Krugman: The Destructive Center

[johan helge]

Krugman (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/09/opinion/09krugman.html?_r=1):

What do you call someone who eliminates hundreds of thousands of American jobs, deprives millions of adequate health care and nutrition, undermines schools, but offers a $15,000 bonus to affluent people who flip their houses?

A proud centrist. For that is what the senators who ended up calling the tune on the stimulus bill just accomplished.

(..)

But how did this happen? I blame President Obama’s belief that he can transcend the partisan divide — a belief that warped his economic strategy.

After all, many people expected Mr. Obama to come out with a really strong stimulus plan, reflecting both the economy’s dire straits and his own electoral mandate.

Instead, however, he offered a plan that was clearly both too small and too heavily reliant on tax cuts. Why? Because he wanted the plan to have broad bipartisan support, and believed that it would. Not long ago administration strategists were talking about getting 80 or more votes in the Senate.

Mr. Obama’s postpartisan yearnings may also explain why he didn’t do something crucially important: speak forcefully about how government spending can help support the economy. Instead, he let conservatives define the debate, waiting until late last week before finally saying what needed to be said — that increasing spending is the whole point of the plan.

And Mr. Obama got nothing in return for his bipartisan outreach. Not one Republican voted for the House version of the stimulus plan, which was, by the way, better focused than the original administration proposal.

In the Senate, Republicans inveighed against “pork” — although the wasteful spending they claimed to have identified (much of it was fully justified) was a trivial share of the bill’s total. And they decried the bill’s cost — even as 36 out of 41 Republican senators voted to replace the Obama plan with $3 trillion, that’s right, $3 trillion in tax cuts over 10 years.

So Mr. Obama was reduced to bargaining for the votes of those centrists. And the centrists, predictably, extracted a pound of flesh — not, as far as anyone can tell, based on any coherent economic argument, but simply to demonstrate their centrist mojo. They probably would have demanded that $100 billion or so be cut from anything Mr. Obama proposed; by coming in with such a low initial bid, the president guaranteed that the final deal would be much too small.

Such are the perils of negotiating with yourself.

Now, House and Senate negotiators have to reconcile their versions of the stimulus, and it’s possible that the final bill will undo the centrists’ worst. And Mr. Obama may be able to come back for a second round. But this was his best chance to get decisive action, and it fell short.

So has Mr. Obama learned from this experience? Early indications aren’t good.

For rather than acknowledge the failure of his political strategy and the damage to his economic strategy, the president tried to put a postpartisan happy face on the whole thing. “Democrats and Republicans came together in the Senate and responded appropriately to the urgency this moment demands,” he declared on Saturday, and “the scale and scope of this plan is right.”

No, they didn’t, and no, it isn’t.

[Skittles]

1. Krugman nails it as usual

[Metta]

2. Wake up, Obama, to what we need and to your mandate!

and stop pussyfooting around with demons. Bill Clinton was undone by being Republican light and so we have GATT, NAFTA and the telecommunications act.

[Thrill]

7. Can't blame Obama for a fraction of the Democratic Causcus in the Senate

that is behind these cuts

[amborin]

12. if you go back and read Krugman's

early posts...on his blog, conscience of a liberal, you'll see he, and many many other economists and social theorists, thought Obama should never have started out with a compromise position....

Obama's first stimulus proposal should have been colossal....and only then, after some bargaining, toss in a few items, to compromise with rethugs....

the problem was in the early drafting and early moves....not coming on from a power position but from a 'bipartisan' position

and with rethugs, there is no bipartisanship

[BeyondGeography]

18. You and Ivory Tower Guy make it sound so easy

We've already seen how difficult it is to work out a "compromise with rethugs." There's also this thing called public opinion, and its evil dysfunctional twin, the media. Thankfully, Obama understands better than The Tenured One the fine line that exists between "colossal," and being stamped as "irresponsible" at the beginning of your presidency, thereby putting one's entire agenda in danger.

Will someone please try to explain that to Professor Clueless?

[johan helge]

22. I don't understand how Obama thinks

According to Krugman:

Obama "offered a plan that was clearly both too small and too heavily reliant on tax cuts. Why? Because he wanted the plan to have broad bipartisan support, and believed that it would. Not long ago administration strategists were talking about getting 80 or more votes in the Senate." Why does Obama want a bad stimulus with 80 votes rather than a better stimulus with fewer votes?

And why does Obama say that “the scale and scope of this plan is right”, when he must know that this isn't true? That is to take the responsibility (and the blame later) for this mess. Why doesn't he (offer a better plan and) give the responsibility to those who should have it, the centrists?

