Paul Krugman: The Obama Agenda

If Obama wins, how much change will he bring about?:

The Obama Agenda, by Paul Krugman, Commentary, NY Times: It’s feeling a lot like 1992 right now. It’s also feeling a lot like 1980. But which parallel is closer? Is Barack Obama going to be a Ronald Reagan of the left, a president who fundamentally changes the country’s direction? Or will he be just another Bill Clinton? ...

Reagan, for better or worse — I’d say for worse... — brought a lot of change. He ran as an unabashed conservative, with a clear ideological agenda. And he had enormous success in getting that agenda implemented. ... America at the end of the Reagan years was not the same country it was when he took office.

Bill Clinton also ran as a candidate of change, but it was much less clear what kind of change he was offering. He portrayed himself as someone who transcended the traditional liberal-conservative divide, proposing “a government that offers more empowerment and less entitlement.” The economic plan he announced during the campaign was something of a hodgepodge: higher taxes on the rich, lower taxes for the middle class, public investment in things like high-speed rail, health care reform without specifics.

We all know what happened next. The Clinton administration achieved a number of significant successes... But the big picture is summed up by the title of a new book by the historian Sean Wilentz: “The Age of Reagan: A history, 1974-2008.”

So whom does Mr. Obama resemble more? At this point, he’s definitely looking Clintonesque.

Like Mr. Clinton, Mr. Obama portrays himself as transcending traditional divides. ... Mr. Obama’s economic plan also looks remarkably like the Clinton 1992 plan...

Sometimes the Clinton-Obama echoes are almost scary. During his speech accepting the nomination, Mr. Clinton led the audience in a chant of “We can do it!” Remind you of anything?

Just to be clear, we could — and still might — do a lot worse than a rerun of the Clinton years. But Mr. Obama’s most fervent supporters expect much more.

Progressive activists, in particular, overwhelmingly supported Mr. Obama during the Democratic primary even though his policy positions, particularly on health care, were often to the right of his rivals’. In effect, they convinced themselves that he was a transformational figure behind a centrist facade.

They may have had it backward.

Mr. Obama looks even more centrist now than he did before wrapping up the nomination. Most notably, he has outraged many progressives by supporting a wiretapping bill that, among other things, grants immunity to telecom companies for any illegal acts ... undertaken at the Bush administration’s behest.

The candidate’s defenders argue that he’s just being pragmatic — that he needs to do whatever it takes to win, and win big, so that he has the power to effect major change. But critics argue that by engaging in the same “triangulation and poll-driven politics” he denounced during the primary, Mr. Obama actually hurts his election prospects, because voters prefer candidates who take firm stands.

In any case, what about after the election? The Reagan-Clinton comparison suggests that a candidate who runs on a clear agenda is more likely to achieve fundamental change than a candidate who runs on the promise of change but isn’t too clear about what that change would involve.

Of course, there’s always the possibility that Mr. Obama really is a centrist...

One thing is clear: for Democrats, winning this election should be the easy part. Everything is going their way: sky-high gas prices, a weak economy and a deeply unpopular president. The real question is whether they will take advantage of this once-in-a-generation chance to change the country’s direction. And that’s mainly up to Mr. Obama.

Comments

[elvis]

Mr. Obama looks even more centrist now than he did before wrapping up the nomination. Most notably, he has outraged many progressives by supporting a wiretapping bill that, among other things, grants immunity to telecom companies for any illegal acts ... undertaken at the Bush administration’s behest.
True, sadly.
Doesn't he get it that he has this election in the bag?
It's the economy, stupid.
It's the war in Iraq, stupid.
It's the lost opportunities and crumbling bridges, stupid.
It's Katrina and flooding....

Can anyone believe that McCaine in his present iteration could win? Maybe the real McCaine of 8 years ago...

It's in the bag. And if he loses, then you know somebody's poked a hole in that bag.

[Ranjit Mathoda]

I point out in my essay The Coming Digital Presidency (http://digitalpresidency.com) that his potential use of the same Internet tools that helped get him the Democratic primary nomination may allow Obama to effect significant change (for good or ill). Imagine you're a congressman, and if you don't support Obama, every person on my.barackobama.com in your district is alerted...

[kotzabasis]

Paul Krugman’s title “The Obama Agenda” is a misnomer. It should be replaced with “Obama’s Secret Agent Agenda”. Nobody knows what his REAL agenda is except himself. But one thing is for sure, that he will fashion his policies according the FLAT winds of populism, if ever he became the occupant of the Oval Office, and not according to the STORMY wings of leadership.

[European Bastard]

Sorry, but what does Krugman want? I never heard anything else from Krugman than
1. Universal Healthcare
2. more EITC
3. maybe a higher minimum wage (Krugman is flip flopping on that). All this payed by higher taxes on the rich. That's it!

The UK has all that. Inequality is rising nevertheless and there is more absolute poverty than in the USA.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/20/absolute-poverty/

So where is Krugmans big idea that would start a new age? What should Obama do to be more than another Clinton?

[Lafayette]

You can’t please all of the people

Article: So whom does Mr. Obama resemble more? At this point, he’s definitely looking Clintonesque … Mr. Clinton led the audience in a chant of “We can do it!”

There’s many a slip twixt the cup and the lip. Even in politics, where politicians morph themselves promising the promises that will elect them. This chameleon like change of colours is necessary -- due to the splinter-group political quilt-work of our American democracy. Since the whole is the sum of its parts, each of the parts must each be addressed with their particular words of comfort.

Which makes a politician’s challenge all the more difficult. There are two ways to manage such a dialog. Either say nothing specific, but generate a generally warm feeling about one’s candidacy. This is how BO succeeded and HC failed.

Or come out with the specifics. Specifics engender controversy, however. So, whilst proposing them, it is wise for a politician to think of the context and the controversy that can be possibly generated – and be prepared to “spin it” in a positive fashion.

Just like fooling them … you can please some of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time.

Just ask Bill …

[Bruce Wilder]

Paul Krugman on politics is pathetic:

". . . voters prefer candidates who take firm stands."

". . . a candidate who runs on a clear agenda is more likely to achieve fundamental change than a candidate who runs on the promise of change but isn’t too clear about what that change would involve."

[Bruce Wilder]

Most pathetic:

"And that’s mainly up to Mr. Obama."and

"Mr. Obama’s most fervent supporters expect much more."

[Ryan]

Obama's presidency would be nothing like Clinton's primarily because the Congress would not be held by Republicans, and his arm won't grow tired from using the veto stamp.

[Melancholy Korean]

Krugman, buddy, man, you gotta relax. The primary is over. I'm sorry the Hill-Billy lost. Maybe you don't get to be Treasury Secretary. That hurts, I know.

But isn't it undignified to still be taking pot shots at Obama? Or shots at his supporters? Or are you laying the groundwork for more attacks over the next four years?

An Obama Administration will inevitably disappoint--he's a politician, not Jesus Christ--we know that. And we also know what your future critiques will be like: your candidate, the Superwoman, the Most Intelligent and Accomplished Female of Her Generation, she would have done it so much better!

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/30/opinion/30krugman.html?ref=opinion&pagewanted=print

"Progressive activists, in particular, overwhelmingly supported Mr. Obama during the Democratic primary even though his policy positions, particularly on health care, were often to the right of his rivals’. In effect, they convinced themselves that he was a transformational figure behind a centrist facade.

