Paul Krugman is shrill
Shorter Krugman: Coffee is for closers.
Republicans will surely be emboldened by the way Mr. Obama keeps folding in the face of their threats. He surrendered last December, extending all the Bush tax cuts; he surrendered in the spring when they threatened to shut down the government; and he has now surrendered on a grand scale to raw extortion over the debt ceiling. Maybe it’s just me, but I see a pattern here.
Did the president have any alternative this time around? Yes.
First of all, he could and should have demanded an increase in the debt ceiling back in December. When asked why he didn’t, he replied that he was sure that Republicans would act responsibly. Great call.
Meanwhile John Boehner:
Remember how this all started: the White House demanded a “clean” debt limit hike with no spending cuts and reforms attached. We stuck together, and frankly made them give up on that.
Then they shifted to demanding a “balanced” approach – equal parts spending cuts and tax hikes. With this framework, they’ve given up on that, too….
Now listen, this isn’t the greatest deal in the world. But it shows how much we’ve changed the terms of the debate in this town.
Under the circumstances, it’s easy to forget that Democrats control the White House and the Senate, and that we live in a country where taxing the rich is extremely popular, and cutting entitlements is extremely unpopular. This is like giving up a three-run game-winning homer to Mario Mendoza.
The most important leather waistcoats for men you’ll ever own is the suede leather jacket. Our b-3 bomber jacket are generally less expensive than street bike gear and dirt bike clothing.
Doctor Krugman is worried about whether our form of government will survive.
It won’t.
After the 2012 elections, one party will be in charge. The Republicans. And they will be emboldened.
So don’t be surpised if one day you wake up in ‘The Dominionist Christian Corporate States of America.’
Oh, they won’t call it that. But that’s what it will be.
I hope I’m wrong.
It already hasn’t. We are now effectively governed by a small, radical, faction of lunatics intent on destroying the republic. anybody who thinks that the Teabaggers will not be emboldened by this rank capitulation and up the ante next year over the Bush tax cuts is up for an award for excellence in cranioproctology.
“Doctor Krugman is worried about whether our form of government will survive.
It won’t.”
That’s the only thing I thought Krugman got wrong. The economy is now plainly stalling (the “one bad month/quarter” stuff doesn’t hold water any more), the Republicans have proven they can get 95% of what they want and still have it called a balanced, bipartisan compromise, and there are going to be more of these “deals” between now and next November. The 2012 election is looking bleaker by the month for Obama and company, and more and more “austerity” is unlikely to help.
But all that said, even if 2012 is a disaster and the crazies get back to their 2003-2007 levels of unbridled power and stupid, there’s still going to be an election in 2014, and then again in 2016. The country will suffer greatly in the meantime, but there will be an election, and the crazies can lose. Whether the fanatics in the Republican Party like it or not, the majority of the country that isn’t insane isn’t about to disappear.
The current situation is very, very bad, but the apocalyptic talk is foolish and knee jerk.
And what do you suppose all the legislation to prevent “Voter Fraud” in states run by Republicans is all about?
Some genuine concern about the 0.0001% of cases in elections – quite literally, a handful of fraudulent votes out of MILLIONS cast?
Anyone under the impression that we will continue to have free and open elections needs to give me some of whatever it is they’re on.
I could sure use it!
And it’s not like we haven’t seen tampering before – think 2000, 2002, and 2004. In 2006, but especially the wave in 2008 was big enough that they knew that tampering with electronic voting machines that didn’t leave paper trails, would expose the plot for the whole world to see.
They are working very hard right this second on making sure that only the “right” people vote.
And most of the readers here ain’t a part of the “right” people.
The “apocalypse” isn’t the “crazies” being in charge.
The “apocalypse” is the actual apocalypse, when Italy defaults and Europe collapses and brings us with it. It might start with an American bank collapsing at some point, and there won’t be regulators or laws to manage it. That’s the apocalypse, and I’m becoming more and more sure that it’s coming.
It might start with an American bank collapsing at some point, and there won’t be regulators or laws to manage it.
That’s the start of the apocalypse. The end game is when farms can’t get loans to hire workers to bring in the harvest.
