Despicable Krugman

If you think that the President should try to work with Republicans for the public good, as he himself has said that he intends to do, you'd be wrong. Or at least that is what one Paul Krugman thinks.

President Obama has to make a decision, almost immediately, about how to deal with continuing Republican obstruction. How far should he go in accommodating the G.O.P.'s demands?

My answer is, not far at all. Mr. Obama should hang tough, declaring himself willing, if necessary, to hold his ground even at the cost of letting his opponents inflict damage on a still-shaky economy. And this is definitely no time to negotiate a "grand bargain" on the budget that snatches defeat from the jaws of victory.

In saying this, I don't mean to minimize the very real economic dangers posed by the so-called fiscal cliff that is looming at the end of this year if the two parties can't reach a deal. Both the Bush-era tax cuts and the Obama administration's payroll tax cut are set to expire, even as automatic spending cuts in defense and elsewhere kick in thanks to the deal struck after the 2011 confrontation over the debt ceiling. And the looming combination of tax increases and spending cuts looks easily large enough to push America back into recession.

Nobody wants to see that happen. Yet it may happen all the same, and Mr. Obama has to be willing to let it happen if necessary.

Krugman is willing to see the United States plunged back into recession, with all the pain that that involves for people who aren't on the New York Times payroll, if that is what it takes to win another political victory over Republicans.

A reasonable person could think that Republicans are part of the problem. I consider myself such a person. Any solution to the fiscal dilemma facing the United States will include tax increases across the board. Republicans are adamantly opposed to any increase of tax rates. The same reasonable person would have to think that really significant spending reductions are a necessary part of the solution.

Consider that the "fiscal cliff" involves spending cuts of $1.2 trillion over ten years. That is less that the yearly deficits we have been running over President Obama's first term. We are on the road to fiscal disaster. Perhaps if we defer the necessary pain for a bit longer, economic growth will recover and make the problem easier to deal with. Still, the interest on the federal debt is almost as large as the calculated cost of the Bush era tax cuts and larger than the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined. We can and are winding down the wars, but we can't stop paying the interest. It will soon squeeze out all other federal spending.

Paul Krugman isn't the least bit interested in fiscal responsibility. He is very explicitly willing to sacrifice the American economy and grind up millions of ordinary people to the cause of humiliating Republicans. He is a despicable man. Let us fervently hope that the President does not share his view.

Comments

[larry kurtz]

Looks like Rep. Noem has abandoned her congressional work load to raise money for a living: is any paramour worth $3300 a day?

[Donald Pay]

Huh? The fiscal cliff is the imposition of fiscal measures that will reduce the deficit. You agree with Krugman that it could cause a recession. You seem to be arguing against fiscal discipline and for it at the same time. Being on both sides of the argument is cowardly.

Unfortunately, Republicans will need to come up to and maybe go over the cliff to focus their minds a bit on what protecting the wealthy elite from paying their fair share means. Krugman is right: we need to stop letting Republicans, who are more concerned with protecting their patrons than in rational fiscal management, run the show.

It will take less than a week over the cliff before the Republicans will be demanding a way up and out of the mess. It's good that you see it, and are willing to accept tax increases. Unfortunately, your tea bagging political friends don't see it that way, yet. Better start writing missives about them, rather than Krugman.

[G-Man]

Hey,Ken: PUT A SOCK IN IT! LOL

[Bill Fleming]

Good discussion at breackfast this morning with a diverse group of Black Hills political thinkers of all stripes. Interesting that both discussion leaders (one liberal, one conservative) seemed to agree that the thing to do is to not do anything. (i.e. let the tax cuts expire and sequestration happen.) Scares the hell out of me, but it interesting to consider nonetheless. I'm still mulling it over.

[Mark Anderson]

You know, the Republicans rejected solving this problem by rejecting a grand bargain that gave then a 10 to 1 advantage. 10 parts reduction to 1 part raising taxes. Krugman is absolutely correct, if the Republicans don't want to play ball, why give in to them. If they refuse to compromise, why compromise yourself? I know you hate Krugman, perhaps he is an opposite reflection of the entire Republican party. You read his statement and only see in it what you want to see. He is simply saying play it the same way the Republicans play it.