[BeyondGeography]

26. Because

a)There really is an economic emergency and this needs to be done yesterday. $800 billion is still a huge injection into the economy.

b)The (relatively) pared-down plan that the Left and Krugman are pissing and moaning about still needs to be sold to the public. Not because Obama has been delinquent in doing so thus far, but because Americans are still far too easily spooked by tales of "runaway government spending."

and c)He has tons of other issues on his plate and he can't start to repair the financial system, revamp health care and transform our energy policy until this is done.

[johan helge]

44. Obama's thinking is a mystery to you, too?

"There really is an economic emergency and this needs to be done yesterday." Are you saying that Obama thought he could get a bad stimulus and 80 votes faster than a better stimulus with fewer votes, and that this time saving was worth getting a worse stimulus? Such time saving sounds implausible.


"The (relatively) pared-down plan that the Left and Krugman are pissing and moaning about still needs to be sold to the public." But the Repubs talk about runaway spending whatever the numbers, and Obama denies this whatever the numbers. So the numbers don't affect the selling to the public much. And: What can really give Obama trouble with the public, is doing exactly what he has done - claiming to have solved the problem ("the scale and scope of this plan is right"), and not having done so.

"He has tons of other issues on his plate and he can't start to repair the financial system, revamp health care and transform our energy policy until this is done." These are other arguments for the time saving mentioned above? Such time saving sounds implausible.

[Larkspur]

28. President Clueless (Obama) should have followed Krugman's advice

in the beginning. But Obama has turned his post-partisanship policy into an ideology that happers his ability to do what is right for this country and he has emboldened the Republican minority with that ideology. Obama got hogged tied by his own past-partisanship ideology by the Republicans, who are experts on doing that to Democrats.

[OneBlueSky]

35. what Obama needs to do is sit down with Paul Krugman, Joseph Stiglitz, and . . .

about a half dozen other progressive economists and LISTEN . . .

then, instead of worrying about bi-partisanship, he should do what's right for the country, which in most cases is adopting radically progressive economic policies that attack the problems at their roots . . .

rather than these namby-pamby centrist policies that accomplish nothing except postponing the day of reckoning -- and marginally at that . . .

[Thrill]

21. Thats the problem. Krugman doesn't understand the Senate and Obama does

People keep making this about the Republicans. But the tax cuts were Campaign Promises. And unlike Krugman, Obama knew he would have to start there to get the conservative Democrats on board.

Krugman makes the mistake of thinking because the Congress is run by Democrats. They are all liberal. The fact is some of them are more conservative than some of the Republicans

[Dr.Phool]

25. Stop calling them "Centrists".

Call them what they really are.

Conservative, Blue Dog, DLC DINO's.

[Uzybone]

3. Krugman says "blame Obama"

Thanks Paul.

I sure hope you are wrong again.

[Desimal]

24. The cut in State Aid was uncalled for

As well as the cut in Food Stamp assistance.

[TTUBatfan2008]

4. I have a problem with Krugman...

He loses credibility when he sides with the Clintons in the primaries, as if they are anything but centrists.

[Larkspur]

27. Never heard Krugman endorse Hillary

Krugman is an exceptionally good critic of both Republicans and Democrats. He sides with the Truth and doing things correctly the first time. Krugman is dead on with his critique of Obama. Obama has turned post-partisanship into an ideology that has handicapped him from doing what is best for the country.

[AtomicKitten]

39. Krugman's support of cheap labor makes his rant against centrism ring selective and hollow. n/t

[Baikonour]

5. Krugman is fucking brilliant.

[FrenchieCat]

9. Yes, he can talk a mean game.......

cause that's the easy part.

[Clio the Leo]

6. He doesn't have a "belief that he can transcend the partisan divide"...

... he has a DESIRE to want to get things done in spite of party ... but to say that he has a "belief that he can transcend the partisan divide" implies that he's blinded by that supposed belief.

And that's simply not the case. This thing is far from over.

[Larkspur]

29. Obama's post-partisanship policy has become an ideology for Obama

and has handicapped him to doing what is right for this country.

[ROakes1019]

8. inexperience

What I'm detecting in Obama's first few weeks is his inexperience. I think he's savy enough and has good advice that he'll rally. Still, he was too idealistic is thinking he could come in with a smile and good words and sway the Repugs. They're mad about their big losses in the last election and even back to 2006 and they'r in no mood to play nice. I hope he gets it, as he did in his campaign, that you can say the nice words but you have to be tough with these miscreants.

[FrenchieCat]

14. I don't think that PRESIDENT Obama understood that the Cable Chatter

would turn on the economic stimulus plan like a dog that might bite you cause you have taken away his bone.

Now the President realizes that neither the Chattering Classes nor the GOP give a fuck about the American people. He knows what he has to do.

