procedures and the norms of the current public debate. Alas! This letter came from Canada, where discussions about American politics may be less murky, more clear.