Krugman writes:
"Did the rise of the 1 percent (or, better yet, the 0.01 percent) cause the Lesser Depression we’re now living through? It probably contributed. But the more important point is that inequality is a major reason the economy is still so depressed and unemployment so high. For we have responded to crisis with a mix of paralysis and confusion — both of which have a lot to do with the distorting effects of great wealth on our society."
Okay, so here we have a rehash of Occupy Wall Street (Do you remember them?) economics: the 1 percent have cowed the 99 percent into docile submission. Moreover, Krugman goes on to say, "the takeover of half our political spectrum by the 0.01 percent [no longer the 1 percent] is, I’d argue, also responsible for the degradation of our economic discourse, which has made any sensible discussion of what we should be doing impossible." Thus, a hyper-partisan Republican Party is responsible for America's economic morass. What could be more simple?
But now back to my original homework assignment: What is missing from the Krugman equation?
Obama's name does not appear even once in Krugman's op-ed. Although elected president more than three years ago, and notwithstanding the fact that during the first two years of his tenure he controlled both the Senate and the House, he has no responsibility for US economic stagnation?
The Senate, still controlled by the Democrats, has been unable to pass a budget for three years.
Moreover, would Krugman claim that Obama was not elected with the support of Hollywood millionaires? With donations from Goldman Sachs? With the backing of billionaire mogul George Soros?
Who are the 12 wealthiest persons in Congress? The answer is provided in a table of estimated net worth prepared by USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2011-11-15/congress-wealthy-1/51216626/1):
Rep. Congressman Darell Issa, $448,125,017
Rep. Congressman Michael McCaul, $380,411,527
Dem. Senator John Kerry, $231,722,794
Dem. Senator Mark Warner, $192,730,605
Dem. Senator Herb Kohl, $173,538,010
Dem. Congressman Jared Polis, $143,218,562
Rep. Congressman Vernon Buchanan, $136,152,641
Dem. Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, $101,123,032
Dem. Senator Jay Rockefeller, $99,057,011
Dem. Senator Frank Lautenberg, $85,572,116
Dem. Senator Richard Blumenthal, $73,151,590
Dem. Senator Dianne Feinstein, $69,046,622
Among the wealthiest in Congress, Democrats obviously predominate, but as observed by the article in USA Today, there is a fairly even distribution of extremely affluent Democrats and Republicans: "In the House, 23 Republicans and 10 Democrats are in the 1%, while in the Senate Democrats edge out Republican one percenters 13-11." In short, there is little truth to the claim that wealth is to be found only among Republican politicians, although it could well be said that politics has become a rich woman and rich man's game.
And then there's this other "little" problem with Krugman's argument: If the Republican Party had indeed become the politican vehicle of the 1 percent or the 0.01 percent, in order to retain any semblance of power, Republicans would still require the votes of a multitude of less wealthy Americans. Presuming that Krugman remembers that the US is still a democracy, it stands to reason that Krugman must believe that those middle class Americans who vote for Republicans such as Chris Christie, Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal are imbeciles.
I believe in the adage variously attributed to Abraham Lincoln (another damned Republican), Mark Twain and P.T. Barnum:
"You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time."
Unlike Krugman, I also believe in the common sense and rationality of the American electorate, and Krugman's effort to saddle Congress, and specifically Republicans, with Obama's failure to remedy the US economy is pure hogwash.
More to the point, by engaging in highly politicized legerdemain, Krugman is even treating his readership as half-wits.
Wow, way to not engage with anything he said.
ReplyDeleteIs Krugman a little partisan? Obviously. Are you being even remotely fair about anything he said in that article? Regrettably, no.