Krugman: Pretending to be stupid

[johan helge]

Krugman (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/28/pretending-to-be-stupid/):

"When people ask me what I think of the Obama administration, I have a stock answer: they’re not stupid and they’re not evil, which represents a vast improvement.

I stand by that position. But it’s sad that they apparently feel the need to pretend to be stupid:



"Families across the country are tightening their belts and making tough decisions. The federal government should do the
same. (Applause.) So tonight, I’m proposing specific steps to pay for the trillion dollars that it took to rescue the
economy last year.

Starting in 2011, we are prepared to freeze government spending for three years. (Applause.) Spending related to our
national security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will not be affected. But all other discretionary
government programs will. Like any cash-strapped family, we will work within a budget to invest in what we need and
sacrifice what we don’t. And if I have to enforce this discipline by veto, I will. (Applause.)"



This is exactly — exactly — what John Boehner said last year:



"Boehner said Americans want government to practice the same financial restraint they have been forced to exercise: “It’s
time for government to tighten their belts and show the American people that we ‘get’ it.”"



It was stupid then, and it’s stupid now.

The saving grace, such as it is, is that administration officials know better; they’re well aware that the spending freeze will make no difference to the long-run budget outlook. This is just a sop to public prejudices and/or centrist Democrats in the Senate.

But it’s a spectacular demonstration of Obama’s failure to change the narrative. Not only is he accepting the general Republican world view, he’s parroting their dumb attacks on his own policies."



But Krugman says also, "On A More Positive Note" (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/28/on-a-more-positive-note/):

"Jon Cohn says that the speech was a modest boost in the arm for efforts to save health care reform."

[JVS]

1. Krugman is right. Anyone who has taken macro-economics knows that that govt. belt...

tightening stuff in a weak economy is Hoovernomics and really is stupid. It would be better to say that at a time when so many are making cutbacks, it is the time for the government to fill in the gaps until things improve. Obama decided to go to with the lowest common denominator on that one, and by doing so re-inforced its power. On the fortunate side, I think it's supposed to be for political show rather than the basis of fiscal policy, but not being able to tell it like it really is is a problem. This is not a step forward in the battle against GOP Meatheadery, it's a concession.

[RaleighNCDUer]

2. "And if I have to enforce this discipline by veto, I will."

It sounds like he left a very large window open, there. Something like, when the budget comes up and he requests that this or that pork be cut from it, he can say 'I warned you a year ago' - but less porcine projects that need funding he will choose to overlook. He did NOT say he's going to cut everything - just that he will LOOK at everything. He can still protect the investment-style programs that are sent to him.

[PA Democrat]

4. The three econ nerds living in my house agree, why perpetuate the lie?

It empowers the liar and gives them political ammunition to fight against any type of government spending. What better tool to use against your opponent than their own words? You know the Republicans will use the President's words against him every time he proposes any spending that will help the middle class or help create jobs.

I understand what he was trying to do- fight the perception of a government with out-of-control spending habits. People are pissed off over the corporate bailouts. But I think at some point, you have to be honest with the American people instead of continuing to tell them that the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy and Santa really DO exist. You don't cut or freeze government spending during a recession, even if it means adding to the deficit. We eventually have to talk about increasing taxes for the wealthiest, making corporation foot their share of the bill and abide by government regulation, and we have to discuss the elephant in the room, an obscenely bloated defense budget. Those additional billions in defense spending are NOT going to save Americans from the monster living under the bed.

Likewise, Obama's proposal to extend the tax breaks (through accelerated depreciation) for businesses for capital expenditures. The multiplier effect is 0.27. It's throwing a bone to the supply side economics true believers, but it's bad policy and again perpetuates the lie.

There was so much I liked in the speech, but with the economy being the biggest problem on the horizon I have to question the advisability of perpetuating fairy tales.

[Hello_Kitty]

7. Unfortunately that is not the case in many states where balanced budgets are mandatory

They stuck that in Arizona's constitution when it became a state back in 1912. So now that AZ is in a budget crisis and deep debt, the only options are drastic cuts to spending or raising taxes. Since Republicans control both chambers of the state lege and the Governor is a Republican, guess which option is winning out? I think the situation in states lends to the perception people have that government is like their household budget because in many of those states, that actually is the case.

[depakid]

3. "Not only is he accepting the general Republican world view, he’s parroting their dumb attacks..."

Exactly.

And that was far from the only instance of legitimizing and reinforcing the Republican narrative.

As John Nichols noted in The Nation, he's still clinging to the fantasy of bipartisanship:

Instead of rallying the base, President Obama chose to preach the gospel of bipartisanship. Instead of offering America a bold new agenda, or at least an edgier style, the president chose to recall old themes. Instead of accepting that the approaches of 2009 did not work, the president signaled that they will be repeated in 2010.

More: http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat/522657/i_never_suggested_the_change_would_be_easy

[amandabeech]

8. He is simply stuck.

He did very well in law school, but he doesn't appear to be very flexible.

FDR may not have the LSAT of Obama, but he was flexible. During the Depression, he tried everything. If everything didn't work, he tried everything else.

I wish Obama would channel a little more FDR.

[rapturedbyrobots]

10. its hard to be flexible when you and ALL of your advisers

are neoliberal true-believers. its like asking a christian fundamentalist to try a few verses from the qur'an.

[amandabeech]

11. Excellent comparison!

He's in the choir, and he is not going to stop singing the same old songs. (My apologies to Holland-Dozier-Holland)

No doubt about it.

[Hawkowl]

12. Bingo!

Obama and his administration are governing by BELIEF. Belief that the God of the free market will save them as long as they BELIEVE hard enough.

Obama is an idiot with blinders on who is ignoring the historical failures of markets. He has surrounded himself with Chicago School of Economics zealots (disciples of the true son of the god of Free Markets, Milton Friedman).

Obama is exhibiting as much acumen on the economy as John McCain did. He is ignoring all the economic experts who specialized in fixing broken economies such as Volcker, Black, Warren, Stiglitz et al. Experts who insist on strong regulation, rule enforcement, and massive Keynesian stimulus.

Obama is either a fucking moron, or he really believes he can buy his way into the country club by giving away the store to the looting Banksters who will then appease the God of disaster capitalism.

[Armstead]

5. K&R That's the real problem -- Pretending to fight republicans, whiule handing them ammo

[change_notfinetuning]

6. Obama administration - "they’re not stupid and they’re not evil." How low can

we set the bar? Does it get any lower than that?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

9. So... Krugman isn't playing stupid himself, he really is stupid?

Because over the last couple of years Krugman's made some blatantly stupid comments involving gross misconceptions of how politics works.

I always figured he was playing dumb.