Today’s David Brooks Column: In Which He Announces He Is a Democrat but Does Not Himself Recognize It

In his column Brooks once again calls for new ideas that get around the entrenched positions of the parties.  Yet at the end of his column he lists four areas he would support, which are positions that are hardly new (all have been proposed as legislation in the Congress) and, moreover, these positions align him quite closely with the Obama-Democratic agenda.  Let’s take this point by point.

1.      “This reinvigoration package would have four baskets. There would be an entitlement reform package designed to redistribute money from health care and the elderly toward innovation and the young. Unless we get health care inflation under control by replacing the perverse fee-for-service incentive structure, there will be no money for anything else.”

When it comes to entitlements the key is health care.  Other countries have models that control health care costs much better than our system does, while providing better outcomes, but these are off the table for Republicans because they increase government involvement.  So what the Democrats offer is mild changes to the system and trial programs that move us in the right direction but are limited in scope.  The Republicans are currently trying to block or defund these initiatives.   Brooks’s position is essentially that of the Democrats.


2.      “There would be a targeted working-class basket: early childhood education, technical education, community colleges, an infrastructure bank, asset distribution to help people start businesses, a new wave industrial policy if need be — anything that might give the working class a leg up.”

Democrats have proposed and supported all these things.  For example, an infrastructure bank was initially proposed by Senators Dodd and Hegel, as a bipartisan measure, but in the last few years it has received Democratic support and has been championed by Obama.  Why has the Democratic push not been stronger?  Because this type of legislation has no change of passing.  An infrastructure bank, like all the measures Brooks lists, requires government spending, something the current Republican Party will not support.  They are interested in cutting, cutting, cutting.


3.      “There would be a political corruption basket. The Tea Parties are right about the unholy alliance between business and government that is polluting the country. It’s time to drain the swamp by simplifying the tax code and streamlining the regulations businesses use to squash their smaller competitors.”

First off, Brooks seems to be inventing the Tea Party he would like, rather than the Tea party that is.  The Tea Party that actually exists is hardly focused on challenging the “alliance between business and government.”  Go skim through any of the prominent Tea Party forums.  You will not find much rhetoric about attacking business’s involvement in government.  Second, the Tea Party aside, the Republicans have been reluctant to simplify the tax code because they want to cut taxes rather than take acts that are revenue neutral.


4.      "There would also be a pro-business basket: lower corporate rates, a sane visa policy for skilled immigrants, a sane patent and permitting system, more money for research." 
Lowering corporate taxes certainly fits with the Republican but is Brooks really concerned with lowering corporate taxes, which has been declining as a share of GDP for years?  Currently the United States nominally has a high corporate tax rate but the effective rate is low to average because of the many loopholes in the system.  So lowering corporate taxes would mean closing loopholes, and is something that will likely be part of any budget deal.  This is a centrist position held by moderates in both parties, so on this issue Brooks is not as close to just the Democrats.  His final point here, however, calling for “more money for research” comes straight from the Obama-Democratic platform.

If Brooks really wants to see the positions he claims to support come into being, he would be better for supporting the Democratic agenda.  Rather than calling for new ideas or “new movements,” why doesn’t he just join the established group that is already fighting for most of what he believes in?  I am sure the Democrats will be glad to have you.