By then, people will be willing to do it for food and shelter for a few days.
I fully expect them to do everything in their power (legal and illegal, moral and immoral, racist and merely mean spirited) to tilt the field in their favor. But our “system of government”, as Krugman styled it this morning, has been through plenty of perversions before. It’s held up pretty well, albeit with plenty of warts and bruises along the way.
Make no mistake, there’s a good chance we’re in for some very ugly years. People are going to die before their time because of deals like this one, lives are going to be ruined or derailed before they even get started, and the most vulnerable among us will bear an overwhelming amount of that pain. But none of that is without precedent.
You see the phrase “Gilded Age” tossed about a lot these days, and as far as pithy comparisons go it’s quite apt. Well, the first Gilded Age was a really shitty time to be alive if you didn’t happen to own a railroad, and that was before the Panic of 1893 destroyed the economy. But it wasn’t the end of the United States, and this won’t be either.
And if the Euro contracts (decent chance) or collapses outright (still seems unlikely), well, that’s gonna suck too. But Europe, for all the crisis talk, is a more peaceful and prosperous place right now than it’s been at any point in its history. That isn’t about to go down the drain completely because some bank collapses.
Again, it looks increasingly likely that we’re in for a very rough decade, but it ain’t the end of the world, or even of “the West”.
I call what we’re living in “The Platinum Age.”
You’re a lot more optimisitic than I am.
With the MSM in firm control, and new technology to track and find people. And new tools for crowd control, like microwave barriers and cannons. And ready, willing, trained and able troops ready for hire as private security forces, I think we are in for some remarkably nasty times that may last for a while.
I really hope I’m wrong, and you’re right.
[...] again is the way to get future reasonable, bipartisan accord in the future. Thank you, Obama, for saying yes over and over again to the people who said no. Had you said no even once this thing could only have [...]
Democrats can undo a lot of the damage from this capitulation by winning big in November 2012.
Boehner and Cantor are saying what they’re saying to sell the bill to their idiot constituency. They’re not going to say “please accept this compromise; it’s the best we could do” or “nobody walks away getting everything in these” or anything like that. They respect (or are scared of) their base. Mainstream Democrats laugh at their base, and will continue to do so until the base starts acting like the Teabaggers.
“Democrats can undo a lot of the damage from this capitulation by winning big in November 2012.”
The only way they’ll win big is if the unemployment level subsides to 4% or lower. Seeing as it’s currently at 9.1%, there’s simply no way for that to happen. Republicans ran on the job issue in 2010 and won by a landslide, after which they conveniently forgot about said issue – but since American voters don’t seem to possess long-term memory, the same story is likely to happen again in 2012…
Republicans ran on the job issue in 2010 and won by a landslide, after which they conveniently forgot about said issue – but since American voters
don’t seem to possess long-term memoryare very poor at assigning blame in a divided government, and because Republicans are still the presidential non-incumbents, and because Republicans control the majority of statehouses charged with redistricting, the same story is likely to happen again in 2012…There, added some political science for you.
LOL… Actually, I have a degree in political science, but thanks anyway. :P I’m well aware of everything you mentioned, but in the end it comes down to one thing: voters are by and large stupid (see the 2004 election) and motivated by fear (see Machiavelli). Everything else is just frosting…
Hey, that’s insulting and simplistic!
They’re also motivated by greed.
4%?!?
Look, I’m with you on the Jobs Uber Alles argument, but that number is just silly.
I don’t think its out of line to argue that the Democrats would need to drop unemployment by that much in order to win BIG in 2012. It depends on what you’d define as big; I typically use ’08 or at least ’06 as my baseline for that these days.
6% between now and then would do it.
How repeating 1937′s mistakes will get us to 6% is something I’m now seeing.
not seeing, that is
In 1936, we actually cut that year’s and the next year’s budgets. We actually reduced the deficit in those years.
Whether you like these cuts or not (It’s “not,” right? lol) they’re not going to be bringing down the deficit before the election.
My bad, I didn’t see “big.”
Yes, there would need to be some kind of miracle for the Democrats to win “big” next year.
