I don’t know anything about the federal budget. I mean, I don’t know anything about the specific budget being debated now, nor do I know, in general, anything about the federal budget at any point in time. I barely have a handle on my household budget.
I also don’t hate David Brooks. I disagree with David Brooks 95% of the time, but I think he’s an intelligent guy and a good writer.
But. In his column about Paul Ryan’s budget, he says, “Until [the Democrats] find a way to pay for the programs they support, they will not be serious players in this game.” And I have to ask, aren’t the Democrats one of two major parties in this country? Isn’t the current president a Democrat? Isn’t he a fairly serious player in this game? Aren’t nearly all Congresspeople either Democrats or Republicans? Isn’t that serious?
And which is less serious, not having the money you need for the programs you want, or declaring that you should not need any money to run a federal government at all? According to Paul Krugman’s column, Ryan’s budget calls for us to eventually be spending less on nearly all federal programs, including defense, than we currently spend on just defense. I thought the Republicans loved spending money on the military.
Again, I know nothing about budgets. But I do know how to read a sentence, and that sentence is absurd.