"They may have had it backward."

Right.

[anne]

"And we also know what your future critiques will be like: your candidate, the Superwoman, the Most Intelligent and Accomplished Female of Her Generation, she would have done it so much better!"

Hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, hate.

[anne]

"I'm sorry the Hill-Billy lost."

Vile sexist hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, hate.

[anne]

[Sorry, but what does Krugman want?]

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/20/absolute-poverty/

February 20, 2008

Absolute Poverty
By Paul Krugman

Lane Kenworthy * asks whether the United States has the highest poverty rate when you calculate it in absolute rather than relative terms — that is, by asking whether families are above the US poverty line rather than above half of median income.

The answer is, yes, probably — at best we're number 2 among rich countries, after Britain.

The US does look a little better on absolute poverty, because we have somewhat higher average income than other rich countries (largely due to longer work hours, but that's another issue.) But even so, the same Smeeding paper ** I cited earlier finds that in 2000 we placed second on average poverty rates, behind only Britain. And it's a reasonable guess that the Blair-Brown government's anti-poverty efforts since then have reversed our positions.

[Table] We're number 2!

Two more points. First, this doesn't take into account the fact that despite Medicaid and S-chip, many of the poor and near-poor in America lack health insurance - this is especially relevant for the 125% of poverty line calculations. Second, the US does fairly well in fighting poverty among the elderly — but very badly among children.

* http://lanekenworthy.net/2008/02/19/is-poverty-highest-in-the-us/

** http://www-cpr.maxwell.syr.edu/faculty/smeeding/pdf/JEP%20V5_2006.pdf

[Cyrille]

How is that pathetic, unless anything but pure Obama worship counts as pathetic?

[anne]

http://www.hschange.org/CONTENT/993/

June, 2008

Falling Behind: Americans' Access to Medical Care Deteriorates, 2003-2007
By Peter J. Cunningham and Laurie E. Felland

The number and proportion of Americans reporting going without or delaying needed medical care increased sharply between 2003 and 2007, according to findings from the Center for Studying Health System Change's (HSC) nationally representative 2007 Health Tracking Household Survey. One in five Americans—59 million people—reported not getting or delaying needed medical care in 2007, up from one in seven—36 million people—in 2003. While access deteriorated for both insured and uninsured people, insured people experienced a larger relative increase in access problems compared with uninsured people. Moreover, access declined more for people in fair or poor health than for healthier people. In addition, unmet medical needs increased for low-income children, reversing earlier trends and widening the access gap with higher-income children. People reporting access problems increasingly cited cost as an obstacle to needed care, along with rising rates of health plan and health system barriers....

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/30/opinion/30mon2.html?ref=opinion&pagewanted=print

June 30, 2008

Maybe I'll Get Better on My Own

While politicians have been debating endlessly over the best ways to reform the American health care system, the plight of American patients has rapidly worsened. A new national survey found that an alarming 20 percent of the population, some 59 million people in all, either delayed or did without needed medical care last year, a huge increase from the 36 million people who delayed or did not seek care in 2003.

As expected, people who have no health insurance — there are some 47 million of them — were most likely to make that difficult choice. But insured people also chose to go without care in ever-larger numbers.

According to the survey, the main reason is soaring medical costs, which have outstripped the modest growth in wages in recent years. High costs are deterring not only the uninsured from seeking care, but also many insured people who are struggling with higher deductibles, co-payments and other out-of-pocket expenses as their employers or health plans shift more of the cost burden to them.

Many patients with insurance said they went without care because their health plans would not pay for the treatment or their doctors or hospitals would not accept their insurance. Both insured and uninsured patients said they skipped treatments because they had trouble getting timely appointments, were unable to get through on the telephone, or could not make it to a doctor's office or clinic when it was open. No doubt a weakening economy, high fuel prices, the home foreclosure crisis and general economic anxiety also played a role.

Sadly, previous gains in caring for low-income children have reversed, largely because their parents lost employer-sponsored coverage....

[chris]

Of course Krugman is still unhappy that Hillary lost, so he finds nits to pick with Obama. But Obama has serious problems, like his race, with the electorate, so he obviously is moving to the Center to get as many votes as he can. I would find that easy to understand and not reason to diss him. He beats all the rest for intelligence and tactical smarts and I'd give him a break.

[hari]

For some useful news wait until BO completes his trip to Europe and Middle east and Israel. Then may be we shall get some idea of the intrinsic ideological focus of the potential President-to-be!

[andrew hartman]

krugman is classic: the nerd who becomes a big man on campus.
his whole pitch now is not about anything meaningful. it's
about developing a story line for the next four years: i warned you all about obama!

[anne]

"Krugman is classic: the nerd who becomes a big man on campus."

Wuv, wuv, wuvly, classic, classic, classically wuvly.

[Cyrille]

I am amazed that some people will call "not anything meaningful" the fact that the Democratic candidate, in this year of all years, cannot find the resolve to actually stand for liberal policies.

You should realise that it's not just a game of baseball where you blindly support one side. The point is not just who gets to make the State of the Union speech, it's about what policies are enacted.

This was considered a silly thing to think about in 2000, and in 2004. I am amazed that people seem to want to repeat the brilliant outcomes of these years.

[Don Quijote]

It's in the bag. And if he loses, then you know somebody's poked a hole in that bag.

No, it's not!

There is no shortage of People in America who when given a choice between a Republican and a Negro, will vote for the Republican.

Despite African-Americans being 15% of the population, there have only been 3 African-American Senators and 3 African-American Governors since Reconstruction.

[elvis]

There is no shortage of People in America who when given a choice between a Republican and a Negro, will vote for the Republican.
I agree. Then we will be outed as nation of idiots (again).

[elvis]

Bruce Wilder says...

Paul Krugman on politics is pathetic:

". . . voters prefer candidates who take firm stands."

". . . a candidate who runs on a clear agenda is more likely to achieve fundamental change than a candidate who runs on the promise of change but isn’t too clear about what that change would involve."

I feel strange... I don't often read the Wilder posts here, but this one made me stop and think... Didn't Krugman say exactly the opposite thing about FDR? That he came to office with quite a middle of the road view and verve left?

And what about Lincoln, "My only policy is to have no policy."

[elvis]

I am amazed that some people will call "not anything meaningful" the fact that the Democratic candidate, in this year of all years, cannot find the resolve to actually stand for liberal policies.

Yes, Cyrille, complete agreement. Even more amazing if you think of it in the opposite, had we just come through a similar failed 8 years of rampant liberal shenanigans that would damage the empire for the foreseeable future...What kind of campaign would the Republicans be running? Take no Prisoners!

[save_the_rustbelt]

I am a little surprised that the Democrats haven't nailed the oil mess to Bush's forehead, instead they are all a twitter about the solutions, electric cars and blah blah.

The Obama campaign has given McCain a shot at winning Ohio and maybe Michigan, which was unthinkable six months ago.

This is not an election for student council, one hopes the Democrats "get it."

[save_the_rustbelt]

Hillary was a sure thing for the first woman president, deserved the shot, but Obama came from nowhere and messed up the plan.

Bill Clinton must be rolling over in.... ah... his mistresses' bed.

[elvis]

just mailed my application for absentee ballot. I know it's supposed to be secret, but I plan on voting for the big B no matter how much he panders to the right. I'll just hold my nose a little tighter.