Have you ever tried passing an historic 900 Billion Economic Stimulus packed up with a every Democratic Wish wrapped up in a Bow right after the asshole before you made pass a 700 Billion free for all to the banks, and now 1/2 of that money can't be accounted for?

Didn't think so.

[BeyondGeography]

10. Krugman's itchy little academic trigger finger is showing again

Just can't wait to jump all over Obama, as usual. He hasn't learned anything? That's the opposite of what the Republicans will be saying to themselves by the end of the week when they're licking their wounds over this so-called defeat for our side.

[FrenchieCat]

15. He helping the Republicans want to fight harder.

They hear our sides calling names, and they want to hear President Obama called those names again, and again, and again.

[BeyondGeography]

20. Nah, they're tearing each other apart and we're in a position to make the most of it

“We’re going down a road to disaster,” said Senator Richard C. Shelby, Republican of Alabama, who appeared on CNN with Mr. Schumer. “We’ve never seen this kind of spending, ever, and there is a lot more to come.”

Mr. Shelby also took a swipe at the three Republican senators who have endorsed the measure — Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, and Susan Collins and Olympia J. Snowe of Maine — saying that if Republicans had remained united, they could have forced a more acceptable bill.

The three senators, though, were being praised in weekend radio advertisements by a labor-affiliated advocacy group.

The group, Americans United for Change, bought airtime in Maine and Pennsylvania for commercials commending the breakaway Republicans and urging voters to call and thank them. “Tell them to keep fighting for a plan to get our economy moving again,” the advertisement said.

A similar commercial was running in Nebraska, the home state of Senator Ben Nelson, a Democrat who helped broker the compromise that brought the three Republicans on board.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/09/us/politics/09stimulus.html?ref=us

[amborin]

11. Krugman's early blog posts argued for starting *really* big

and bargaining the stimulus bill down a bit....

[Hello_Kitty]

13. Okay thanks Paul "Cheap Labor is a Good Thing" Krugman.

Thanks a bunch for the role YOU played in the current crapfest.

[democracy1st]

16. but he's helping right now Kitty :)

[amborin]

17. krugman is pro-union, pro-worker, so your comment is erroneous

[Hello_Kitty]

19. Oh rly?

http://www.slate.com/id/1918

He has yet to recant his views on outsourcing that I'm aware of.

[Zenlitened]

45. It's only erroneous if you read past the headline...

... a skill not much valued by the Krugman Has Blasphemed! crowd.

:eyes:

[CTLawGuy]

23. If Krugman has all the answers

he should run for office.

[Larkspur]

30. According to Politico, Krugman is already advising the Obama team on economics

so looks like Obama wants advice from Krugman. Just wish he'd follow it.

[WinkyDink]

31. Note to the President: If the voters had wanted bi-partisanship, the vote would have been closer.

[Larkspur]

32. Jeffrey Klein agrees with Krugman

Obama Turns Gray (Davis)

SNIP

The fundamental problem seems to be that our new president is a lawyer lightly versed in economics. His understanding of our financial crisis is not in the same league with his many other gifts. To help himself out, he's hired the very people who created the crisis. Their impulse is to create ever more complex financial fixes. And to police these fixes and their shifting capital requirements, they've hired in from the private sector (from PriceWaterhouseCoopers, Ernst & Young) the same auditors trained to look the other way.

Does this make you brim with confidence?

Obama's initial missteps are politically and morally shocking. Like Bush, his first instinct has been to protect the status quo. He wants to save the banks. Why? If there is profit to be made, new banks will spring up in their stead. There is no sound reason -- nothing the experts know that you don't -- to transfer private debt into public debt, where it will eventually result in decreased services, increased taxes and crippling inflation.

Is Obama rationalizing that his efforts are stabilizing? Citizens are already de-stabilized by Obama's perpetuation of Bush's ruling class rules: heads they win, tails you lose. Common sense and fair play dictate that financial shortfalls must wipe out bank equity and bond holders before anyone else. This should be non-negotiable. Why is Obama stooping to negotiate?

And what about the $78 billion that citizens overpaid in the first TARP Bailout? Who in the Treasury Department is being held accountable for this enormous loss? Hank Paulson didn't act alone.

By not punishing anyone -- excessive risk-takers, complicit bureaucrats, bait-and-switch bi-partisans -- Obama looks weak. When he comes before the public speaking with fake fury, we fear that he's been shaken and compromised in private first. Even if Obama's popularity isn't diminishing, his reputation is.

SNIP

[jacksonian]

34. i agree 100% -nt

[whistler162]

33. Mr. Krugman Oslo is calling....

please drop that medal thing you just got in the mail!