For one thing, parties just don’t win “big” any more in elections with turnout that is representative of the public. 2008 is going to go down in history as an aberration, with a 7 point margin being what passes for “big” these days. We’re not going to see a 1984 or a 1964 for a long time.
Second, no president is going to win big in a tough economy.
Srsly, when did we start treating the things Republicans say to their base to get them to support things as if it were gospel?
The Tea Party is in open rebellion about this deal – no balanced budget amendment, what they consider paltry committed cuts – just as much as the netroots, and Boehner is trying to sell them on it. “John Boehner says…” Gee, that’s nice.
They could if they could win, but since they aren’t going to win in 2012, they can’t. And lets be honest here, even if they did win, they wouldn’t.
Sorry, they’re going to get CLOBBERED in 2012 (except maybe for Obama himself who might squeak through due to the terrible quality of all of his aspiring opponents).
Plouffangulation isn’t winning independents; quite the contrary.
I’m extremely unhappy with this compromise but keep in mind that:
1) Obama extracted some stimulus out of the tax deal (e.g., payroll tax cut) and ensured that “taxes for rich people instead of help for everyone else” will be a 2012 campaign issue; and
2) It turned out that he rolled the Republicans in the shutdown deal.
I want some of what you are smoking.
Well, what I’m smoking is making me angry and depressed over last night’s capitulation to the forces of darkness, so I doubt you want any.
But care to explain why I’m wrong about the shutdown deal (e.g., http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/deal-includes-86b-in-cuts-that-likely-would-never-have-been-spent/2011/04/12/AFFbG4bD_story.html) or the payroll tax cut and unemployment extension benefits that would not have survived a Republican filibuster?
I’ll close by noting that the last time I got accused of being crazy and spammish by LGM regulars was back when I was arguing that (1) Obama was a centrist Democrat and that (2) Clinton didn’t deserve all the shit she was getting here because, if anything, she was slightly more to the left than Obama.
2)
For the record, I think DrDick and Dave were being mildly joking in their responses to you.
At any rate, I appreciate the analysis; I’m not a particularly big fan of apocalyptic thinking. But as you note, the deal still sucks, and right now I’m inclined to say that I hope it gets voted down. What do you think?
I want to see it lose in the House and Obama invoke the 14th amendment. But I worry that scenario leads to debt downgrade and bad stuff.
Obama will not go the 14th Amendment route. But Geithner may decide the $1T coin option is better for his real bosses than default is.
How would he invoke it?
One scenario there is that certain entitlements won’t be provided (especially if they aren’t covered by the provision as some like Tribe argue). After this hurts some people a bit, will things get better?
Using some obscure constitutional provision as a deus ex machina seems dubious to me, but anyway, curious how you would see him applying it.
I don’t see him applying it, but I imagine it would play out exactly as the pro-option Con Law scholars say it would: budget supersedes failure to increase debt limit, etc.
Thanks. The 14A says “debt,” not “budget,” so part of the messiness is to determine what that means. So says the Con law scholars. I wonder if the President can just invoke the 14A to end DOMA too. :)
Under this theory of the 14th Amendment, the Prez could do anything to prevent an implied repudiation of the debt – he could borrow more, raise taxes, abolish Medicare, etc. Its a crazed theory, repudicated by almost every mainstream Constitutional scholar, and would be rejected by the Supreme Court on a unanimous decision. It probably made sense for Obama to keep the 14th Amendment argument open as bargaining leverage but it would be insane to ever invoke it.
Richard – I just read a longer version of Tribe’s argument, and I find myself in reluctant agreement with you. So that leaves $2T platinum coins, eh?
If I’m particularly humored-impaired this morning, chalk it up to this @!(*$&! p.o.s. “deal.”
I hear that. I knew I needed to take a break from this crap when I was having bad dreams about it last night. Alas, I still haven’t learned my lesson.
Me too. I need to step away from the internet. On the other hand, this might be incentive to do some particularly onerous work tasks I’ve been procrastinating about. This deal has driven me to bureaucratic paperwork.
I just do not see any upside to this deal.
Can I report Daniel Nexon for spam?
Go for it. I bet the LGM people will jump at the chance to ban me.