As for Hillary, Sorry, just didn't want another Clinton. Now, if Cynthia McKinney had been running.... ;-)

Oh! She is running for the Green Party... Damn, I just might vote solid green!

[paine]

anne hates hate .... if its vile

[anne]

"Bill Clinton must be rolling over in.... ah... his mistresses' bed."

The rotten creeps will never ever quit.

[paine]

"I don't often read the Wilder posts here"

much to you're lose

i agree
with the Wild institutionalist
PK on "the electorate"
is pure
by the numbers ..... projection

and like too many dismalian scientists
his mind's
fantasia norte amerikana
is not very complex
or contradictory

so its creatures aren't either

[anne]

"Didn't Krugman say exactly the opposite thing about FDR? That he came to office with quite a middle of the road view and verved left?"

Reference???

[save_the_rustbelt]

Anne:

Let me quote my wife on why she was hesitant to vote for Hillary.

"She will take Bill with her. Bill mistreated her, and used and mistreated female government employees. This is not right. She should have dumped his cheating ass."

My wife, a strong smart woman, thinks Hillary should have "bobitized" Bill. As in Lorena Bobbitt.

At the very least Hillary should have sent Bill to the North Pole during the campaign, he made a major contribution to her loss.

[save_the_rustbelt]

"anne hates hate .... if its vile"

Another Paine classic - atta boy.

[elvis]

kotzabasis says...

Paul Krugman’s title “The Obama Agenda” is a misnomer. It should be replaced with “Obama’s Secret Agent Agenda”. Nobody knows what his REAL agenda is except himself. But one thing is for sure, that he will fashion his policies according the FLAT winds of populism, if ever he became the occupant of the Oval Office, and not according to the STORMY wings of leadership.

Kotzabasis, I looked at your blog site. Spooky. If you're so afraid of "global terrorism", why are you wasting your time blogging?

Finally, what is it with right-wingers aversion to "populism"? Vox Populi Vox Dei, dude.

[Lafayette]

Let them eat cake!

Ryan: Obama's presidency would be nothing like Clinton's primarily because the Congress would not be held by Republicans, and his arm won't grow tired from using the veto stamp.

If only.

There is no guaranty whatsoever that the Dems will retain their razor thin majority in the Senate.

And, don't forget, the Senate is not only necessary to the passage of Legislation, but it is the residence of representatives of the Millionaire Class. Does anyone in their right mind think they are going to vote with equanimity higher taxes on their plutocrat constituency?

Not willingly they won't. We may be enthused by BO's determination to "change". But, the Senate may have a very different opinion on the matter ....

When we talk about the Plutocrat Class installed in Washington, who thinks we mean only the Repubs? C'mon, let's get real. There are plenty of Dem Senators quite happy with the status quo Income Inequity as regards America's poorer classes. (Let them eat cake! as Marie-Antoinette once said.)

[paine]

"I am a little surprised that the Democrats haven't nailed the oil mess to Bush's forehead, instead they are all a twitter about the solutions, electric cars and blah blah"

indeed
and
lets see if the Dems can point the boney finger
to the limited liability culprits
up in the glass towers ...
now fashioning their neat new green masks

specific solutions to specific problems
no matter how urgent and necessary
often
distract and deflect
the well intended
from the systemic causes
the heart of darkness at the core of it all...

able to generate out of nothing much
beyond
simple bottom line think

novel horrors for a conflicted self inflicted
browning planet

doom proceeds apace

[anne]

http://www.feri.org/common/news/details.cfm?QID=2056&clientid=11005

April 7, 1932

The Forgotten Man
By Governor Franklin Roosevelt

Albany, N. Y.

In my calm judgment, the Nation faces today a more grave emergency than in 1917.

It is said that Napoleon lost the battle of Waterloo because he forgot his infantry—he staked too much upon the more spectacular but less substantial cavalry. The present administration in Washington provides a close parallel. It has either forgotten or it does not want to remember the infantry of our economic army.

These unhappy times call for the building of plans that rest upon the forgotten, the unorganized but the indispensable units of economic power, for plans like those of 1917 that build from the bottom up and not from the top down, that put their faith once more in the forgotten man at the bottom of the economic pyramid.

Obviously, these few minutes tonight permit no opportunity to lay down the ten or a dozen closely related objectives of a plan to meet our present emergency, but I can draw a few essentials, a beginning in fact, of a planned program....

How much do the shallow thinkers realize, for example, that approximately one-half of our whole population, fifty or sixty million people, earn their living by farming or in small towns whose existence immediately depends on farms. They have today lost their purchasing power. Why? They are receiving for farm products less than the cost to them of growing these farm products. The result of this loss of purchasing power is that many other millions of people engaged in industry in the cities cannot sell industrial products to the farming half of the Nation. This brings home to every city worker that his own employment is directly tied up with the farmer's dollar. No Nation can long endure half bankrupt. Main Street, Broadway, the mills, the mines will close if half the buyers are broke.

I cannot escape the conclusion that one of the essential parts of a national program of restoration must be to restore purchasing power to the farming half of the country. Without this the wheels of railroads and of factories will not turn.

Closely associated with this first objective is the problem of keeping the home-owner and the farm-owner where he is, without being dispossessed through the foreclosure of his mortgage. His relationship to the great banks of Chicago and New York is pretty remote. The two billion dollar fund which President Hoover and the Congress have put at the disposal of the big banks, the railroads and the corporations of the Nation is not for him.

His is a relationship to his little local bank or local loan company. It is a sad fact that even though the local lender in many cases does not want to evict the farmer or home-owner by foreclosure proceedings, he is forced to do so in order to keep his bank or company solvent. Here should be an objective of Government itself, to provide at least as much assistance to the little fellow as it is now giving to the large banks and corporations. That is another example of building from the bottom up....

[anne]

"My wife, a strong smart woman, thinks Hillary should have 'bobitized' Bill."

The rotten vile creeps will never ever quit.

[save_the_rustbelt]

So Anne, do you support the sexual misuse of female employees by a male boss?

[evagrius]

The problem in U.S. politics is that everyone's suffering from massive Reagan withdrawal. Clinton and Dubya were like methadone maintenance- a bit of a high (not much) but at least no pain of withdrawal.
The U.S. is desperate for another "fix" so that the evil world and its problems can go away.
Obama's tuned into the need for a "fix" but I don't think he's got the kit to even provide methadone.
McCain will definitely try to find a connection so that the real "fix" is available but I'm afraid that it's gone.

[save_the_rustbelt]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZGsuQm4BCw

[ken melvin]

See an old beatup pickup truck around w/ anti Hillary stickers. Yesterday, in downtown SF, saw a quite drunk man on the street who was ranting something about Hillary. America's mental health program is inadequate.

[save_the_rustbelt]

On another matter, has General Wesley Clark lost his mind? Has the Obama campaign gone nuts?

Clark is coming very close to calling McCain a coward because he was shot down in combat. Huhhh?

[elvis]

Anne, I can't find the article now. Maybe I was imagining it. Just somewhere I have a fuzzy memory of reading that FDR became more left after the election.

During a quick search I did turn up this Krugman-FDR quote:
“We had to struggle,” he declared in 1936, “with the old enemies of peace — business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering. ... Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me — and I welcome their hatred.”

[anne]

http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/od2ndst.html

October 31, 1936

Announcing the Second New Deal
By Franklin Roosevelt

Tonight I call the roll--the roll of honor of those who stood with us in 1932 and still stand with us today.

