April 11, 2013 Bold on Both Ends By DAVID BROOKS

It’s time to entertain the possibility that President Obama is a
right-wing extremist. After all, look at where he’s taking the country
over his second term.

We’re living in a country where 53 percent of children born to women
under 30 are born out of wedlock, according to government data. Millions
of people, especially men, are dropping out of the labor force. Nearly
half the students who begin college are unable to graduate within
six years. The social fabric for people without college degrees is
in shambles.

Yet President Obama is not offering proposals commensurate with those
problems. Under his budget, domestic discretionary spending would be
lower as a share of G.D.P. than it was under Reagan, both Bushes and
Nixon. When it comes to this category, Obama’s budget would take us
back to Eisenhower levels.

The president is increasing total revenues to a historically high
20 percent of G.D.P. by 2023. Federal spending would remain at a
way-above-average 22 percent of G.D.P. But Washington still can’t
seem to devote enough money to address the challenges faced by the
less-educated and ease the segmentation of America. That’s true
even after you account for the domestic programs that are outside the
discretionary budget category and have their own funding stream, like
the new early childhood initiative.

I generally come to celebrate, not criticize, this budget. Obama has the
guts to take on special interests in his own party. He works hard to
reduce inequality. He understands that entitlement programs represent
a fundamental threat to the sustainability of the welfare state. He
understands that politics can only work if the president transcends
his base and builds a majority coalition. His budget should put to rest
those crazy claims that he is some sort of Norwegian socialist.

But being moderate means throwing away ideological blinders and facing
reality. Right now, America faces two giant problems: social unraveling
today and cataclysmic debt tomorrow. This budget takes small steps to
address both problems when big strides are needed.

So where do we go from here? That’s easy. First, we have the same
kabuki debate we’ve been having for the past few decades. This debate
is organized around the following trade-off: more revenue in exchange
for more spending cuts.

This debate will probably go nowhere. Republicans feel as if they’ve
already given away the store on new revenue, so they are not going to be
compromising. President Obama needs to show Democrats that this budget
is the endpoint, not a starting point, for a further rightward drift. He
doesn’t have much room to compromise either.

The kabuki debate will probably end, as it usually does, with gridlock and
name-calling. But then we can move on to Debate B. This debate would be
organized around a different trade-off — not a balance between taxing
and spending, but a balance between greater discretionary spending in
exchange for structural entitlement reform.

In this framework, Democrats would get a lot of the good ideas that are
in the Obama budget, but they’d be bigger and more aggressive. We’d
take the pre-k initiative, the spending on scientific research and the
infrastructure spending. But then we’d throw on top other programs. Make
more men marriageable (by helping them earn a reliable wage). Rebind
the social fabric in atomized communities (social entrepreneurship
funds). Maybe expand a national service program to give more young adults
discipline, orientation and connections.

Republicans would get structural entitlement reform. Here, too, we
could build on the ideas in the Obama budget, like chained Consumer
Price Index for Social Security and the expansion of means-testing
for Medicare. Then we could throw on other modest structural reforms:
Combine Medicare Parts A and B and further limiting Medigap plans in
order to induce seniors to make more cost-conscious decisions. Repair
federal pensions and the disability system. Means test Social Security
and raise the Medicare eligibility age for affluent workers.

This deal wouldn’t represent the moderation of the mushy middle. It
would represent muscular moderation that is bold on both ends. Persuade
majorities that discretionary spending is not just foreign aid and
earmarks. It’s the government’s best shot at boosting social
mobility. Remind Americans that their country can’t be a rising nation
if we have an entitlements system fit for an aging and declining one.

Right now, we are the North Korea of fiscal policy. We’re living under
the insane sequester that cuts those programs we should be increasing
and spares exactly those old-age programs we should be reforming. Both
parties should have incentive to get to a new fiscal regime.

Party leaders could postpone the debate about tax revenues. They could
accept higher deficits short term. Most important, they could embrace a
deal-making framework that would direct attention toward urgent needs:
discretionary programs for now, structural entitlement reforms that
accumulate over time.