A payroll tax cut is pretty weak tea as stimulus goes. In terms of stimulating aggregate demand, there is a much lower multiplier effect from tax cuts than we would get from increased government spending.
It’s probably better than nothing, though. Probably.
But even given that, not all tax cuts are equal from a stimulus perspective. The more progressive a tax, the less stimulus you get from cutting it, because most of the savings will go to the wealthiest people, who are the least likely to spend.
The payroll tax, with its flat rate and income cap, is regressive. Cutting it puts money into the hands of people further down the income scale, who are much more likely to buy stuff with it than bank it.
That’s all true, which is why I don’t actually object to a payroll tax cut. My point – which I didn’t make clear – is that it’s insufficient.
Does it not play into the hands of those who wish to see SS more insolvent?
Actually, it- hey, look at that bright shiny object over there!
A. That’s not what we’re talking about.
B. “More” insolvent? Social Security is insolvent?
C. Not if it stimulates the economy, a la Keynes.
D. No, LaBonne, you asshole, assuming that I don’t have an answer is not an intelligent idea.
Saw recent news reporting indicating that NOW the Obama-ites don’t want to have the tax discussion in 2012, because AGAIN the Republicans will hold the middle class hostage to benefit the rich folks and they don’t want to threaten to have inaction break the President’s pledge of no new taxes on folks making less than 250 K.
Thus, they are once again signalling they will be rolled again
No, no. This is actually the greatest display of rope-a-dope by any president evah! (Uh, never mind the previous display, it’s, um, no longer operative.) Only a firebagger would not see this clearly.
Where are the cuts to entitlements that Obama “put on the table,” Steve? Where are they?
Why are exactly the entitlement cuts Obama “put on the table” protected from the trigger, Steve? Why? Because he was so serious about using them to get a deal, and wanted to see them happen?
The chance you have any answer beyond sarcasm requires more decimal places than Pi.
Always looking on the bright side of life: it potentially sets up 2012 as a referendum on whether we keep the New Deal and pay for it, or whether we dismantle it to keep tax rates low on wage levels most Americans only dream of. What the Republicans have lived off of for too long is the not choosing, having the issue instead of the up-or-down vote on their wild and dangerous designs.
The Democrats are no longer even a little bit credible as protectors of the New Deal and in general of the interests and concerns of non-rich people; hence, they are going to go down in flames in 2012. Contrary to David Plouffe’s idiotic plan, polls are showing Obama tanking among independent voters. They don’t trust the Democrats to keep any of their promises. I wonder why?
I like CT’s take on the deal.
Paul Krugman knows a lot of economics. He knows a lot about policy.
He doesn’t know so much about politics.
And quoting a salesman (Boehner)’s sales pitch to the people he’s trying to sell a product to is lame.
I can’t wait for Republican President Fundiegelical Dumbfuck to be sworn in in Jan 2013 because liberals were pissed off and stayed come cause Obama didn’t mint trillion dollar coins and get impeached. Oh well, ensures prime blogging material.
@Amanda in the South Bay
I prefer to look at that situation as a glass half full.
The one true advantage that Republicans have is that their economic policies haven’t been enacted at the federal level since before the new deal. Therefore they never have to defend anything, they can always be on the attack against the liberal policies we have lived with for the last 75 years. If Republican President Fundiegelical Dumbfuck is stupid enough to actually do what Republicans claim they want the voters will hate it. See the Ryan Plan for a good example of what I am talking about.
President Dumbfuck may do more for the Democratic Party than Clinton and Obama could do with eight consecutive terms between them.
The Republicans had 4 years in which they controlled all three branches of government, and they didn’t try anything like this. The only exception was their attempt to privatize Social Security, the deafening reception to which fairly proves the rule.
Clearly they need divided government if they are to realize their most revolutionary aspirations. What this means for 2012 is left as an exercise for the reader (also, I genuinely don’t know).
That’s the defense of someone who isn’t on Medicaid, who doesn’t have to worry about their child in the military getting shipped off to another war, and so on. If the Republicans actually pass the hard right agenda, it will cause real suffering to real people. If it causes a backlash that elects centrish Democrats again, it won’t erase the suffering. And I’m not so sure that centrish Democrats will fix everything that got busted once they’re in office. (See: Wars.)