Written on it are the names of millions who never had a chance --men at starvation wages, women in sweatshops, children at looms.

Written on it are the names of those who despaired, young men and young women for whom opportunity had become a will-o'-the-wisp.

Written on it are the names of farmers whose acres yielded only bitterness, business men whose books were portents of disaster, home owners who were faced with eviction, frugal citizens whose savings were insecure.

Written there in large letters are the names of countless other Americans of all parties and all faiths, Americans who had eyes to see and hearts to understand, whose consciences were burdened because too many of their fellows were burdened, who looked on these things four years ago and said, "This can be changed. We will change it."

We still lead that army in 1936. They stood with us then because in 1932 they believed. They stand with us today because in 1936 they know. And with them stand millions of new recruits who have come to know.

Their hopes have become our record.

We have not come this far without a struggle and I assure you we cannot go further without a struggle.

For twelve years this Nation was afflicted with hear-nothing, see-nothing, do-nothing Government. The Nation looked to Government but the Government looked away. Nine mocking years with the golden calf and three long years of the scourge! Nine crazy years at the ticker and three long years in the breadlines! Nine mad years of mirage and three long years of despair! Powerful influences strive today to restore that kind of government with its doctrine that that Government is best which is most indifferent.

For nearly four years you have had an Administration which instead of twirling its thumbs has rolled up its sleeves. We will keep our sleeves rolled up.

We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace--business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering.

They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.

Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me--and I welcome their hatred....

[anne]

http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/od2ndst.html

October 31, 1936

Only desperate men with their backs to the wall would descend so far below the level of decent citizenship as to foster the current pay-envelope campaign against America's working people. Only reckless men, heedless of consequences, would risk the disruption of the hope for a new peace between worker and employer by returning to the tactics of the labor spy.

Here is an amazing paradox! The very employers and politicians and publishers who talk most loudly of class antagonism and the destruction of the American system now undermine that system by this attempt to coerce the votes of the wage earners of this country. It is the 1936 version of the old threat to close down the factory or the office if a particular candidate does not win. It is an old strategy of tyrants to delude their victims into fighting their battles for them.

Every message in a pay envelope, even if it is the truth, is a command to vote according to the will of the employer. But this propaganda is worse- it is deceit.

They tell the worker his wage will be reduced by a contribution to some vague form of old-age insurance. They carefully conceal from him the fact that for every dollar of premium he pays for that insurance, the employer pays another dollar. That omission is deceit.

They carefully conceal from him the fact that under the federal law, he receives another insurance policy to help him if he loses his job, and that the premium of that policy is paid 100 percent by the employer and not one cent by the worker. They do not tell him that the insurance policy that is bought for him is far more favorable to him than any policy that any private insurance company could afford to issue. That omission is deceit.

They imply to him that he pays all the cost of both forms of insurance. They carefully conceal from him the fact that for every dollar put up by him his employer puts up three dollars three for one. And that omission is deceit....

[plschwartz]

There is an old theater story about the bit player in a 17th revival who is supposed to go on stage and say "Hark I hear the cannon
So this dude gets on stage, hears a loud bang and says "What the hell was that?"
The simpliest answer to Krugman is that Obama is in way over his head. He has no answers. So far the greatest challange he has faced was socially in High School. There he ran away.
No doubt he will face the most difficult presidency since FDR-enough problems to loosen anyones bowels.
Well some have greatness thrust upon them.
He has six months to get his act together
God be with him.

[anne]

http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/od2ndst.html

October 31, 1936

Here is an amazing paradox! The very employers and politicians and publishers who talk most loudly of class antagonism and the destruction of the American system now undermine that system by this attempt to coerce the votes of the wage earners of this country. It is the 1936 version of the old threat to close down the factory or the office if a particular candidate does not win. It is an old strategy of tyrants to delude their victims into fighting their battles for them.

Every message in a pay envelope, even if it is the truth, is a command to vote according to the will of the employer. But this propaganda is worse- it is deceit.

They tell the worker his wage will be reduced by a contribution to some vague form of old-age insurance. They carefully conceal from him the fact that for every dollar of premium he pays for that insurance, the employer pays another dollar. That omission is deceit....

[Old-age insurance? Healthcare insurance?]

[anne]

Remember to be as disguting in imgery as possible; remember.

[anne]

Correcting:

Remember to be as disgusting in imagery as possible; remember.

[lonesome moderate]

Krugman does not acknowledge one very important point--what made Clinton "Clintonesque" was, above all, his decision to make national health care the central initiative of his first two years in office, with his wife in charge of getting it done. Not only did they fail, but they failed so spectacularly that he had to deal with a Republican Congress for the rest of his presidency. Obama has learned the obvious lesson from this episode--you cannot shove a healthcare program down the country's throat, it has to emerge through consensus. Clinton (either one) apparently did not, and certainly Krugman didn't.

[Lee A. Arnold]

I continue to believe as I have done for years that this is going to be a close election -- although I would like it to be otherwise. But if Obama and the Democrats aren't looking at this thing district by district, county by county, and paying very close attention to refined polling results on many different issues, then they have no business being in politics.

Hillary Clinton would be running to the right, right now.

It is still four months to the election and most people have chosen. The people who remain are looking for clear ideas, sure, but also a sense of moderation, bipartisanship, and personal honesty. If you as a candidate try to be something you really are not, then everybody will smell it a mile away -- and THAT will lose you the election.

Indeed, hoping to make that same effect, it appears to be part of the Republicans' plan (as usual) to create that impression of dishonesty in their Democratic opponent.

We are already reading commenters who are on about Obama's "secret agenda" or his brie-cheese-and-wine inauthenticity. Some of these commenters are very likely to be trolls on cue from Karl Rove, who just wrote a Wall Street Journal editorial laying out this path of attack. That was the signal for coordination. The point is to make Obama personally untrustworthy. As always: Kerry, Gore.

On another topic, I think the Democratic voters should grow up. The idea that any President will be an agent of change in advance of an educated and informed electorate which has begun to make the change on its own, is childish and a little insane.

Most people don't read for their information; the issues are intellectually difficult; the big demands on time to make our daily bread preclude the time to study these issues to any significant degree. You cannot expect a candidate to step out way ahead on a big issue, with four months remaining for the other side to shoot it down, and twist it into every conceivable pretzel

P.S. I also have a difference of opinion as to whether Ronald Reagan fundamentally changed the country. The operative definition here is "fundamental." We would not be in such a mess, nor having such divisive arguments, if Reagan had done so. Yes he changed some Court justices, but most of his domestic policies were smoke and mirrors, and solved nothing. He opened the way for more shortsighted people who prey upon fears, but now their message is failing. The last thing that changed the country "fundamentally" is probably FDR's New Deal.

[ScentOfViolets]

I see someone beat me to the punch, but I'll include it again:

I am amazed that some people will call "not anything meaningful" the fact that the Democratic candidate, in this year of all years, cannot find the resolve to actually stand for liberal policies.

Got it in one. I will admit up front that I voted for Hillary; I thought that once she got in she would Get Things Done. Nothing 'transformational' - my feeling is we walked thirty years in to get to this place, we'll be another thirty walking out - but nuts and bolts pragmatic: health care, some tax restructuring, maybe some federal spending on roads, bridges and levees.

