Good (IMO) editorial from David Frum

[Berkut]

He mostly sums up about how I feel about the recent standoff.

Editor's note: David Frum writes a  weekly column for CNN.com. A special assistant to President George W.  Bush from 2001 to 2002, he is the author of six books, including  "Comeback: Conservatism That Can Win Again," and is the editor of FrumForum.
(CNN)  -- I'm a Republican. Always have been. I believe in free markets, low  taxes, reasonable regulation and limited government. But as I look back  at the weeks of rancor leading up to Sunday night's last-minute budget  deal, I see some things I don't believe in:
Forcing the United States to the verge of default.
Shrugging off the needs and concerns of millions of unemployed.
Protecting every single loophole, giveaway and boondoggle in the tax code as a matter of fundamental conservative principle.
Massive government budget cuts in the midst of the worst recession since World War II.
I am not alone.
Only about one-third of Republicans agree that cutting government spending should be the country's top priority. Only about one-quarter of Republicans insist the budget be balanced without any tax increases.
Yet  that one-third and that one-quarter have come to dominate my party.  That one-third and that one-quarter forced a debt standoff that could  have ended in default and a second Great Recession. That one-third and  that one-quarter have effectively written the "no new taxes pledge" into  national law.
There was another way. There still is.
Give me a hammer and a church-house door, and I'd post these theses for modern Republicans:
1) Unemployment is a more urgent problem than debt.
The  U.S. can borrow money for 10 years at less than 3%. It can borrow money  for two years at less than one-half a percent. Yes, the burden of debt  is worrying. Yet lenders seem undaunted by those worries.
Meanwhile, more than 14 million Americans  are out of work, more than 6 million for longer than six months. The  United States has not seen so many people out of work for so long since  the 1930s.
2) The deficit is a symptom of America's economic problems, not a cause.
When the economy slumps, government revenues decline and government spending surges.
Federal  revenues have collapsed since 2007, down from more than 18% of national  income to a little more than 14%. To put that in perspective: That's  the equivalent of losing enough revenue to support the entire defense  budget.
Federal spending has jumped to pay for unemployment insurance, food stamps and Medicaid benefits.
Fix the economy first, and the deficit will improve on its own.
Cut the deficit first, and the economy will get even sicker.
3) The time to cut is after the economy recovers.
Businesses  are hoarding cash. Consumers are repaying debt. State and local  governments are slashing jobs. (Since 2009, the number of Americans  working for government has shrunk by half a million, the biggest  reduction in civilian government employment since the Great Depression.)  Right now, there's only one big customer out there: the federal  government. How does it help anybody if the feds suddenly stop buying  things and paying people?
4) The place to cut is health care, not assistance to the unemployed and poor.
The  United States provides less assistance to the unemployed and the poor  than almost any other democracy. It spends 60% more per person on health  care than almost any other democracy -- and gets worse results. The  problem is not that Americans use too much medicine. People in other  countries use more. The problem is that Americans pay too much for the  medicine they use. Go where the money is, cut where the waste is  grossest.
5) We can collect more revenue without raising tax rates.
Republicans  stand for low taxes to encourage people to work, save and invest. But  how would it discourage work if we reduced the mortgage-interest  deduction again? Did it hurt the economy when we reduced the maximum  eligible loan to $1 million back in 1986? Do Canadians and Brits -- who  lack the deduction -- work less hard than Americans?
Why are state and local taxes deductible from federally taxable income? Wouldn't higher taxes on energy encourage conservation? Who decided to allow inflation to corrode federal alcohol taxes by 80% over the past 50 years?
6) Passion does not substitute for judgment.
Republicans  and conservatives have worked themselves into a frenzy of rage and  contempt for President Barack Obama. House Speaker John Boehner's  post-deal PowerPoint for Republican House members was actually labeled "Two Step Approach to Hold President Obama Accountable" (PDF)  -- as if the supreme goal of policy in this time of economic hardship  were to fix the blame for all problems on the president. This exercise  in finger-pointing satisfies the emotions of the Republican base. It  does not accurately explain the causes of the crisis or offer plausible  remedies.
7) You can't save the system by destroying the system.
In  their passion, Republicans convinced themselves that the constitutional  republic and the free-enterprise system were threatened as never  before. Their response? To threaten to blow up the free-enterprise  system and wreck the republic unless they gained their point.
Republicans  have become so gripped by pessimism and panic that they feel they have  nothing to lose by rushing into a catastrophe now. But there is a lot to  lose, and in these past weeks America nearly lost it. Let's hope that  as America steps back from the brink, Republicans remember that it's  their job to protect the system, not to smash the system in hopes of  building something better from the ruins.
That's how student radicals think -- not conservatives.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of David Frum.

The Tea Baggers have a point, but they are making the same mistake the MoveOn crowd did about the war in Iraq. Sadly (in respects to the current situation, obviously not in respects to the moveon crowd), the moveon crowd was actually less successful - could that be because the Dems in general are a less cohesive party, and hence less beholden to their nutjobs? An interesting theory - the Dems tend to not be able to get as much done because they lack that loyalty, but at the same time seem less susceptible to being dragged much further into the extremes than the Republicans.

[Barrister]

I *like* David Frum, but I question this piece from it's very first two sentences.  Always been a Republican - was that when you were still a Canadian David?