Those same centrist Democrats do everything that Republicans do, which is why nobody bothers to vote for your shitty party. You promise the moon, then you deliver a heaping pile of horse-shit mixed with excuses, so nobody even listens to what Dems say anymore. Everyone knows it’s just a lie.
Yeah, I’m sure the massive failure that is the Obama Presidency will have nothing to do with it.
what’s it like to live in a universe where nothing is ever your fault?
I can’t wait for the Obama political team to punch those dirty hippies for not coming out to vote despite the fact that 9% unemployment destroyed Obama among independents. Oh, wait, its already happening!
I can’t wait to lose my job in this disastrous economy that our rulers don’t give a shit about fixing.
Phrases like “emboldening politicians” and “demonstrating that raw extortion works” don’t really make sense to me.
Boldness doesn’t give parties extra seats in Congress. Either a bill has enough votes or it doesn’t, everything else is just trying to figure out where the votes are.
And of course extortion works, that seems kind of tautological. People prefer not to have bad things happen to them, so if you can set things up where people have the option to choose between something horrible and something merely bad, they’ll choose the merely bad. The only reason why we can comfortably say “extortion doesn’t work” in ordinary life is we live in a society where we can call the cops when someone extorts us, so we have a third option. But extortion works very well when you can’t run away from it. You don’t need to demonstrate that extortion works, it’s just basic logic.
“surrendered last December, extending all the Bush tax cuts”
Obama and the Democrats (who actually passed the bill, not “Mr. Obama”) got something in return and with Republicans coming into power (on a platform of cutting government, however bad [and I agree they are] their policy proposals are), this required something in return.
This is how reality works. The House of Representatives is controlled by Republicans who support policies that are bad for America. Majority rules dictate that the ultimate bill, and grown-ups can’t just hold their breath, will be bad. Krugman is correct to remind us of this fact.
The Senate by the way is barely controlled by Democrats, the balance Blue Dogs. So, Congress, where budget policy is made, according to my copy of the Constitution, is controlled by Republicans in one House and on this issue almost so in the other, given a few Blue Dogs will sign on with the Republicans to make a majority.
Krugman is less satisfactory on the politics. His “alternatives.”
[1] Obama would demand a rise of the debt ceiling in December, assuming that unlike 90 or so times, the Republicans would not raise it and/or Rs would agree to give away a major issue in the face of their upcoming majority being pissed if they did. For what reason would they have done this?
[2] Some sort of (he’s pretty vague) “legal maneuvering” that would at best just delay things, since the Rs control the House and could force the issue some other fashion.
Coffee or no coffee, that’s thin gruel.
Small edit: I realize that the President’s veto pen and so forth provides some power over budget policy but ultimately Congress has (and should have; money bills in fact are raised by the House) the majority of the responsibility.
Yeah buddy, keep pretending this is 1832 and the government still works that way. Just don’t expect anyone else to listen to it.
I remember that glorious few hours when Obama had McConnell backed into a corner from which McConnell would never be able to escape and that was showing what a master of negotiating strategery Obama was on behalf of actual liberal priorities and what petulant dumbfucks some of us were to be critical of the arc of capitulation (or maybe it was just the preferred administration policy — it’s so hard to tell the difference).
Memories, misty watercolor memories…
Now, of course, we’re all petulant dumbfucks for thinking (and having said before) that a better deal could have been gotten if Obama and the Dems hadn’t been signalling their preemptive surrender as wildly as they could as soon as they could, and for thinking (and saying) that the Republicans won’t (a) renege on this really shitty deal as soon as they can and run another round of blackmail on the new Catfood Commission all-cut recommendations (see, e.g. what the Republican superminority does in California every year); (b) blame the Dems for the shitty economy for working people that the previous shitty deals have created; and (c) dig in their heels further on everything else (no more judges for Obama — not that it’s been a priority for him anyway).
Oh, come now. Obama’s a master negotiator. He’s got the Republicans right where he wants them–you just can’t see it!
