Archive for March 6, 2009

That Was Fast: David Brooks Calms Down; PLUS: A GRAPH!

Yesterday I wrote about David Brooks’ slide into hysteria over the gluttonous ruin threatening to swallow all that is good and right about America. I (and the incisive commentators to my post) were not the only people to feel umbrage at Brooks’ portents.

In his column today, Brooks summarizes his conversations with senior members of the Obama Administration, who responded to allegations he made Tuesday of irresponsible, big government spending. Some highlights:

[Administration officials] see themselves as pragmatists who inherited a government and an economy that have been thrown out of whack. … They’re trying to restore balance: nurture an economy so that productivity gains are shared by the middle class and correct the irresponsible habits that developed during the Bush era.

….

[T]he Obama administration will not usher in an era of big government. Federal spending over the last generation has been about 20 percent of G.D.P. This year, it has surged to about 27 percent. But they aim to bring spending down to 22 percent of G.D.P. in a few years. And most of the increase, they insist, is caused by the aging of the population and the rise of mandatory entitlement spending. It’s not caused by big increases in the welfare state.

He goes on to relate the administration seeks to lower nondefense discretionary spending [NDDS] to 3.1% of GDP by 2019. Since 1969, annual NDDS averages 3.8% of GDP. Of course, this year, it is much higher (4.7%), but the budget priorities Obama has laid out puts the country on a path to lower NDDS to a point never reached since data collection began in 1962. This means a Democratic administration is ready to shrink government to a size smaller than that of any Republican presidency.

Brooks likes to point out the “Obamatons” are adopting critical components of Republican plans. For instance, “[t]he Medicare reform represents a big cut in entitlement spending. It amounts to means-testing the system. It introduces more competition and cuts corporate welfare.” Further,

Over the long run, Obama has insisted that health care reform will be deficit-neutral. Many experts believe this will force Democrats to reduce the tax exemption for employee insurance benefits in order to raise revenue. This idea is at the core of most conservative reform proposals.

The latter might be true, but if it does happen, it will be when a system is in place that has expanded coverage to the currently uninsured and that has lowered overall health-care costs. McCain’s, ergo the Republican, health-care plan eliminated the tax exemption and sent workers into the free market, where private insurers would then be falling over themselves to cover people with high blood pressure or with special-needs children or with some other seemingly benign pre-existing condition that makes them high-risk on an actuarial table.

Regarding the former, the implication that liberals can’t cut spending is, as shown in the NDDS forecasts, ridiculous. That Republicans have some sort of monopoly on efficiency and fiscal responsibility is similarly ludicrous.

Ultimately, the ludes kick in, and Brooks concludes:

[T]he White House made a case that was sophisticated and fact-based. These people know how to lead a discussion and set a tone of friendly cooperation. I’m more optimistic that if Senate moderates can get their act together and come up with their own proactive plan, they can help shape a budget that allays their anxieties while meeting the president’s goals.

As promised, a GRAPH! (after the jump)

Continue reading »

Waiting on Prop 8: What We Talk About, When We Talk About Judicial Review

Earlier this year, we reported on why there was some reason to think that California may have found an unconstitutional constitutional amendment in Proposition 8, not for its substance, but for the process of its enactment. Civil rights attorneys went to court yesterday in California to push that theory, but it looks like they’re to come back empty-handed: per reporters who heard oral arguments, the California Supreme Court seemed to be tilting towards upholding Prop 8, but refusing to apply it retroactively.

While I caution anyone not to draw too inferences from judicial questioning, this is the expected verdict: even though there’re good legal grounds to doubt the constitutionality of Prop 8′s enactment, striking down a controversial referendum that nonetheless passed the populace would seriously implicate the Court’s legitimacy. Even when it’s the right decision, courts across the nation have been known to back away from tough calls, and with good reason.

Recall the fallout from Brown v. Board of Education ((347 U.S. 483 (1954).)) (right). While “[i]t is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is,” ((Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 177 (1803).)) constitutional decisonmaking never exists in a political void. Rendering a decision, no matter how just and rightly reasoned, is useless if a court can’t expect the political branches to effectuate it, and worse than useless if it would draw the legitimacy of the Court into question. To be sure, the idea that the mob has a heckler’s veto over the law just when it matters most is an unpalatable one, as it should be. But it’s a fact of life in the American Republic. Judges have to consider politics. Even if kicking Prop 8 is the right thing to do legally, I wouldn’t expect the California Supreme Court to follow through for fear of public backlash. The Court may be rightly countermajoritarian on this issue, but to a point, I suspect.

(Sidenote: because the validity of Prop 8′s enactment turns upon California constitutional law, the California Supreme Court is the final arbiter: the Supreme Court doesn’t take appeal on issues of pure state law. That’s the mistake the “birthers” made.)

So will likely end California’s brief experiment with gay marriage, but let’s focus on the positive. Because of the California Supreme Court’s bravery in the first instance, 18,000 gay couples were married, and if the pundits are to be believed, they’ll still be married after this decision comes down. And public support is turning towards gay rights, even winning the cautious support of intelligent & principled conservatives. For California, equality is down, but not out.