David Brooks, "Bold on Both Ends": "The North Korea of Fiscal Policy"

Has the US become "the North Korea of fiscal policy"?

This is what David Brooks claims in his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Bold on Both Ends" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/12/opinion/brooks-bold-on-both-ends.html?_r=0). Brooks writes:

"We’re living in a country where 53 percent of children born to women under 30 are born out of wedlock, according to government data. Millions of people, especially men, are dropping out of the labor force. Nearly half the students who begin college are unable to graduate within six years. The social fabric for people without college degrees is in shambles.

Yet President Obama is not offering proposals commensurate with those problems. Under his budget, domestic discretionary spending would be lower as a share of G.D.P. than it was under Reagan, both Bushes and Nixon. When it comes to this category, Obama’s budget would take us back to Eisenhower levels.

The president is increasing total revenues to a historically high 20 percent of G.D.P. by 2023. Federal spending would remain at a way-above-average 22 percent of G.D.P. But Washington still can’t seem to devote enough money to address the challenges faced by the less-educated and ease the segmentation of America.

. . . .

Right now, we are the North Korea of fiscal policy."

Observing that "America faces two giant problems: social unraveling today and cataclysmic debt tomorrow," Brooks concludes:

"Party leaders could postpone the debate about tax revenues. They could accept higher deficits short term. Most important, they could embrace a deal-making framework that would direct attention toward urgent needs: discretionary programs for now, structural entitlement reforms that accumulate over time."

And now for a JG Caesarea challenge: Having read Brooks's opinion piece from start to finish, tell me how many times the word "discretionary," as in "discretionary spending," "discretionary programs" and "discretionary budget category," appears? No peeking!

Three . . . two . . . one (like counting down the time it takes for one of Kim Jong Un's ballistic missiles to crash into Tokyo or Seoul) . . . pencils down! Answer: Five.

Whereas Brooks calls for "a different trade-off — not a balance between taxing and spending, but a balance between greater discretionary spending in exchange for structural entitlement reform," who is going to be given control over all that discretionary stuff? Me? You? Michelle, who thought it appropriate to be accompanied by a cast of gold-braided military social aides when she appeared at the Oscars?

Don't get me wrong - Brooks is right: America's social fabric is unraveling, but where is the tailor or seamstress who knows how to patch the widening holes? I don't think you'll find that special person parked beside the water cooler at any federal agency or wandering around the West Wing.

Maybe we should wait for answers from Chelsea Clinton, who has now taken on a chief of staff and appears ready to embark upon a career in politics destined to return her to the White House (http://freebeacon.com/chelsea-ponders-political-future/), unless her plans are hijacked by Sasha or Malia, several decades hence.

It's not going to have a happy ending, and busy as I am digging holes in the garden, I have no time to watch.

Gail Collins, "Yipes, It’s Congress on the Move": Anthony's Crotch, Kim Jong Un's Tiny Weiner

Do you speak Korean? No? Nor do I, but I'm willing to wager there are certain things coming out of Pyongyang that you are still capable of comprehending. More on this in a moment.

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Yipes, It’s Congress on the Move" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/11/opinion/collins-yipes-its-congress-on-the-move.html), Gail Collins concludes:

"As if we didn’t have enough on our plates, this week’s Times Magazine has a story by Jonathan Van Meter announcing that former Representative Anthony Weiner is seriously thinking about running for mayor of New York City. This year!

That one I’m pretty confident we can handle. The citizens of New York just have to decide whether to forgive an elected official who tweeted pictures of his crotch to women he had never actually met. We’ve had bigger challenges. Maybe we can form a committee."

Indeed, Gail, we've had, and currently have, bigger challenges (although Anthony might not agree).

Go to the following recent video from the North Korean government website, Uriminzokkiri. Some two minutes and fifty seconds into this cinematic gem, you will witness an imaginary missile attack on the White House and the Capitol:



You may not speak Korean, but most people know when they're being threatened.

In a recent guest New York Times op-ed entitled "Stay Cool. Call North Korea’s Bluff." (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/10/opinion/stay-cool-call-north-koreas-bluff.html), Andrei Lankov, a professor of history at Kookmin University, wrote:

"Scores of foreign journalists have been dispatched to Seoul to report on the growing tensions between the two Koreas and the possibility of war. Upon arrival, though, it is difficult for them to find any South Koreans who are panic-stricken. In fact, most people in Seoul don’t care about the North’s belligerent statements: the farther one is from the Korean Peninsula, the more one will find people worried about the recent developments here."

Yes, South Koreans even remained remarkably "cool" when, in 2010, North Korea torpedoed a South Korean navy vessel, killing 46 South Korean sailors (see: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10129703).

Lankov continues:

"A closer look at North Korean history reveals what Pyongyang’s leaders really want their near-farcical belligerence to achieve — a reminder to the world that North Korea exists, and an impression abroad that its leaders are irrational and unpredictable. The scary impressions are important to North Korea because for the last two decades its policy has been, above all, a brilliant exercise in diplomatic blackmail. And blackmail usually works better when the practitioners are seen as irrational and unpredictable.

Put bluntly, North Korea’s government hopes to squeeze more aid from the outside world. Of late, it has become very dependent on Chinese aid, and it wants other sponsors as well."

Well, that's a helluva way to go seeking aid, unless you've come to the realization that America's president is as tough as a marshmallow.

And what does Chuck Hagel, Obama's new secretary of defense, have to say about North Korea's thinly veiled threat? As reported by CNN (http://edition.cnn.com/2013/04/10/world/asia/koreas-tensions/index.html):

"North Korea is 'skating very close to a dangerous line' after weeks of saber-rattling, U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel warned Wednesday as northeast Asia watched for an expected missile test.

'Their actions and their words have not helped defuse a combustible situation,' Hagel told reporters at the Pentagon. He said the United States and its allies want to see North Korean rhetoric 'ratcheted down,' but if that doesn't happen, "our country is fully prepared to deal with any contingency."

'We have every capacity to deal with any action North Korea will take to protect this country and the interests of this country and our allies,' Hagel said."

You can just imagine the credibility that Kim Jong Un attaches to the remarks of Hagel, who agreed that America is the world's bully.

Declaring that North Korea is nearing a "dangerous line"? That's the same tactic the Obama administration has taken with Iran for the past four years, and there is no end in sight to Tehran's nuclear weapons development program.

Me? I believe that when somebody threatens to annihilate you, you take them seriously. But then, we also have Anthony Weiner's crotch to contend with.