[QC]

36. It's unfortunate, but typical, how few of the responses here have anything to do

with what Krugman has written, and how many are simply personal attacks on Krugman.

It's hard to believe, but there really was a time when we mostly discussed issues and policies and strategies and ideas on DU. Now it's all about who's dreeeeeeeamy and who's a doodoohead. It's like a junior high slumber party that never ends.

[bridgit]

37. How timely; Krugman declares Rand his primary Valentine: "an immoral war of pressure groups...

"...devoid of principles . . . whose outward form is a game of compromise.” (Rand, The Virtue of Selfishness, p. 91, emphasis is the original.)

http://aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com/2007/10/rand-on-compromise.html

Interestingly, one compromising free market economist whom Rand admired was Alan Greenspan. Greenspan met Rand in 1951 and remained close friends with her until her death in 1982. He contributed three essays to her anthology Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, one supporting the gold standard and two criticizing, respectively, antitrust laws and consumer protection regulations.

In 1974, Greenspan was chosen by President Richard Nixon to head his Council of Economic Advisors. After Nixon resigned, President Ford re-nominated him. Rand attended Greenspan’s swearing-in ceremony in the White House. Greenspan states in his memoirs that by this time he had disagreed with Rand’s belief in government financing through voluntary contributions and hints that he had come to reject consistent laissez-faire policies.

A station I shall endeavor requisition in the next life; the better daughter of a Russian professional from a land forever stripped naked twixt scrambling bouts of winter, discontent and rocks harder than the stones of Jerusalem she rides just there where she smack't! - her splitting maul meant to establish her virtue of selfishness there, at the geometric center she opposed; she dissed them both blithely and in the fullness of time: liberal & conservative; all three really when one considers the handshake itself she frames as the truer evil stalking man but mostly woman while handing all the evil required to slam doors over the simplest compromises: Cobb, or Caesar salad?

ARC - Writing a Convincing Editorial

1. Focus on a central theme.

2. Know the viewpoint you have to refute.

3. Make inductive arguments.

4. Base moral evaluations on the facts.

5. Rely on the reader's implicit knowledge and values.

6. It is more important to be clear than to be eloquent.

7. End on a call to action.

8. Good writing comes from exhaustive editing.

http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=11069

Obama Disses Rand? :rant:

A deliberate comment on the Rand philosophy, or just a coincidence?

“The point is, though, that — and it’s not just charity, it’s not just that I want to help the middle class and working people who are trying to get in the middle class — it’s that when we actually make sure that everybody’s got a shot – when young people can all go to college, when everybody’s got decent health care, when everybody’s got a little more money at the end of the month – then guess what? Everybody starts spending that money, they decide maybe I can afford a new car, maybe I can afford a computer for my child. They can buy the products and services that businesses are selling and everybody is better off. All boats rise. That’s what happened in the 1990s, that’s what we need to restore. And that’s what I’m gonna do as president of the United States of America.

“John McCain and Sarah Palin they call this socialistic,” Obama continued. “You know I don’t know when, when they decided they wanted to make a virtue out of selfishness.”

http://alsblog.wordpress.com/2008/11/01/obama-disses-rand

Money, and the power of it, are entirely different matters. Millionaire Indian Yogi's have been heard referring to it as "green energy" but I am, I'm thinking it is time for 'economists' to stop thinking they run this world including the bumper-stickered Hallmark saints of an unrequited lovelorn St. Valentine

[MadHound]

38. It amazes and amuses me how people around here called for the return of intelligence to politics

Yet when somebody like Krugman, an intelligent, liberal Nobel winning economist dares to criticize Obama or Obama's plan, he's immediately kicked to the curb, banished for heresy. So much for the rule of truth in this administration.

[AtomicKitten]

40. Krugman's support of cheap labor should send him tumbling from the ivory tower you have him in.

But it doesn't apparently. So much for the rule of truth in your post.

http://lisnews.org/node/23563

[noiretextatique]

42. no matter how many times you post that

it still won't make your characterization true.

[AtomicKitten]

43. he's also pro free trade calling those opposed "protectionists"

That's also the truth and it makes one wonder just how much truth must be proffered to dispel the myth 'o Krugman you coddle inside your head. He was an adviser to Reagan for crissakes.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-tasini/paul-krugman-gets-it-wron_b_48401.html

[Larkspur]

46. Krugman told Thom Hartmann on Hartmann's show that he supports protections for labor

and the environment, so his free trade is closer to fair trade.

[endarkenment]

41. Obama has surrounded himself with the same old same old

from the Democratic Party, people who start out the negotiations by placing the ball on the 50 yard line, 'to be fair', and then can't figure out why they end up in the red zone on the wrong side of the field. Every damn time.