While most progressive commentators responded in true Pavlovian fashion to hearing the words “spending freeze” and embarrassed themselves, some people realized the truth about this stupid proposal.
“While the freeze would shave no more than $15 billion off next year’s budget — barely denting a deficit projected to exceed $1 trillion for the third year in a row — White House officials described it as a critical part of a broader deficit-reduction campaign intended to restore confidence in Obama’s ability to control the excesses of Washington.”
Steve Benen was typical of the sensible progressive response, but he still is focused on the wrong problem.
Indeed, while we wait for additional details — an administration official said the cuts would target “duplicative,” “ineffective,” and “inefficient” spending — I’m tempted to call the freeze idea symbolic, at best. In President Obama’s first budget proposed cutting $11.5 billion in spending, and most of the cuts were approved by Congress. This next budget, including the freeze, is eyeing reductions between $10 billion to $15 billion.
So, if the proposal isn’t really going to change much, why is this disappointing? Because it fully embraces the conservative narrative, instead of using the power of the bully pulpit to explain why conservatives have it wrong.
It may be even worse as a policy matter — we just don’t have enough details to say — but that’s distressing enough.
This is the same framing/Overton Window rabbit hole that progressives seem obsessed with, but really means nothing. The problem isn’t that “spending freeze” ostensibly endorses a braindead McCain campaign proposal. The problem is that the proposal is a joke that will be taken seriously by exactly no one in the commentariat (excluding Pavlovian anti-Obama progressives). So, in the arena of public opinion making, this proposal is indefensible and will be rightly ridiculed by all sides. It’s only virtue is its unseriousness, and that is no virtue at all.
Having said that, it will cause no real harm beyond whatever political cost there is to being laughed off the front-page.
