Paul Krugman: Senator Bunning’s Universe

[babylonsister]

Senator Bunning’s Universe

By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: March 4, 2010


So the Bunning blockade is over. For days, Senator Jim Bunning of Kentucky exploited Senate rules to block a one-month extension of unemployment benefits. In the end, he gave in, although not soon enough to prevent an interruption of payments to around 100,000 workers.

But while the blockade is over, its lessons remain. Some of those lessons involve the spectacular dysfunctionality of the Senate. What I want to focus on right now, however, is the incredible gap that has opened up between the parties. Today, Democrats and Republicans live in different universes, both intellectually and morally.

Take the question of helping the unemployed in the middle of a deep slump. What Democrats believe is what textbook economics says: that when the economy is deeply depressed, extending unemployment benefits not only helps those in need, it also reduces unemployment. That’s because the economy’s problem right now is lack of sufficient demand, and cash-strapped unemployed workers are likely to spend their benefits. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office says that aid to the unemployed is one of the most effective forms of economic stimulus, as measured by jobs created per dollar of outlay.

But that’s not how Republicans see it. Here’s what Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, the second-ranking Republican in the Senate, had to say when defending Mr. Bunning’s position (although not joining his blockade): unemployment relief “doesn’t create new jobs. In fact, if anything, continuing to pay people unemployment compensation is a disincentive for them to seek new work.”

In Mr. Kyl’s view, then, what we really need to worry about right now — with more than five unemployed workers for every job opening, and long-term unemployment at its highest level since the Great Depression — is whether we’re reducing the incentive of the unemployed to find jobs. To me, that’s a bizarre point of view — but then, I don’t live in Mr. Kyl’s universe.

And the difference between the two universes isn’t just intellectual, it’s also moral.

Bill Clinton famously told a suffering constituent, “I feel your pain.” But the thing is, he did and does — while many other politicians clearly don’t. Or perhaps it would be fairer to say that the parties feel the pain of different people.

During the debate over unemployment benefits, Senator Jeff Merkley, a Democrat of Oregon, made a plea for action on behalf of those in need. In response, Mr. Bunning blurted out an expletive. That was undignified — but not that different, in substance, from the position of leading Republicans.

more...

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/05/opinion/05krugman.html

[saigon68]

1. Absolutely on point

[NC_Nurse]

2. He is so right. I have NO IDEA what Repubs think they are doing besides

fucking shit up. They have no serious proposals for getting this country back on track, only helping the rich make off with what's left of the pie. It's disgusting.

But what's really appalling, is that so many apparently brain dead people see them as the "populist" party. WTF???

[DailyGrind51]

3. Moving to where a job might be destroys communities, also.

Neighborhood cohesiveness was destroyed during the Reagan recession, leading to an increase in urban crime and other social problems.

[geckosfeet]

4. Why isn't Krugman sitting in Geitners chair?

[babylonsister]

5. For starters, because he's not interested in sitting there? nt

[paulk]

12. well, the stock answer, as another poster predictably points out,

is that Krugman doesn't want the job.

The real answer, however, is that Geitner is sitting where he is because that's who Obama wants sitting there.

[Stuart G]

6. It is very very simple..

Republicans ultimately care only about themselves, their view, their view is always correct, and keeping their money for them.

We really do care about sharing with others.. Deep down we really do.

(also our view might be wrong)

As Krugman said.."...it's moral."

and that's it..

K and R

[activa8tr]

7. Thanks for posting this column! n/t

[Jennicut]

8. What is so utterly laughable is where does Kyl and co think these unemployed people

will find those jobs they are so lazy to not look hard enough? The Rethug philosophy: trash the economy and then blame everyday people when they can't find jobs.

[Enthusiast]

9. Oh, these people would be hired

if they were only willing to work cheap enough. You know, for $1.20/hour or something the GOP would approve of. I like the following:

"The Rethug philosophy: trash the economy and then blame everyday people when they can't find jobs."

I have seen this time after time.

[Jennicut]

10. Yeah...why should anyone want to actually have a living wage when they

can work for pennies an hour?

[Stuart G]

11. Can you imagine a rethug living at a minimum wage? Yet..

They are always against raising it..It would hurt business, their businesses.

[Spazito]

13. Wow, Mr. Krugman nailed it in this article....

Two different universes indeed! One for the 1%ers, one for the other 99%.

[Stuart G]

14. I agree that Krugman has really hit this. the 99 % like us, and them

[Milo40]

15. Which Textbook is Krugman referring to?

Just wondering which Textbook Krugman is referring to about Democrats reading, that have not been read by Republicans.

I wouldn't mind hearing an explanation to why Krugman has changed his opinion on unemployment benefits.

Public policy designed to help workers who lose their jobs can lead to structural unemployment as an unintended side effect. . . . In other countries, particularly in Europe, benefits are more generous and last longer. The drawback to this generosity is that it reduces a worker's incentive to quickly find a new job. Generous unemployment benefits in some European countries are widely believed to be one of the main causes of "Eurosclerosis," the persistent high unemployment that affects a number of European countries.

"Macroeconomics", The authors of that textbook are Paul Krugman and Robin Wells. Miss Wells is also known as Mrs. Paul Krugman.

[FrenchieCat]

16. Bunning voted against Paygo!

That's all she wrote.

Krugman doesn't have a vote in the senate,
nor does Krugman affect the life of millions of Americans.

Therefore Krugman doesn't have to answer shit.

Bunning voted for unpaid Wars, Tax cuts, Medicare Part D, ect., etc....
and voted against Paygo!

Bunning is a fucking freak, like the rest of the Republicans....
he's just crazy enough to be so obvious with his hypocracy,
that no amount of Media cover can help him change the fact
that's he's a busted crazy MoFo.

[hay rick]

18. Misrepresenting Krugman.

You seem to be trying to suggest that Krugman "has changed his opinion" on unemployment benefits. Please notice that your quote says that "public policy...CAN lead to structural unemployment...particularly in Europe, benefits are more generous and last longer." Also, please notice that Krugman points out that America, which has LESS generous unemployment benefits, currently has "more than five unemployed workers for every job opening, and long-term unemployment at its highest level since the Great Depression."

Krugman doesn't say higher unemployment benefits are always good or always bad. As for the other point you seem intent on making- yes, he has had the temerity to coauthor textbooks with his wife.

[quaker bill]

19. read your own snippet

"benefits are more generous and last longer". The maximum benefit here of $275 a week would leave pretty much anyone homeless and grocery shopping at a food bank. This is the maximum benefit which would only be obtained by someone who was making at least $14.00 an hour before they lost their job, roughly double the minimum wage. The benefit covers a maximum of 50 percent of your previous pay up to $275 a week.

No one on unemployment benefits gets more than 50 percentof what they made with a job. How this functions as a disincentive to find work is beyond me. When I was on unemployment 30 years ago, what served as a disincentive for me was getting turned down consistently. After failing the first 50 to 100 attempts, it gets a tad discouraging. I did take the very first job I was offered, a lousy job where the paychecks occasionally bounced, but it was still better than being unemployed.

Now, if we were to offer a minimum living wage benefit, something along the lines offered by some euro zone countries, a disincentive might materialize. Our benefits would have to be 4 to 5 times more generous before we would face this risk. It takes a callous right winger who has been carefully insulated from reality to miss this not so fine point.

[democrat2thecore]

17. This was a CLASSIC Krugman piece. EXCELLENT! -nt