TPMDC

Brown Hits Back On White House Spending Freeze Push

Spread the word. Share this article on Facebook!

Share

Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH)

Share

Twitter Fark Reddit Send to a Friend

Send to a friend!

To email:    Your Name:    Your email:

Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) isn't mincing words about the White House's push to freeze domestic discretionary spending. The Ohio progressive took direct aim today at the idea and its supporters, who he suggested are largely the reason the country faces such major fiscal imbalances in the first place.

"I don't think much of it," Brown told reporters.

Start with this: The people who have been most outspoken about debt are the people most responsible for it.... The people, as I said, who have been most outspoken against the budget deficit have been those that voted for the Iraq war, and charged it to our kids, those who voted for the giveaway to the drug and insurance industry in 2003 and charged it to our kids, and those who voted who tax cuts for the rich and charged it to our kids, and those who ignored infrastructure needs in this country for a decade and charged that to our kids. And they come and they're screaming the loudest about the balanced budget. And that disturbs me.

His statements reflect the mood of many progressives, who have reacted poorly to yesterday's news.

Comments (33) | Join the Conversation!

Recommend Recommend (3)

January 26, 2010 4:14 PM   

How shrill of Sherrod Brown, to point out the obvious like that. Tsk, tsk.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 5:52 PM    in reply to CT Voter

SHRILL! ITS A PARTISAN BACKWARD LOOKING OUTRAGE!
(1)Clinton surpluses were getting too big, and wealthy investment bankers on Wall Street needed more money to retain the 'best and the brightest' talent in 2000, so Republicans had to cut taxes on the rich! You can see the results of Bush stewardship in our economy today!
(2)As Giuliani has said, there were no terror attacks while Bush was in office-costs a lot to deliver that kind of safety to the public!
(3)Bush didn't finish to two wars he started but he did get Saddam AND SADDAM'S GUN! Guns like that don't come cheap Bubba!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 4:14 PM   

Testify Sherrod!!! Testify!!!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 4:30 PM   

Is he just asking for a pork sandwich? Like Nelson?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 4:30 PM   

I like Brown's positions and he is speaking out against the crock of shit spewing from the right side of the democratic party. Way to go Sherrod and pleae keep it up !

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 4:32 PM   

Someone's been drinking his Balls Beer.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 4:33 PM   

Bravo! The idiots who brought us here seem to forget that if we wanted their participation in government, we would have voted for them. We didn't. They are the last people the Dems should be listening to. I'm glad that Brown isn't wetting himself like the rest of the Dems.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 4:35 PM   

I am a proud Ohioan today.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 4:49 PM    in reply to Steve LaBonne

And rightly so. I wish Sherrod was one of my senators. Instead I get to have Lieberscum represent me...

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 27, 2010 8:07 AM    in reply to Libertine

Brown is likely to be sent packing in 2012 when Ohio voters flip flop again and go conservative with their votes.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 4:41 PM   

Thank you, Senator Brown, for having the courage that far too few Democrats have to stand up to the crooks and shills of the right wing.

Can he take Rahm Emmanuel's job?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 4:43 PM   

I like Brown's comments. I don't like your headline. Brown is hitting back at the newly-minted deficit hawks more than the White House.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 4:45 PM    in reply to brewmn61

Absolutely correct. Otherwise, one might read it as thinking Brown thinks the WH is responsible for the deficit.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 4:52 PM    in reply to CT Voter

Why are you surprised? Anything written by Brian 'Let's find a topic of discord among democrats' Beutler is bound to be an overkill.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 6:02 PM    in reply to political_observer

I was trying to fit that observation into my original comment, but it came out a tad meaner than I intended. Thanks for adding it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 4:45 PM   

The freeze isn't even the problem. The horror is the message. The utterly unacceptable is the message that social spending is bad and defense spending is good. Reaganism. Cheneyism. Neo-cons. Neo-Dems. This is Katrinaism. Let the poor die. Let the sick rot. Let the food fester and the water and air pollute. Let the bridges collapse. Let the dikes break. The only good money is money for war.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 5:03 PM    in reply to bluebell

well said Bluebell

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 6:46 PM    in reply to bluebell

Yep. Austerity during a depression, now that's the ticket! Ticket to fascism. Obama has begun laying the groundwork, so that in 2012 whatever batshit Repug who comes out of the primaries and wins the presidency can waltz into the WH and take us straight to hell. The way having been paved by Obama's corporatist policies.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 7:11 PM    in reply to Unmitigated Audacity

I think Dick Cheney has already taken up residence in Obama's head.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 4:55 PM   

Also, the article seems to imply that the conservatives who started the war, cut taxes, and did the Medicare giveaway are "supporters" of the freeze, but most of them are griping about it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 5:04 PM   