Obama has been touted as Reagan in Reverse, and I don't see him living up to that on the campaign trail, just as Krugman says. One of the more obvious problems is that the press loved Reagan, Bush II, and now McCain, and I rather suspect that helps a lot. It's hard to achieve any sort of momentum when you've got the constant drag of opprobrium from the chattering classes, and 'what it means for the Democrats' if the candidate proposes anything even vaguely populist.

This is a little early yet, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that this will be Yet Another Media Presidency. If Obama can glad-handle the networks, he might get some significant 'transformational' work done. But I suspect that there won't be any such thing unless the media gets chopped to it's knees with the butt of a rifle. _That_ would be transformational. Of course, it's always possible that I cause and effect reversed ;-)

[anne]

"Obama has learned the obvious lesson from this episode--you cannot shove a healthcare program down the country's throat, it has to emerge through consensus. Clinton (either one) apparently did not, and certainly Krugman didn't."

Rubbish, but keep trying.

[ScentOfViolets]

Krugman does not acknowledge one very important point--what made Clinton "Clintonesque" was, above all, his decision to make national health care the central initiative of his first two years in office, with his wife in charge of getting it done. Not only did they fail, but they failed so spectacularly that he had to deal with a Republican Congress for the rest of his presidency.

Er, no. We were saddled with a Gingrinch Congress in '94 because Clinton Raised Taxes. According to his opponents, lying through their lying teeth, The Biggest Tax Increase Ever. Of course, that honor went to Reagan.

[jamzo]

krugman continues to express HIS doubts about obama

[Lafayette]

McCain sexist?

s-t-r: Clark is coming very close to calling McCain a coward because he was shot down in combat. Huhhh?

Perhaps a wrong shot, that one.

But since the Tossing Character Labels season has been declared open, why not label him sexist? Read about it here. Excerpted from that Salon article: Though no tape of McCain's quip has yet emerged, this is what he reportedly said:

"Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly?
Because her father is Janet Reno."

The joke may be crude, but it pales in comparison with the published details surrounding the presidential sex scandal. McCain's two-liner conveys some interesting insights into what he considers humorous (lesbianism, a young woman's physical appearance), particularly since it was delivered to a Republican crowd. Remember, this is the party that champions pro-family values.

McCain's lapse in judgment -- admittedly, not as big a lapse as having a sexual relationship with an intern -- may be a significant clue into aspects of his "character," and thus relevant to the voting public. But many voters have been spared this insight, thanks to the censors in the press.

Let the presidential candidate who is without sin cast the first stone.

[ken melvin]

Oh how we do hearken back to those days of yore. Any change from ronnie was one of direction. When the times they were achangin, demanding new thinking, ronnie took us back to where we longed. This cumulative going backwards when we should be going forward has really caught up. Huge gap we've pulled. As the man said, nostalgia trumps knowledge every time.

[paine]

"what made Clinton "Clintonesque" was, above all, his decision to make national health care the central initiative of his first two years in office, with his wife in charge of getting it done. Not only did they fail, but they failed so spectacularly that he had to deal with a Republican Congress for the rest of his presidency "

let me suggest
clinton and DLC CORE
lost CONTROL OF The congress
because they did nothing
big up front right away
for the wage earning class
ie
no big tax cut on payroll taxes
and i mean big
like the reagaon bush cuts for the corporate class
and their rentier parasites

[let ohio die]

STR "Clark is coming very close to calling McCain a coward because he was shot down in combat. Huhhh?"

Maybe Songbird is a terrible pilot? Maybe he is dumb as a sack of hammers (900 out of a class of 901) and the only reason he graduated was Daddy was an admiral. Maybe Songbird was given special treatment as a POW? MAybe a better pilot would not have been shot down?

STR - suggest you listen to Clark a little bit closer. and yeah, you STR must have no military experience. Everyone hates flyboys.

[paine]

its ironic..perhaps

but the eries of payroll based tranfer systems set up by FDR
have run amok

the wage earners of amerika need serious immediate
massive relief
ie first step in office
pop the cap on the SS tax
and
slash the rate back to pay as u go levels
billions will flowback into jobbled "take home"

energy and health cost relief
oughta be job two

key
forget the f in fiscal deficit
at least untill we're clear sailing again

end the trade deficit and the job deficit
and the pay deficit first

do this sound like obama ??????

[david]

"forget the f in fiscal deficit "

Proof that your style can help the reader slow down and get it.

This sounds like Obama not so much, though the first cut could be big and targeted low if he's pushed properly. Job deficit? we'll get some weak tea. Trade deficit? Not with this crowd. Pay deficit? We'll be told to stay within the bounds of the possible. We get told that a lot.

[ddt]

Pimco’s Gross to ‘President’ Obama: Double the Budget Deficit

Bond king Bill Gross called on presidential nominee Barack Obama to double the federal budget deficit to $1 trillion by fiscal 2011 if he became president.

“The economy will need an additional jolt of $500 billion or so of government spending real quick,” said Gross in a letter to “President” Obama posted on Pimco’s Web site. “It must replace both reduced residential investment and consumption whose decline has placed the U.S. economy near, if not in a recession.”

Gross noted that this year’s budget deficit should be about $500 billion. By doubling that to $1 trillion in three years, that would put the deficit at about 6% of gross domestic product, “a mere pittance by Japanese standards.” He said its deficit exceeded 10% at its peak a decade ago.

In taking shots at President Bush and the “mess” Obama would inherit as chief executive, Gross - a registered Republican - said, “Although your campaign slogan says, ‘Yes we can,’ I have my doubts.” While saying increased income taxes under an Obama administration would end “an eight-year lease extension on the ‘high life,’” he called on the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee to drop pretenses of Obama’s plans not adding to the budget deficit.

“While the Republicans will blame you for years and label you ‘Trillion Dollar Obama’ in future campaigns, there is in fact not much that you or any other President can do,” said Gross. “You’ve inherited an asset-based economy whose well has been pumped nearly dry with lower and lower interest rates and lender of last resort liquidity provisions that have managed to support Ponzi-style prosperity in recent years.”

As a result, “What you need now is fiscal spending and lots of it. No ordinary Starbucks will do, Mr. President, you need to step up for a six-pack of Red Bull.”

Gross noted that the spending will help push inflation higher still early next decade, with Treasury yields likely to continue rising into a potential second Obama term. “Your term will not go down in history as investor friendly,” he said. – Kevin Kingsbury and Shara Tibken

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2008/06/30/pimcos-gross-to-president-obama-double-the-budget-deficit/

[Bruce Webb]

The misinformation swirling around Social Security is amazing, at times I feel like King Canute demontrating to his courtiers that you can't just roll back the tides on command.

Total Social Security income from FICA in 2007 was $656.1 billion to which was added $18.6 billion from tax on benefits for total receipts of $674.7 billion. Total cost was $594.5 billion for a total cash surplus of $80.2 billion or almost exactly 12% of FICA receipts which translates to 1.5% of payroll. If we maintain the employer/employee split a return to paygo means a .75% cut in payroll tax which for a household earning $50,000 means a total tax savings of $375 a year.

No as it turns out I favor a trim in FICA cuts on totally different grounds, but the notion that restoring Social Security to Pay/Go status on a short term basis is going to put a chicken in every pot and a car in every garage or will represent a "massive" "flowback" just doesn't survive its encounter with my very good friend Mr. Calculator.

