Brooks and the economics of Dooh Nibor

I think Josh Marshall does an effective job of taking down David Brooks and his column today. But I think Marshall gives Brooks too much credit. His column is not simply "abetting" the Bush administration's "mendacity."

Under cover of "moderation," Brooks weaves a tale that states that the tax cuts were first and foremost "stimulus." Nonsense -- and Brooks knows it -- the tax cuts were initially positioned as reducing the surplus and giving back to the tax payers. Then, when it was clear that not only was the surplus fast disappearing because the tax base was decaying in the face of the internet bubble bursting, the tax cuts were then positioned as "stimulus." But the effect of Brooks' "moderate" tone is, How can you question such a reasonable man as myself? If you do, you are only a shrill Bush-hater who can't listen to reason. "I realize it's now practically illegal to have modulated views about anything related to the Bush administration," Brooks writes.

No one has yet convinced me that the Bush tax cuts were, in fact, effective stimulus. Unlike a cut in the payroll tax or helping states reduce sales tax, tax cuts geared primarily for the wealthy -- and heavily back-loaded to disguise their effect on the budget deficit -- are not designed for stimulus.

I'm no economist, but it seems to me that what has saved Bush from driving this country deep into Hooverville has been the surprise that somehow we avoided "stagflation" without (yet) lofting into inflation. That has allowed the Fed to keep rates low which in turn has kept mortgage rates low, giving people the allusion that they have more money to spend than they really have.

Anyway, thank goodness we still have Krugman as a refreshing tonic to Brooks' fits of hacking.