Paul Krugman, "The Gullible Center": Argumentum Ad Hominem

Who is the only person in the US capable of rescuing America's train wreck economy? Answer: Paul Krugman, and if you don't believe me, ask Krugman himself.

In his New York Times op-ed entitled "The Gullible Center" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/09/opinion/krugman-the-gullible-center.html?_r=1), Krugman engages in apoplectic invective against anyone foolish enough to believe that any of the budget proposals of Republican Congressman Paul Ryan might have merit. I suppose that includes New York Times columnist David Brooks, New York Times business writer James B. Stewart, and . . . me.

Krugman begins by telling us that he wants to talk about the "Paul Ryan phenomenon" and "not the man," whom Krugman goes on to describe as "a garden-variety modern G.O.P. extremist" and "an ordinary G.O.P. extremist, but a mild-mannered one," whom centrists credit "with virtues he has never shown any sign of possessing." Or in other words, Krugman is telling us that Ryan is a wolf in sheep's clothing. Hey, weren't we supposed to talk about the Ryan budget proposal and not about the man?

Telling us that Ryan has never once produced a credible deficit-reduction plan and that he is an emperor without clothes, Krugman writes:

"The Ryan cult was very much on display last week, after President Obama said the obvious: the latest Republican budget proposal, a proposal that Mitt Romney has avidly embraced, is a 'Trojan horse' — that is, it is essentially a fraud. 'Disguised as deficit reduction plans, it is really an attempt to impose a radical vision on our country.'"

Okay, Ryan's budget proposal is a "fraud," and his centrist "cult" supporters should instead be "lavishing praise" on Obama, but what exactly is Krugman's problem with the Ryan proposal? Krugman explains that we merely need to understand two numbers, $4.6 trillion and 14 million:

"Of these, $4.6 trillion is the revenue cost over the next decade of the tax cuts embodied in the plan, as estimated by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. These cuts — which are, by the way, cuts over and above those involved in making the Bush tax cuts permanent — would disproportionately benefit the wealthy, with the average member of the top 1 percent receiving a tax break of $238,000 a year.

Mr. Ryan insists that despite these tax cuts his proposal is 'revenue neutral,' that he would make up for the lost revenue by closing loopholes. But he has refused to specify a single loophole he would close. And if we assess the proposal without his secret (and probably nonexistent) plan to raise revenue, it turns out to involve running bigger deficits than we would run under the Obama administration’s proposals.

Meanwhile, 14 million is a minimum estimate of the number of Americans who would lose health insurance under Mr. Ryan’s proposed cuts in Medicaid; estimates by the Urban Institute actually put the number at between 14 million and 27 million."

Sorry, but that's the whole of Krugman's argument? Based upon these five sentences, we should ignore all of Paul Ryan's proposal?

Well, Krugman's New York Times op-ed colleague, David Brooks, obviously thinks otherwise. Brooks wrote last week in "That Other Obama" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/06/opinion/books-that-other-obama.html):

"But Ryan has at least taken a big step toward an eventual fiscal solution. He’s proposed necessary structural entitlement reforms, which the Democrats are unwilling to do. He’s proposed real tax reform, which the Democrats are also unwilling to do.

The first truth is that we will have to do these big things to avoid a fiscal calamity. The second truth is there is no one party solution; there has to be a merger of respectable ideas. The third truth is that gimmicky speeches obscure the president’s best character and make it seem as if he doesn’t understand the scope of the calamity looming in front of us."

Then there is also that other "gullible" Times staffer, James B. Stewart, who writes the "Common Sense" column for the Business Day section, shared the Pulitzer Prize for explanatory reporting in 1988, is a professor of business journalism at the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism, and is a graduate of Harvard Law School. In a New York Times article entitled "For All the Furor Over Ryan’s Plan, It’s a Place to Start" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/07/business/lots-of-accolades-but-little-action-on-budget-plan-common-sense.html?pagewanted=all), Stewart wrote last week:

"As I pointed out a few weeks ago, Mr. Ryan’s tax plan, which calls for lowering top rates to 25 percent and 10 percent, could actually raise taxes on the ultrarich, since on average they, like the wealthy presidential candidate Mitt Romney, pay substantially less than an effective tax rate of 25 percent, and nowhere near the current tax code’s top marginal rate of 35 percent. The question is what would happen to the big break that the wealthy now get — the lower rate on capital gains.

And on the spending side, the Ryan plan has many elements of the bipartisan plan from a White House commission that said, 'We must make Social Security solvent and sound, reduce the long-term growth of health care spending, and tackle the nation’s overwhelming debt burden.'

. . . .

It’s easy enough to tweak the Ryan tax rates to generate more tax revenue while still lowering rates and broadening the tax base, as Ronald Reagan did in 1986.

In return, Republicans would get lower rates and curbs on entitlement spending. Democrats would get more tax revenue and preserve the essential elements and long-term solvency of Medicare and Social Security. The nation would get a fairer tax code, long-term deficit reduction, a secure credit rating, stronger economic growth and a social safety net.

'The overwhelming majority of Congress would agree to this on a secret ballot,' [Tennessee Democratic Congressman Jim Cooper] told me.'"

This is what Krugman labels a "fraud"? Yes, I know: there is no need for discussion, contemplation or compromise. Only Krugman, the great and powerful, has all the answers.