I wish Senator Brown could find the time to get on the teevee 24/7 and hammer this home. Go on every damn news/opinion show on all of the networks and make this point over and over and over and over again.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 5:19 PM   

good for you senator!!! please remind your wussy Dem friends an the nation how we got this big deficit....were they all sleeping when the debt was accumulating? now that their siesta is over, they remember fiscal responsibility....i am all for it, but some things with a high price tag must be done first before we can start working on that budget again.....yes folks, sometimes you have to spend money to make money....geesh!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 5:51 PM   

Amen, brother.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 5:57 PM   

Sen. Brown is right to criticize and point out GOP hypocrisy. But the problem of the deficit remains and Repubs can't be trusted to fix it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 7:05 PM   

Let's not forget the Blue Dogs pushing through a _cut_ in the estate tax.
Hypocrites.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 9:15 PM   

1. So the WH announcing a policy counts as "hitting" Sen. Brown, so that any response he gives is "hitting" back. Why are you so entranced by violent metaphor. How about the headline, "Brown doesn't think much of budget plan."

2. Sen Brown's comments are that those who are making the most noise about how serious the deficit is are those who caused it. And of course he is right. But how on earth does that include the President. Not only did he not vote for W's tax cuts, but he is the one who proposed the current fiscal stimulus we are operating under. So Brown actually says he is disturbed by the Republican hypocrits (in another thread the deficit peacocks), his description of who he holds responsible has nothing to do with Obama.

3. To call the announced plan an austerity program is to completely misunderstand what they are proposing, but then again the knee jerks on this thread only need to hear one word and their brains turn off and their knees start a jerkin'.

4. ON a broader policy level surely Sen. Brown is not saying that being serious about the long-term deficit is wrong. He says pretending to be against deficits while pursuing polices that create them is about the worst thing you could do. After Clinton the Democrats were supposed to be able to say plausibly that indeed they are the party of fiscal responsibility. When they say they are going to do something about the deficit they actually follow through. Seems to me this is exactly the policy Obama is following. Run large deficits in the short term but make credible moves that you will get it under control over the medium term. So even this budget plan does not start until 2011, and even then it allows for much of the emergency transitory spending we are seeing now, and it allows for re-allocating spending in areas that promote jobs and growth and cutting where it does not. For example, would anyone object if we got rid of ethanol subsidies and gave all the money to say head start? Anyone?

5. The long-run deficit problem has two origins. (1) the aging of the population and (b) rising health care costs. We can't do much about the first except encourage people to save more and work longer (and continue to permit immigration). Being serious about health care reform, reducing the cost of health care, is the only credible evidence that someone is serious about addressing the long-run fiscal train wreck. The President is surely addressing it. The Republicans refuse.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 11:05 PM    in reply to Economides

Run large deficits in the short term but make credible moves that you will get it under control over the medium term.

Keynes 101. Hasn't changed in 60 years. It was good econ then, and despite Friedman's, Greenspan's Rubin's et al. attempts to claim otherwise, it's good econ now.

Seems to me this is exactly the policy Obama is following.

Maybe. Maybe not. All I know about the "freeze" so far is what's been reported on the Radio Newz (see my comment below), which is to say, bupkis. This is one where the devil is very much in the details.

But seriously, 2011? Like, you know, next year? The demand gap will be all gone by then? We'll be completely out of recession, and the economy humming? I very. Seriously. Doubt it. And it won't be until then that the .gov should think about cutting back on spending. Think FDR 1937.

By all means cut the ethanol subsidies and the rest of the waste (hint: Pentagon, although our CiC has already taken that one off the table). But freeze spending with the economy still deep in recession?

Obama and the Dems have one serious problem that FDR didn't have, which is that the Republicans since Reagan have been spending and taxcutting and borrowing the country into a black hole of debt for the last 30 years (and have been very clear about the "Starve the Beast" strategy they are following -- saddle the .gov with so much debt that there is no room for spending that benefits working (and unemployed) Americans. And too many the Dems, including the so-called "fiscal conservatives" like the Blue Dog Caucus, have been all too happy to let them do it. I don't have a good answer for that one. I don't have numbers ATM for our debt as %GDP vs. that in, say, 1932, 1936, 1941 or 1945 (I think it was higher as %GDP just post-WWII), but I doubt we can take on as much debt as FDR could then.

OTOH the top marginal tax rate post-WWII, including under the Republican Eisenhower admin, was 91% (for incomes over ~$3M, inflation adjusted to 2000 $, IIRC). If everyone including the "New Dems" hadn't been drinking the Friedman-Laffer-Rubin-Summers-Greenspan Kool-Aid for the last 30 years, we could do something like that.

The long-run deficit problem has two origins. (1) the aging of the population and (b) rising health care costs. We can't do much about the first except encourage people to save more and work longer (and continue to permit immigration).

Sure we can. We can take marginal tax rates back to what they were under Kennedy-Johnson (70-77%), or Nixon-Ford (70%), or Eisenhower (91%, a cut from the 1944-45 rate of 94%, when we were only fighting one war -- and for a shorter duration, at that) -- or Reagan's first term fer G's sake (50%). And we could raise or eliminate the income ceiling for FICA taxes. Among other things. Somehow the economy managed to grow just fine in the 1950s and 1960s with those eevil heinous socialist confiscatory top marginal tax rates. In fact, it grew fairly steadily, without bubbles and busts, with a much more fair and reasonable income distribution (income disparity is now about where it was in 1928).