Table IV.A3.—Operations of the Combined OASI and DI Trust Funds,Calendar Years 2003-17 1 [Amounts in billions]

And save me from my friends. A cap increase is both very bad politics and very bad policy. For one thing it gives all income from non-wage sources (which is to say almost all income of the wealthy and ultra wealthy) a pass because that income is not subject to FICA to start with. And attempts to somehow extend FICA to those income sources sets up an administrative nightmare. If you want progressivity do it on the capital gains side, do not set up some Rube Goldberg mechanism for funneling more cash through a system that is currently running a cash surplus. It is a kneejerk reaction that feels progressive but has a net regressive effect when applied to the bigger picture of national income.

To see further discussion of this you could examine #17 in my Social Security series at Angry Bear XVII: Cap Increases and Donut Holes and from a slightly different angle in #14 XIV: Why Benefit Cuts and Cap Increases Backfire

[Lafayette]

Without meat, please

LAA: If you as a candidate try to be something you really are not, then everybody will smell it a mile away -- and THAT will lose you the election.

I see a grain of truth here.

In the primary system, which is fairly unique to Western Democracies, a "first-choice" is usually coerced out of the constituency, leaving fewer floaters. The political platforms of HC and BO were practically indistinguishable. So, the Dems should maintain a solidarity -- which was underlined by the candidates' media shmoozing this weekend in, of all places on earth, Unity.

Is it perspicacious of me to see how BO uses single words to underscore desired effects? Change, one word. Unity, one word. Health Care, two words ... oopps, let's gloss over that one.

So, without any platform specifics, BO will coast to the Oval Office, whereupon, elected but uncommitted he will reign as he pretty well pleases.

Nice job, if you can get. Smart fella, or phart smella? I'm really not sure which.

So, where's the beef gone? Or are we expected to eat this hamburger without any meat?

[Joe]

On Iraq, taxes/economics, environment/energy, health care, national security/diplomacy Obama has served up the same message since the beginning of this campaign whether criticized by right or left. Does anyone have a specific argument with this? Are there more important issues on which this election should turn?

Meanwhile McCain now supports a tax policy that once *offended his conscience*, backs offshore oil drilling and a gas tax holiday,disavowed his own immigration policy, and decided not to go to the mat with the administration on anti-torture legislation. He abused the public financing system as a mater of survival and continues to break the law.

Now you are being distracted by death penalty, gun rights, telecom immunity. Never mind that Obama has been on record for quite a while about death penalty and guns, it's amazing how the left is gravitating to the symbolic issues (yes immunity is symbolic). I guess Larry Bartels was right.

More important, it is not just up to Obama to win or lose the election. Haven't we learned anything from this campaign? Have we not learned that passivity is self-defeat? You,we have to do something. Get off your ass, contribute money, some time. Convince your friends and neighbors.

I am surprised to have to emphasize this: the change Obama has been talking about is not about ideology--bringing back a liberal nirvana--although how anyone can doubt that he will largely reverse the Bush legacy I don't know. The change is in how we as the public and as an electorate understand our role in our government. The change is moving from passivity to action. From allowing other people to control the election outcome--whether lobbyists, or big contributors or media advisers planning the killer ads for late October--to giving the power back to the people. maybe that is too much for the policy wonk community, but that is what this has been about. Is that really so hard for this chorus of cynics to absorb?

Krugman, for his part, could if he wanted, spend the next six months tearing apart McCain's policy positions (certainly his NYT colleagues on the right have started their efforts against the Dems already). Instead he seems content to play the Republican's game and sow distrust of Obama. That's right Krugman is sending out the exact same message as the McCain campaign... why is that?

[save_the_rustbelt]

I belive it was Ezra Klein, the darling of the progressive health care reformers, who wrote a very thorough analysis of the political mistakes made during the Clinton health care reform effort.

I would have voted for Hillary, because she has matured and she is tough enough to do the job. But Bill was to omuch baggage.

Will the Obama crusade turn into another Carter administration? Time will tell.

[Joe]

Bruce Webb,

If we return to pay as you go for Social Security we could have a temporary tax cut but then fairly significant across the board tax increases fro the foreseeable future. Why is that superior to broadening the base of who pays taxes? Why is is better to tax 83% of wages rather than 90% of wages, or 100% of wages?

The main source of regressivity in the SS system is from the fact that high wage earners live longer (collect benefits longer) than low wage earners. The disability system is the most progressive part of the system.

Finally, Why do you isolate Obama's payroll tax plan from his income tax and capital gains proposals, both of which are more progressive than at present. I think you will need to check you data on the share of income from wages for those earning $100K and above.

[Joe]

STR: "Will the Obama crusade turn into another Carter administration? Time will tell."

Where does that BS come from, other than the talking points handed out by the McCain campaign? What is the basis for the comparison other than an attempt to be pejorative? Why not ask, will it turn into a another Clinton administration, or Kennedy or whomever?

I don't see how on earth anyone makes those kinds of predictions. Is there even a useful degree of comparison between administrations of actual presidents over the past 50 years?

[anne]

"McCain...abused the public financing system as a matter of survival and continues to break the law.

"That's right, Krugman is sending out the exact same message as the McCain campaign... why is that?"

Lie on, lie on, lie on; practice will help.

[Aaron Moynahan]

I vote republican and I get to look back at Reagan. You have Clinton. I feel your pain. Clinton's big one was to nationalize healthcare. He failed. The tax increase was to pay for it, or at least part of it. He then went on to lose the Congress, the Senate, reformed welfare and declared the age of big government was over. It was fun listening to the Clinton appologist trying to argue that his failed healthcare initiative and tax raise was some master plan to lower interest rates and produce the internet bubble. I guess that's their story and they're sticking to it.

So if you liked Clinton and agree that the age of big government is over I don't see how you can support Obama who wants to bring back government and let the g-men jerk us around.

[anne]

"So if you liked Clinton and agree that the age of big government is over I don't see how you can support Obama who wants to bring back government and let the g-men jerk us around."

G-men??? Oh, you mean our soldiers; I get it.

[Bruce Wilder]

Cyrille: "How is that pathetic, unless anything but pure Obama worship counts as pathetic?"

It is pathetic, not because Krugman doesn't like Obama, but because the column is so completely devoid of information and analysis. The implied view of politics is superficial in the extreme.

Was Reagan's impact on the country a product of his 1980 campaign style? Or, was it a product of 15 years of a conservative movement finding effective intellectual, legislative and propaganda strategies and institutional foundations?

If a fevered Obama supporter were to come here, and comment with anne-disapproved "vile hate" to the effect that Obama was Messiah, and would solve all of America's problems, if we would all just believe fervently enough -- in other words, if there really were such a caricature able to write two sentences in a row, the basic political worldview would not be that different from that of Krugman writing,
"The real question is whether they will take advantage of this once-in-a-generation chance to change the country’s direction. And that’s mainly up to Mr. Obama."

In Krugman's view, it is all up to the person of Obama, or all future time rests on the style of the Obama campaign.

There's just something bizarre about Krugman reading perennial campaign rhetoric ("We can do it!" "Yes, We Can!") like tea leaves, for the "scary" parallels.