It’s true! Just have faith! He’s playing a long game!
*pssht*
Miller Time!
I spent weeks explaining this to you: that he wasn’t actually putting entitlements on the table, that it was a feint. You assured me it wasn’t, that he really wanted a deal that included reduced Social Security benefits, reduced Medicare benefits, reduced Medicaid benefits.
And here we are, with none of those things having been done.
I spent weeks explaining to you that he was using the demand for more tax cuts in order to keep a deal with the entitlement cuts he “put on the table” from happening, not as an actual effort to give the Republicans entitlement cuts in exchange for tax hikes.
And here we are, with none of the entitlement cuts you were just so certain he wanted included in the deal, not even in the trigger mechanism – oh, and the expiration of the Bush tax cuts counted as the baseline against which the commission’s cuts have to be measured.
And you’re gloating. You’ve just been proven wrong by the outcome of the deal, and you’re too wrapped up in your own awesomeness to realize it.
And now, because your mind is so simple, I know exactly what you’re going to say next: you’re going to assure me that those entitlement cuts he “put on the table” are going to be enacted, sure as the sun will rise in the east, through the commission’s recommendations.
Just like you told me, sure as the sun will rise in the east, that they were going to be enacted in this deal. Except they weren’t.
This is the April “$38.5 billion cave” all over again.
You are a dumbfuck, and it looks like you’re determined to always be a dumbfuck.
Why are there no cuts to Social Security, when Obama “put them on the table?”
Why are there no cuts to Medicare benefits, when Obama “put them on the table?”
Why are there no cuts to Medicaid, when Obama “put them on the table?”
Why are all three of those things explicitly exempted from the triggers?
My problem with “the debt ceiling should have been raised in the lame duck session” is that it marginalizes the coming budget negotiations.
The GOP was guaranteed to take a hostage this Congress. The WH chose to give them the debt ceiling, where the risk of credit downgrade gave more leverage, instead of the budget.
I think it’s pretty incontrovertible that we were going to face a government shutdown over the budget this year… it was just a matter of when. Now, if the GOP takes the budget hostage too, then I agree Obama made a huge blunder and has emboldened the economic terrorists. However, until we know for sure whether that’s the case, it’s hard to say whether or not this was a bad strategy.
Why are we assuming that the Republicans would have raised the debt ceiling in December? Why are we assuming that Obama “gave” them that hostage, and that he could have included it in a deal but just didn’t want to?
I don’t think it’s a certainty that they could have gotten a debt ceiling raise in the lame duck session, but we can at least be certain that Harry Reid didn’t want it. From an Ezra Klein:
So maybe that’s just cover for the fact that they couldn’t get it, but Occam’s Razor suggest the best politics was to play it this way.
We’ll see I suppose.
Ooops… to be clear: “but Occam’s Razor suggests they thought the best poltics was to play it this way.”
I suppose we assume that because a) we have no evidence that he ever tried to include the debt ceiling in December’s negotiations, and b) when asked why he didn’t, he said something about knowing the Republicans will behave responsibly when it comes time to address the debt ceiling.
Not conclusive proof by any means, but certainly evidence.
And what would possibly make you think that they won’t? do you also believe in leprechauns and fairies?
“the Republicans won’t” should of course be “the Republicans will“
This is like intentionally walking Mario Mendoza with the bases loaded in the bottom of the ninth, up by one run, and the last pitch is a wild pitch that the catcher kicks into the dugout.
[...] the Pauls note below, the horrible debt deal is not a pleasant thing to come back to, and I’m sure it’s not [...]
Well, if you’re going to appeal to popular sentiment, then the compromise must be a good idea.
I’m such an ass that I can make joe from Lowell into a figure of sympathy. I can keep this up all day, because I like derailing threads, and there are a lot of cities just north of Boston.
[...] by asking for more than you’ll settle with. Obama, as the article at the link notes (more here), seems to want to go straight to the compromise without negotiating. This is never a good tactic, [...]
Where are the cuts that Obama “put on the table?”
Why aren’t they in the deal?
Why are exactly the things Obama “put on the table” explicitly protected under the trigger?