[Tom Tee]

I have read every column that Paul Krugman has written in the last 10 years and he has been absolutely correct on EVERYTHING he has said during that time. There is ONLY one way to deal with a BULLYING mentality and that is to punch the bully in the nose and bloody his face. Republicans have been bullying this administration by holding the voters well being hostage, for far too long. Low taxation for the wealthy is NOT an inalienable right of the wealthy, irrespective of what Republicans may think.

[Stan Gibilisco]

Great photo. Which one is Krugman?

[Stan Gibilisco]

More seriously ... Ken, why do you despise this guy so much? He's just an op-ed columnist. I don't agree with Krugman very often, but you know, in this case I (sort of) do.

Maybe you are right when you say, "He [Krugman] is very explicitly willing to sacrifice the American economy and grind up millions of ordinary people to the cause of humiliating Republicans."

One could just as well change a couple of words to get, "The Tea Party Republicans are very explicitly willing to sacrifice the American economy and grind up millions of ordinary people to the cause of humiliating Democrats."

The Tea Party Republicans have real power. Krugman has only his pen. Krugman can meow and meow and meow, and that is all. The Tea Party Republicans can send us all back into recession.

Why can't the Tea Party learn that once in awhile, you have to be willing to lose a battle in order to win the war?

[Ken Blanchard]

Stan: the less reprehensible one. I have pointed out in numerous posts why Krugman is despicable. He accused Republicans of living in their own moral universe because they made an point about unemployment that Krugman himself had made in his own economics text. He wrote a scurrilous column accusing the Tea Party specifically and Republicans in general of encouraging violence, based on images and language that were equally common among Democrats. Now he advocates deliberately plunging the American economy back into recession, after a dreadfully weak recovery, if that is what it takes to discredit Republicans. A reasonable person might conclude that the fiscal cliff or even another recession would be good for us in the long run. Only a despicable person could want one for Krugman's reasons.

The Tea Party folks think that we are on the road to fiscal disaster. They are right. There is nothing wrong with saying so.

[larry kurtz]

"The Republican Party can appeal to “Judeo-Christian values” as long as the sun shines and their voices hold out. But they’ve abandoned the most basic moral value of all: fairness."

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-real-gop-fiasco-fairness/

[A.I.]

There is nothing in this Krugman column, or any other that I have seen, indicating he wishes to humiliate Republicans. He is simply saying he wants Obama to stand up to them and promote tax policy that you say you agree with. What on earth is wrong with that?

[Ken Laster]

Where was KB's outrage when the Republicans used the debt ceiling to hold our country hostage, under threat of S&P downgrading our ratings. Where was KB's outrage when McConnell pronounced on day 1 of the Obama Administration that his number one priority was to make sure Obama was a one term President (through blocking the President's legislative agenda). Where was KB's outrage when the Republicans filibustered and blocked every one of Obama's job bills for purely political reasons.

The Republican controlled congress has filibustered, blocked, obstructed most everything that our President has proposed to carry out McConnell's promise, regardless if it meant sacrificing jobs or lowering our countries S&P rating. They have flat out refused to compromise on any legislation the president proposed.

Now the People have spoken. They want a balanced approach to attacking deficits and balancing the budget, including tax hikes on the wealthy as well as cutting spending. All Krugman is saying is that Republicans were not willing to compromise after the 2010 elections, now Obama should hold his ground and advance those policies that the people elected him to office to carry out.

[Ken Blanchard]

Ken: Glad to see you are still reading. Krugman has been telling us for some time now that we should dramatically increase spending to get the economy moving again. Now he is willing to see the economy plunged back into recession. Why? He expects that the Republicans will get the blame. I think that this is not commendable.

I think your account of the Republican positions is deeply jaundiced. But if the Republicans are to blame for failing to compromise (which means doing everything the Democrats wanted), who is to blame if the Democrats now refuse to compromise?

A "balance approach" would involve revenue increases and spending reductions. I have said many times that I endorse both and that the Republicans are part of the problem. In fact, the Democrats have been just as obstructionist as their counterparts. I can see the fault in both. Why can't you?

[Douglas Wiken]

What have the Democrats obstructed? The GOP continuous war on the middle class and the unrich. What have the GOP obstructed? Reality. They are in a fantasyland of zombie economics and ideological mythology.

Krugman does not tolerate fools well. That is why the GOP fools despise him.