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 27, 2010 12:16 AM    in reply to gharlane

I agree we do not know the details, but to assume there will be some large fiscal contraction in 2011 I think is unfounded. IN fact the word "freeze" is apparently being misapplied. Overall policy will still be stimulative. And it's hard to know whether recovery will have enough or any momentuum by then to say we still need to be putting the fiscal pedal to the metal.


I am confused why you lump Rubin/Summers in with Friedman/Greenspan. Clinton in fact balanced the budget did he not? He raised the top tax rate. You may think Rubin opened the flood gates on financial deregulation, but you cannot pretend they did not put the fiscal house in as much order as they could. Those were not policies Friedman or Greenspan would have been pushing. IN fact Grenspan was arguing in 2000 that he was worried we'd have too big a surplus so we should give it all back as tax cuts. Douchebag.

I agree Obama is operating under a fiscal straight jacket created by the Republican in their attempt to drown the whole country in the toilet. I also think that is why Obama has no choice but to signal that he is serious about putting on the path to fiscal sustainability. That includes getting the economy back on it;s feet.Imposing some fiscal discipline, Raising revenues and reducing the cost of health care. That and filling in the deficit's in infrastructure, investments, education, energy, etc.. that still need to be made. Tall fucking order.

My point about the origin of our fiscal problems (aging and HC costs) was to explain what is generating the increased costs. We can easily pay for the extra cost of Social Security. It's about another 1.5% of GDP or something on an ongoing basis. No big deal. Working longer and saving more reduces the need to raise more tax revenue (or allows new revenue to be devoted to providing other things, perhaps for kids instead of seniors). Working more also generates more revenue for all our needs.

We cannot afford to simply pay for Health care if it continues to increase at historical rates. It will eat up everything. WE have to reduce costs, which can be done in a way that actually makes us better off, we can get better health care and health for much less cost by delivery health care much more efficiently and with much higher quality.

We certainly need more revenue. However, we should be aware that when marginal rates were so high back in the day, total tax revenue as a percent of GDP wasn't any higher. I guess I am in favor of a broad tax base. Everyone who earns any money should pay some tax. We can raise the top rates considerably more, but I think by restricting deductions and such the top rate do not need to be as high as you suggest.

We should as a society openly discuss the share of GDP we think we need to devote to spending (from all programs) and then set revenue policy to cover that. Debating marginal rates is a distraction. It's a social not individual issue.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 10:25 PM   

CBS Top O'The Hour Radio Newz has been quoting Mitch McChinless all day saying "We've been on quite a binge over the last 12 months..." Without comment.

The past 12 months? WTF???!?

Brown summed it up brilliantly. For some reason CBS hasn't been running his quote.

IOKIYAR. And the media never, ever calls them on it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 11:05 PM    in reply to gharlane

Of course they don't. You dance with what brung ya.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 10:58 PM   

Thank you, Senator Sherrod Brown, for taking a strong stand on this. After years of deficits due to out-of-control military spending and giveaways to the rich and corporate interests, the "Democrats" are now proposing to freeze discretionary spending, which goes toward programs that help those who are most in need. I expect such mindless and heartless crap from Republicans, but was hoping for more from the Democrats. I am a proud liberal, but if we hear in the State of the Union address tomorrow a call for a non-military spending freeze and continuing to "let the dust settle" on the grave of health care reform, I am done with President Obama and the Democratic leadership, at least until real progressives like Senator Sherrod Brown are listened to by the party.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 27, 2010 12:19 AM   

SO I predict the president calls out the republican on their budget hypocrisy tomorrow night. Calls a peacock a peacock if you will. Of course a lot of conservadumb democrats deserved to be tarred with the same feather.

If only the media confronted every peacock with their own BS instead of feign alarm at rising government spending.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 27, 2010 2:16 AM   

Why cut domestic spending, how about cutting military discretionary spending?

Spending like this:

The tea-party crews don’t rail against Pentagon giveaways, nor do Massachusetts voters grumble about them. Unfettered Pentagon budgets pass in the tick-tock of a Washington clock and no one seems fazed when the Wall Street Journal reveals that military aides accompanying globe-hopping parties of congressional representatives regularly spend thousands of taxpayer dollars on snacks, drinks, and other “amenities” for them, even while, like some K Street lobbying outfit, promoting their newest weaponry. Think of it, in financial terms, as Pentagon peanuts shelled out for actual peanuts, and no one gives a damn. [from Tom's Dispatch]

That's on top of the billions for Afghan Security Forces and the billions for the Afghan Air Corps out of a close-to-a-trillion dollar military budget for 2010.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Leave a comment

Your response:

Follow us!

Most Popular

TPM Stories Now Surging on