Kevin Drum:
Quote of the Day: Defining "Politically Plausible" Down: avid Brooks… wrote (inaccurately) that the White House doesn't have a proposal to avert the sequester, "let alone one that is politically plausible"…. [Ezra Klein asked:] "What would you like to see [the White House] offer?"
[Brooks replied:]
My fantasy package, and I'm not running for office, would include a progressive consumption tax, and it would have chained CPI, and it would have a pretty big means-test of Medicare. I'd direct you to Yuval Levin's piece in the Times a few days ago, which seemed sensible.
I guess I shouldn't complain about this. I mean, props to Brooks for admitting that he went overboard, and props for being willing to talk to Ezra about it in a good natured way. Still, I have to chuckle when he complains about Obama not proposing a "politically plausible" plan, and then offers up an alternative that includes a progressive consumption tax, something that Republicans have been unrelentingly opposed to for decades…. I think we really need to have a little chat about just what "politically plausible" really means.
Mark Thoma:
Economist's View: 'David Brooks, Obama Plan Birther': Jon Chait is unhappy with David Brooks:
David Brooks, Obama Plan Birther: ... David Brooks today ... lashes out at the obstinacy of the Republican Party and its refusal to compromise on the deficit. But he has to balance it out by asserting that President Obama, too, lacks any such plan... This is demonstrably false. Whatever you think about the substantive merits of Obama’s plan, it does exist. ...
So is Steve Benen:
When false claims drive the debate: As best as I can tell, New York Times columnist David Brooks is a well-connected pundit. Powerful people return his phone calls, and when he wants information from top governmental offices, Brooks tends to get it.
And with this in mind, it's puzzling that Brooks based his entire column today on an easily-checked error. The conservative pundit insists President Obama "declines to come up with a proposal to address" next week's sequester mess, adding, "The president hasn't actually come up with a proposal to avert sequestration."
I'll never understand how conservative media personalities get factual claims like this so very wrong. If Brooks doesn't like Obama's sequester alternative, fine; he can write a column explaining his concerns. But why pretend the president's detailed, already published plan, built on mutual concessions from both sides, doesn't exist? ...
