I’ve been critical of President Obama’s budgets. I’ve argued that while I like the way Obama preserves spending on things like scientific research and programs for the vulnerable, he doesn’t do enough to avoid a debt crisis.

[….]

Extremely senior members of the administration believe these sorts of criticisms are completely unfair and vastly underestimate their fiscal hawkishness. In this column, I thought it only fair that I provide you with a summary of their arguments.

First, their goals. They argue that it’s foolish to try to solve the debt problem with some drastic magic bullet all at once. It’s smarter to stabilize the debt while also looking after other needs, like protecting the vulnerable and investing in things that boost growth and mobility.

They argue that the president’s 2013 budget is a step toward fiscal stability that will also pave the way for bigger steps in the years ahead. They estimate that their budget would produce $5 trillion in budget savings over a decade. It would raise $1.5 trillion in new revenue by raising taxes on those making more than $250,000 a year.

[….]

Basically, what we’re looking at is a period of stability, administration officials say, which would soothe credit markets and give us time to make further adjustments. This, they conclude, is responsible prudence.

I’m not going to pass my own comprehensive judgment on this here. I’ll just say that my conversations reaffirm my conviction that Obama is a pragmatic liberal who cares about fiscal sustainability, who has been willing to compromise for its sake, but who has not offered anything close to a sufficient program to avoid a debt crisis.

But we have a campaign in front of us. If the president is truly committed to a strategy for progressive fiscal stability, as Bill Clinton was, he’ll make that the center of his campaign. He’ll earn a mandate. He’ll win over independents who want fiscal discipline but worry about the way Republicans get there.

David Brooks will vote for Obama. This clown is not a  Conservative, but a  Progressives masquerading as a Conservative like David Frum. His claim that the Pharaoh’s regime wants fiscal responsibility is just laughable. David Brooks is water carrier for the regime and he should not be taken serious. To him, Obama is our divine god-king who is leading America to a greater future. Brooks would be writing favorable of Stalin, Hitler or Mao is they were still ar0ound.

This is not a serious thread because David Brooks is not a serious commentator. He’s just a saner version of Charles Johnson.