I agree with Mark Schmitt the Decembris and Brad Delong that David Brooks needs to spend more time with his family. Brooks wrote

" [Senator John] Edwards deserves some praise because he is the only major candidate who talks consistently about the poor. The problem is that he talks about poverty in an obsolete way, which suggests he has learned nothing from the past 40 years.

Edwards talks about poverty in economic terms. He vows to bring jobs back to poor areas and restrict trade to protect industries. He suggests that if we could take money from the rich and special interests, there'd be more for the underprivileged.

This kind of talk is descended from Marxist theory, which holds that we live in the thrall of economic conditions. What the poor primarily need is more money, the theory goes."

which should be enought to disqualify him from writing op eds. This post is a bloated comment to Brad's post and begins with a reply to a commenter who wrote.

"Here's another definition of poverty: Even given the means of providing material needs or comfort, the poverty-striken would still find ways of squandering their newfound means thereby reverting to their "ground" state of having no means."
Posted by Lawrence at March 4, 2004 07:20 AM


Lawrence: You write about what would happen to the "poverty striken" sic. Do you mean each and every one of them ? If not your argument does not follow. If so, you are crazy. Some people, for example, Andrei Shleifer, have been poor and dependent on public and private assistance for reasons unrelated to fecklessness (believe me you have probably never met such an unfeckless person).

Brooks argument that the it is wrong to think that "take money from the rich ... and there would be more for the underprivileged" is a very very extreme statement. All estimates of dead weight losses from taxes and transfers imply that the underpriveleged get more if you tax the rich more and transfer. This shows that Brooks is not just extreme but also inumerate as he seems not to realize that there are numbers less than one and more than zero.


As noted by other commenters, Brooks characterization of Edwards' proposals (in the quoted passage) is so brief that it is not even a travesty.

His idea of what we learned in the past 40 years describes a shift in ideologoical fashion not the result of examination of evidence. What convinces Brooks that undesirable side effects of the earned income credit outweigh its desirable direct effects. All evidence suggests that the side effects are excellent almost better than the direct effects ? Or does he think that the EIC is not a transfer ?

Finally Brooks' idea that "Marxist theory" supports welfare shows ignorance or contempt for the facts. Marx definitely argued that nothing except for nationalization of the means of production would do any good for workers let alone the lumpens.

So Brooks should not work for the NYT, but it is reasonable for them to try to be balanced. There must be some right of center commentator who is not ignorant and dishonest. Brad proposes Brink Lindsey. I think Josh Chafetz and David Adsnik ares OK (they might consider themselves to be left of center). Any others ? It is hard to be a serious right of center commentator while to be right of center you almost have to defend the Bush administration. Still it should be possible.