[anne]

http://www.epi.org/printer.cfm?id=2806&content_type=1&nice_name=webfeatures_snapshots_20071010

October 10, 2007

War Spending Placed Above Domestic Priorities
By Monique Morrissey

Non-defense discretionary spending as percent of GDP

2002 3.7 initial budget under George Bush
2003 3.9
2004 3.8
2005 3.9
2006 3.7
2007 3.6
2008 3.6

Defense discretionary spending as percent of GDP

2002 3.4 initial budget under George Bush
2003 3.7
2004 3.9
2005 4.0
2006 4.0
2007 4.0
2008 4.3

The figures actually understate the full cost of the "war on terror," because Homeland Security, State Department, and Foreign Operations funding is included in non-defense spending. Significant long-term war costs, for veterans' health care, for example, are also not included.

[G-men?]

[Gerard MacDonell]

Bein Stein made some laughably simple mistakes in his Sunday NYT piece on energy consumption. He started by confusing motor oil with heating oil. Then he calculated a "real" expenditure share, which is meaningless in the wake of a big relative price shift. Then he went on to updating those share figures beyond Q1 using stale commodity prices.

Having done a bunch of miscalculations and misinterpretations, he concluded with the idea that it is all no big deal. He should be called to task, I think.

[Bruce Wilder]

Joe: "yes immunity is symbolic"

I assume you mean telecom immunity. Telecom immunity will prevent disclosure, pursuant to civil discovery procedures, of what Bush required the telecoms to do. That's its importance.

[Bruce Wilder]

L: "where's the beef?"

Obama has a website, chock full policy position statements. He even makes policy speeches, from time to time. (Deadly dull; you do not want to hear even Obama giving a typical Democrat's laundry list speech.)

The truth is, that the Democrats in this election, enjoy a practical policy goodness monopoly, from "leave Iraq" to "do something to extend health insurance coverage". Obama argues -- correctly in my opinion, given recent political history -- that if you care about progress on any number of issues, from climate change to education to the economy -- any sensible person would vote Democratic.

It is not as if Bush, personally, has done much other than lie and vacation, but he's given cover and power for lots of other people to carry out a conservative political agenda. That's what Presidents do: they lead a parade of tens of thousands of activists and political appointees.

Obama's promise of change, is a change in who is in that parade and which direction they are headed. Sometimes that change in direction is only a few degrees by compass, but extended over many years, the country ends up in a completely different place.

[Winston]

Stick to writing about economics, Krugman. You're beginning to sound like every other journalist who writes for a mainstream American media outlet.

[paine]

meister webb
man with the numbers on tap
nice comment
a nod to mister calculator too

u gotta add in the cap pop
and its effect on lowering the paygo rate
and needless to say we brake the 50/50
from its inception shell game
and give the whole cut to the pay check side

whats the calc say on that
i bet we're over a grand per job cap and toward 1500 per household now

btw this is immediate tax relief measure
not prog over hauling
of the tax system

note in anne's lovely citation of the father of it all
franklin was not above playing and playing vigorously
the anti demogogue demogogue on this 50/50 point

with a system mod like this we play the dynamics
grab the short run wind fall for the jobbler
whatever final settle down incidence might be
we know the initial pop goes to the right households

as to the cap pop itself

".. save me from my friends."

in fact maybe in adition u need to save u from yourself

"A cap increase is both very bad politics and very bad policy."

bad politics ?????
a flat tax on payroll all the way to the tower top

who's bad politics is that ??

as to
bad policy as in it

" For one thing it gives all income from non-wage sources
a pass because that income is not subject to FICA to start with."

if you ar suggesting we fund SS out of a value added tax fine but lets get to that in steps
lets first show the jobblers which party wants to
cut THEIR taxes

" And attempts to somehow extend FICA to those income sources sets up an administrative nightmare."
really ???
i see a sudden shift to unearned status
for lots of board room comp "rents"

that show oughta bring out the class divide
for step two
which i agree ought to be

" progressivity ...on the capital gains side"

flush em out before you knock em flat

" do not set up some Rube Goldberg mechanism for funneling more cash through a system that is currently running a cash surplus."

but bruce this is me op
the whole point is to end that surplus ...now
the cap pop obviously must come along with the paygo
btw
i really think the trust funds should be returned to their sources y the way
thats what a couple bills worth now ?

"It is a kneejerk reaction that feels progressive but has a net regressive effect when applied to the bigger picture of national income."

that line i can not follow
let me be explicit the jobbler tax cut
must be real
must be large
must be on going

webb you be dah man on this gig
but maybe on the big picture we might find some areas
of the canvas you've left in quick outline form only

i submit we can
put the system in play
despite the bevy of
"touch nothing" reactive dembot notions

to lock box the system is to limit the response

the system is quite
robust not just to scrutiny as your nobel efforts demonstrate
but tinkering as well

it can be prog hauled today
just as efectively and as easily
as 25 years ago it was turned by moynihan greenspan
into a grotesquely regressive keel haul yesterday

[paine]

"Sometimes that change in direction is only a few degrees by compass, but extended over many years, the country ends up in a completely different place."

what if there's a countering re-correction in 4-8 years ???

[paine]

"on the capital gains side"

we need a real revolution
in capital taxes

a federal wealth tax

a life times towering wealth
not one years towering income

even i buy the rotarian goon line

"why punish fast growth wealth
over slow growth wealth "

[paine]

seems
aaron
like his name sake
worships a golden ass

[baileyman]

Clinton did change things. He changed the Democrats into Republican-lites.

[paine]

oh ya

webb are you including the income earned by the trust funds ???

that needs to be counter acted by the paygo cut too

[save_the_rustbelt]

Obama, like Carter, was a relative unknown who ran (so far) a very savvy campaign and is likely to be elected president.

What he might do with the office is largely unknown, and there is some unease in the Democrat base, as Krugman is displaying.

I;m not voting for anyone this year, so i have no dog in the fight.

[paine]

bailey man

THE DLC WAS ALREADY REPUG LITE
AND THEY TOOK OVER PRETTY MUCH ALL THE PARTY CORE POSITIONS
SOME TIME AFTER MONDALE TANKED
AND THE VOTING PUBLIC
PLURALATED BUSTER CLINTON
INTO THE WHITE HOUSE

[Bruce Webb]

Joe you might want to source that "rich people live longer and draw more benefits" thing as the main source of regressivity in Social Security. It might be true but I would want more than just the word of some guy named 'Joe'. And I focused on the cap increase because that was what Paine brought up. Plus the rather notion that you can just ignore the policy weakness of one part of a tax plan because other parts are stronger is odd indeed. In any event you might want to think about the net effect of raising payroll taxes for people making over $102,000 Or $250,000 together with taking the 33% rate back to 36% and the 35% rate back to 39.6%. I know Goolsbee is currently muddying the waters claiming that the rate and incidence of the cap increase hasn't been established but at the time Obama proposed it one naturally assumed that the incidence would be just on wage income and the rate would be the current payroll rate, if he had meant something difference it was up to him to qualify that and not up to us to read his mind for details that are not in fact available on his Issues page (last I checked).

[anne]

"Clinton did change things. He changed the Democrats into Republican-lites."

What is absolutely essential is to show how rotten a President Bill Clinton was, because we know that a Presidency that generated 250,000 jobs a month for 96 months, that added to workers well-being from salaries to benefits, not only lessened the budget deficit but produced an important surplus, that generated important gains in productivity, allowed for a strong dollar, resolved several currency crises in Latin America, produced low interest rates and fine investment returns, dramatically eased increases in health care costs, we know what a rotten Presidency this was.