Beyond that, as a right wing Republican, what exactly does he suggest to do about #2?  How do you "fix the economy"?  Typical right wing thought is that governments can not simple push a button and create jobs - that it is only by setting out the right stable, predictable and low-cost environment that businesses can then create jobs.

Beyond that, I like that he actually says America provides less assistance to the poor than anywhere else - so don't cut there.

But as his own seven thesis, they are mostly listing what he is opposed to, not what he would do, and are generally lacking.

[garbon]

Yeah I can't say I'm a fan of this.

[The Minsky Moment]

Other countries control health care costs by putting price controls on pharmaceuticals.  Then they free ride on the research and development that gets done out of the profits earned on the back of the US consumers who pay (relatively) uncontrolled prices.  Frum buries this and instead talks about unspecified "waste" which sets off the automatic B.S. alarm.

[Neil]

Yep.  Anytime a politician or a political operative talks about 'waste', you know that it's all horseshit.

[The Brain]

Horseshit isn't waste.

[Berkut]

Other countries control health care costs by putting price controls on pharmaceuticals.  Then they free ride on the research and development that gets done out of the profits earned on the back of the US consumers who pay (relatively) uncontrolled prices.  Frum buries this and instead talks about unspecified "waste" which sets off the automatic B.S. alarm.

Meh, that is details. His basic point is that the radical nutbars need to realize that tossing the baby out with the bathwater isn't going to help anything, least of all themselves.

[Faeelin]

Other countries control health care costs by putting price controls on pharmaceuticals.  Then they free ride on the research and development that gets done out of the profits earned on the back of the US consumers who pay (relatively) uncontrolled prices.  Frum buries this and instead talks about unspecified "waste" which sets off the automatic B.S. alarm.

Meh, that is details. His basic point is that the radical nutbars need to realize that tossing the baby out with the bathwater isn't going to help anything, least of all themselves.

I don't know. Aren't the tea party et al. just doing what they said they'd do?

[derspiess]

Horseshit isn't waste.

It is as far as the horse is concerned.

[derspiess]

Other countries control health care costs by putting price controls on pharmaceuticals.  Then they free ride on the research and development that gets done out of the profits earned on the back of the US consumers who pay (relatively) uncontrolled prices.  Frum buries this and instead talks about unspecified "waste" which sets off the automatic B.S. alarm.

Meh, that is details. His basic point is that the radical nutbars need to realize that tossing the baby out with the bathwater isn't going to help anything, least of all themselves.

I don't know. Aren't the tea party et al. just doing what they said they'd do?

In a general sense, yes.  But IMO agreeing to a compromise on this particular issue does not necessarily conflict with what they said they'd do, either (as long as there are no real tax increases). 

I generally support the tea party movement but the reality is that the GOP only controls half a branch.  Better to win some small victories & build its case for the 2012 elections than to insist on everything & get nothing.

[Berkut]

Other countries control health care costs by putting price controls on pharmaceuticals.  Then they free ride on the research and development that gets done out of the profits earned on the back of the US consumers who pay (relatively) uncontrolled prices.  Frum buries this and instead talks about unspecified "waste" which sets off the automatic B.S. alarm.

Meh, that is details. His basic point is that the radical nutbars need to realize that tossing the baby out with the bathwater isn't going to help anything, least of all themselves.

I don't know. Aren't the tea party et al. just doing what they said they'd do?

In a general sense, yes.  But IMO agreeing to a compromise on this particular issue does not necessarily conflict with what they said they'd do, either (as long as there are no real tax increases). 

I generally support the tea party movement but the reality is that the GOP only controls half a branch.  Better to win some small victories & build its case for the 2012 elections than to insist on everything & get nothing.

Or more to the point is that even when you are elected on a bunch of BS rhetoric about not compromising, the reality is that politics is the art of the possible, and bringing down the government rather than compromising is missing the point of the entire process.

Which really means that it sucks that a few hard core extremists have so much influence.

[Faeelin]

In a general sense, yes.  But IMO agreeing to a compromise on this particular issue does not necessarily conflict with what they said they'd do, either (as long as there are no real tax increases). 

But then the GOP won by not blinking, right?

[MadImmortalMan]

Spicy--do you mind if they don't count the expiring Bush tax cuts as a tax increase?

[Warspite]

I *like* David Frum, but I question this piece from it's very first two sentences.  Always been a Republican - was that when you were still a Canadian David?

Beyond that, as a right wing Republican, what exactly does he suggest to do about #2?  How do you "fix the economy"?  Typical right wing thought is that governments can not simple push a button and create jobs - that it is only by setting out the right stable, predictable and low-cost environment that businesses can then create jobs.

Beyond that, I like that he actually says America provides less assistance to the poor than anywhere else - so don't cut there.

But as his own seven thesis, they are mostly listing what he is opposed to, not what he would do, and are generally lacking.

I thought his key points were that a) you're going to have to raise taxes at some point, and to pretend otherwise is foolish and b) massive austerity measures in the midst of a recession are lunacy, particularly when the US (previous to this fiscal brinkmanship, at least) was still considered a safe bet for investors looking to buy government debt.

Maybe I got it wrong from my skim read, but neither of those seem unreasonable.

[derspiess]

In a general sense, yes.  But IMO agreeing to a compromise on this particular issue does not necessarily conflict with what they said they'd do, either (as long as there are no real tax increases). 

But then the GOP won by not blinking, right?

I honestly don't know who won.