Mr. Freeze

Nate Silver sums up why I think Obama's spending freeze idea is utterly terrible politics.

I'll let the economists talk about the wisdom of curtailing government spending in the middle of a massive consumption deficit, but what concerns me more is the politics. Specifically, the sort of cognitive dissonance that is going to be created in the mind of the average voter when the White House is promising to freeze spending on the one hand (or, more accurately, this will be the media caricature of their gambit), and on the other, trying to defend its stimulus and its health care reform package, trying to excuse the bailout package as a necessary evil, and perhaps trying to champion new programs. Sure, the story is probably being somewhat overreported, and the spending "freeze" will only apply to certain types of spending. And it's applied relative to the already-elevated levels of spending from the FY2010 budget, and not some earlier baseline. There's more bark here than bite, in other words: "freeze on discretionary spending" means something different on K Street than it does on Main Street. But that's precisely what will make the White House (or at least the Democrats collectively) look flip-floppy. Every time the Democrats propose a jobs bill, or a big investment in alternative energy, you're going to have Krauthammer and Kristol chomping at the bit to go on Fox News and proclaim Obama to be a hypocrite. Pity Robert Gibbs trying to parse his way out of that. This is not how one wins news cycles -- or elections.

Which is my point.  Obama has walked right into the jet engine intake on this one.  No matter what he does, no matter what he proposes, the GOP can now attack by simply saying "Why isn't this part of your spending freeze?"  The Village will cluck like hens and nod and voters will go "Yeah, if you put forward a spending freeze, why are you calling for more spending?"
(More after the jump...)


Obama has just made a pinata out of himself for the next three years.  Digby:

It's been my biggest complaint about Obama from the beginning. They always do this "one from column A and one from column B" thinking they can please everyone. But to sound tough on bankers and then enact a spending freeze (on "non-security" spending, natch) is too clever by half. Combined with the deficit fetishism, it will tie his hands at the time he needs the most flexibility on jobs --- and further destroy liberalism in the process. But Evan Bayh will be happy, so that's good.

I just don't know what to say. We are all neo-Hooverists now.

And in one fell swoop, the GOP has slammed the window shut on any discretionary spending on anything, when the next two years are going to be critical as our economy continues to limp along on life support.  If it doesn't get that life support -- and that will become politically impossible under this proposal -- we're in dire trouble.

It doesn't matter if the plan really does save a quarter-trillion over ten years.  It matters what the Village Idiots say, and they'll say Obama is a hypocrite for spending a dime now.  Obama has just handed the GOP the economy issue.  "Obama wanted a spending freeze" will become the new "Al Gore invented the internet".

They never got the GOP plan.  Now, they're just about to give the country away too.

[UPDATE 8:45 AM] Jeff Fecke makes a good counter-argument over at Alas, A Blog.

My guess is that this is the plan — announce, with great fanfare, a “spending freeze” that covers basic departmental budgets and not much else. A freeze that doesn’t come within a furlong of covering the cost of a jobs bill. It’s brilliant politics — you get all the benefits of posing as deficit hawks without any of the actual deep spending cuts (including, it can not be stressed enough, defense) and/or tax increases that a real attack on the deficit would require. Actually, since this is how deficit hawks really behave (when’s the last time Joe Lieberman suggested actually cutting defense? Or Evan Bayh floated a tax hike?), you simply become deficit hawks. And as we all know, deficit hawkishness is A Very Good Thing In Official Washington. Obama’s bound to get great press out of this.

What’s more, eventually, cuts are going to be necessary, as will tax increases. Not now — actually taking on the deficit in the midst of a deep recession would be catastrophic. That said, at some point, some day, we will have to take the deficit on. And that will require dealing with the budget like responsible adults, not Americans. A relatively small, symbolic cut this year to offset a jobs bill and a health care expansion isn’t a bad idea, politically and policywise.

And in a world run by logic (or where Obama was a Republican) this would apply completely.  But I'm betting because Obama's a Dirty F'ckin' Hippie in the eyes of the Village, he'll be attacked mercilessly as a hypocrite for this, and it will be used to hit at every discretionary dime he spends.  The goalposts on what a "serious deficit hawk" is will be moved to include entitlement spending cuts, and Obama will be told to put up or shut up on those.  If he doesn't, he gets pillaged and the whole Overton Window spending argument gets moved over to the right.  If he does, Obama cut Social Security and Medicare, and the Dems are dead meat.

Either way, the Republicans have already won.