Just a thought: if you follow the pundit discussion of matters fiscal, you get the definite impression that some kinds of deficit reduction are considered “serious”, while others are not.
The Obama administration proposes raising taxes on the rich; Republicans propose raising the age for participation in Medicare.
Those tax hikes would raise $1.6 trillion over the next decade; according to the CBO, raising the Medicare age would save $113 billion in federal funds over the next decade.
Paul Krugman is my favorite economist. He inhabits the real world outside the Beltway and outside the heads of the very serious people who expound on the teevee. Mr President and Democrats, keep in mind that the majority of people in the country voted for your policies. You have no reason to make concessions to the side that lost the election, namely the Republicans, especially to the crazy extremists in the GOP. Leave it to Boehner to pacify the hoards in the House. That's his job. Your job is to stand your ground and our ground, as you were elected to do. Boehner, as was true of Mitt Romney, will not give details of his not-serious proposals to address the deficit, but don't we all know the devil is in the details?
Amen! to all you said.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Russ. It seems we can never let down our guard. Well, Advent is, after all, the season of watching.
DeleteKrugman gets it, and he says so CLEARLY. Love that about him.
ReplyDeleteYou're right, JCF. Krugman speaks economics clearly in language I understand, and he makes good sense.
DeleteOne thing the Republicans just don't get is that they lost an election in which the opposition's leading economic campaign platform was to restore Clinton era tax rates on people who earned over $250K. If the election has no other consequence, it should have this one. The Dems should not concede the point, and they must hammer on it until it works its way through the thick skull of the GOP. If the economy falls apart as a consequence of higher rates on the wealthy, well then we have another election every two years for the electorate to ask for appropriate adjustments.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, what I love about Krugman (in addition to what has been said above) is that he is so sincere. It's obvious that he knows his stuff; and he is so genuinely concerned for the welfare of the country. He spouts none of the slick-sounding rhetoric that comes out of others in his field.
Not only do certain Republicans not accept that they lost the election, but those who do blame the entire debacle on Mitt Romney and are already erasing him from the history of the Republican Party. Boehner must be kicking himself for not whipping his troops in line to accept one of the deals offered before the election. Even if he wants to make a reasonable deal, he has the tea partiers nipping at his heels, but he realizes, if the tea partiers do not, that in the next Congress there will be fewer Republicans.
DeleteKrugman is the best and doesn't seem to have an ax to grind, except to expose the jokers who pretend to be serious.