Rotten, rotten stuff.

[save_the_rustbelt]

"Clinton did change things. He changed the Democrats into Republican-lites."

I have to agree with Anne on this one.

[Aaron Moynahan]

anne...

Bill Clinton did not cause the strong economy anymore then somebody who wins a lottery ticket earned their money through wits and brains. I liked the 90s. Clinton and Monica provided comic relief. They even loved his antics in jolly old Europe.

How did you like Bill in South Carolina. What a crazy mofo. Was he attacking Obama or sabotaging Hillary. hard to tell, he's a complex person.

[paine]

ANNE let us not run away too far from realityand its full bend backs..

let us cut the encomium billicus

"Not only lessened the budget deficit but produced an important surplus,"
hardly a triumph more an alibi for social budget parsimony

" allowed for a strong dollar,"
utter nite mare ending to this ..
if you happened to work in an import sensitive or export dependent factory
"dramatically eased increases in health costs"
in the short run indeed
but by signing us on to endless hmo purgatory
and its pass thru value subtracting liabilty rassle dazzle
only to see an un tamed med sector resume
its long run price galloping free for alling

[paine]

"he's a complex person. "

who isn't ??? or wasn't anyway ??

oh ya barry goldwater

[Bruce Webb]

"u gotta add in the cap pop
and its effect on lowering the paygo rate"

Well if I knew the incidence and the rate of tax and for certain whether there would be a donut hole or not I might be able to rustle up a number.

What I do know that Obama advisor Leibman's Liebman-MacGuineas-Samwick Non Partisan Social Security Reform Plan has a cap increase that would apply FICA to a 90% income level up from its current 84% and apply to incomes up to $167,000 in 2005 dollars. That part of LMS was scored by the Social Security actuaries at representing 1% of payroll equivalent which would take your share of the tax cut up to 1.25% or $625 per $50,000 household. Extending the rate above 90% would get you proportionally more, inserting a donut hold would get you a whole lot less, the devil is in the details, and those are not actually being shared by the campaign.

"that line i can not follow
let me be explicit the jobbler tax cut
must be real
must be large
must be on going"

Well back at you, because I don't quite know what you are getting at. Social Security works precisely because it is worker paid insurance than benefits workers. Any move that serves to make it just another General Fund financed program is just a move that allows it to get caught up in the budget and appropriations process and so set up against things like the Farm Program and the F-22 fighter. Properly seen the cap is our friend, it serves to provide political insulation and so protection for Social Security.

You want progressivity? Get it on the income tax side, tax capital gains as regular income, and set the estate tax exemption at a level where it only hits the top 2-5%. And turn around and take the resulting funds and do some combination of rebuilding infrastructure and paying down debt held by the public. Look I don't know what percentage of the typical highway, bridge or transit project ends up going to labor in the form of wages. Ultimately as you trace those dollars back from the actual construction workers to the wages of the cement and steel suppliers to the wages of the retail workers who take those dollars in in exchange for food and such and then back to the wages of the food producers you end up with a pretty big percentage of the contract actually ending up as wage expenses. Cha-ching! 12.4% of every one of those wage dollars goes to Social Security. You want to boost Social Security and increase progressivity all in one go? Give some people some jobs rebuilding bridges.

Social Security is currently in surplus, increasing the flow of money to it simply means that much more money ending up in the General Fund disguising the overall deficit on the discretionary side. Meanwhile it simply creates more debt in the form of Special Treasuries and so increasing obligations for future tax payers. The whole notion that a cap increase assists Social Security solvency derives from a totally flawed understanding of how the system is actually financed. In the middle of my Soc Sec series at Angry Bear I found myself having to back track a little leading me to put up Post 0. Soc Sec Zero: the Basics Revisited and Three Myths. That might help people see where I am coming from.

"webb are you including the income earned by the trust funds ???

that needs to be counter acted by the paygo cut too"

Since that interest is not financed in any way it simply shows up as a claim on future productivity. The Trust Funds don't 'earn' income, instead they are 'credited' income, that doesn't make that income any less of a legal obligation on the Treasury, but then neither does it make it an unalloyed good. In an ideal world we would freeze the Trust Fund in place and start financing the interest and investing real dollars (borrowed from the public) in an outside fund in amounts exactly equal to the total surplus (cash surplus from FICA plus accrued interest on the existing $2.2 trillion Trust Funds). This would not only make for sense in real economic terms but it would remove much of the conceptual confusion that results from holding the Trust Fund assets in Special Treasuries to start with. If we simply slashed FICA back to Pay/Go with or without a cap increase, Social Security would still be earning interest at the $110 billion level, and then that interest in turn would accrue interest. As it is the actual interest being earned on the last year's cash surplus is about $3 billion dollars, the rest of the $107 billion in earned interest is simply based on past surpluses whose actual dollars have in real terms been spent.

[anne]

"How did you like Bill in South Carolina?"

Notice the ceaseless rottenness; always insinuate, always slander, always lie.

[paine]

"...not about ideology--bringing back a liberal nirvana--..."
liberal nirvana ...nirvana
nice perhaps not fully grasped slash
at the black holed center of the liberal mind

[anne]

"Was he attacking Obama or sabotaging Hillary?"

Remember, what is important is always, but always to insinuate and slander and lie.

[Bruce Webb]

I know there is a cottage industry 'explaining' why Clinton did not cause the Boom in the nineties. On the other hand there is a perfectly plausible narrative that would give him much of the credit.

Clinton inherited a deficit situation where those deficits were not only large but thought to be bound to increase and to persist "as far as the eye can see". What would be the natural reaction of the bond market? To suppress price and drive up yield, after all if you know their is an essentially unlimited supply of bonds coming down the road why pay a premium today? Which of course has the result of driving interest rates and so inflation up. In the event Clinton showed that he was serious about turning that deficit situation around even if it meant alienating much of his party and the results were predictable, lower rates, lower inflation and better incentives to invest in the real economy rather than betting on ever increasing bond supplies to drive up yield.

I am not a finance guy so probably got some details wrong, but I think you can give a bunch of credit to increased investor and consumer confidence that debt was not in fact going to spiral out of control. A confidence that is steadily bleeding out today.

[Bruce Webb]

Anne I have always liked you and generally am in full agreement on the underlying dynamic. What you are seeing is certainly real, but perhaps you could reflect on the utility of pointing it out again and again in the fashion you do. You might want to consider the danger of reinforcing old stereotypes in the minds of the haters.

Rest assured that others see the racism and sexism not seriously disguised in some of the commentary here. I fully agree that outrage has its place. But that place is not everyplace, everytime.

[ipodius]

The basis for the Carter administration comparison is that both are/were largely unknown at the time of the primaries, and both have very little real experience. For all the statements to the contrary, BO has no real tests to his name, has not been in politics at the national level for long, and is not very forthcoming on details. In my view, not having built up a network in DC, and not having political capital earned though many years is a severe, if not fatal drawback.

I would have voted for HRC in a hearbeat. She knows how to get stuff done, and boy are we going to need that. I will not vote for BO. I take that back: if he picks Romney for VP I will vote for BO and wait for him to get nothing done. Because, you see, we don't need change at this point. We need to stop the bleeding. It's no good giving the patient how to change his/her life when the patient is bleeding out as a result of a mis-spent life. Stopping the bleeding is best done by someone who knows how to run a bureauocracy, not make speeches.