"And an end to deficit obsession can’t come a moment too soon. Right now Washington is focused on the idiocy of the sequester, but this is only the latest episode in an unprecedented run of declines in public employment and government purchases that have crippled our economy’s recovery. A misguided elite consensus has led us into an economic quagmire, and it’s time for us to get out."
Now close your eyes, and tell me how many times does our Nobel prize winner mention President Obama, the originator of the sequester, in his opinion piece. Twice? Three times? Five times?
Answer . . . a drum roll please: Not once.
Krugman does comment on the foolishness of the second Iraq war by observing that those who "pointed out that the risks and likely costs of war were huge . . . were dismissed as ignorant and irresponsible."
Well, I opposed that war, because I believed that it would destroy the power equilibrium between Iraq and Iran. I have also opposed America's prolonged ground involvement in Afghanistan, which was foolishly escalated by Obama and is costing the US $6 billion per month, but there is no mention by Krugman of that boondoggle.
The bulk of Krugman's opinion piece is devoted to his obsessive opposition to "austerity." However, there is no attempt by Krugman to distinguish between austerity and foolhardy federal spending.
As noted by Charles Krauthammer today in a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Hail Armageddon" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-hail-armageddon/2013/02/28/ca8a32a6-81da-11e2-b99e-6baf4ebe42df_story.html):
"A 2011 Government Accountability Office report gave a sampling of the vastness of what could be cut, consolidated and rationalized in Washington: 44 overlapping job training programs, 18 for nutrition assistance, 82 (!) on teacher quality, 56 dealing with financial literacy, more than 20 for homelessness, etc. Total annual cost: $100 billion-$200 billion, about two to five times the entire domestic sequester."
But Krauthammer is nefarious neocon, and there is nothing to be learned from him.
What else isn't being mentioned by Krugman? There's also the small matter of how the Imperial Second Term Obama Administration is seeking to silence Bob Woodward for daring to remind Americans that the sequester was Obama's dumb idea. As stated by Woodward during an interview by Sean Hannity (I know, another neocon whose show you should never be caught watching) on Thursday night (see: http://freebeacon.com/woodward-discusses-sequester-coverage-w-h-doesnt-want-to-be-crossed/):
Hannity: "Why should it matter if the president suggested the sequestration, and then the president denied that he requested the sequestration, and the president had a deal that he wasn't going to ask for tax increases, and then later does and says that's not true, and they attack you as, well, being willfully wrong? Why should this matter? I mean, don't we deserve our government to be honest with us?
Woodward: "Exactly. And I'm almost 70-years-old, I hate to acknowledge. I've done this for four decades. I will keep doing it in some form. But the White House saying you're doing these things when you've worked months on it and you have the documents, and Jay Carney actually acknowledges paternity for the sequester from the White House. The problem is there are all kinds of reporters who are much less experienced, who are younger, and if they are going to get roughed up in this way. And I am flooded with e-mails from people in the press saying this is exactly the way the White House works. They are trying to control, and they don't want to be challenged or crossed."
Well, Bob Woodward is not a neocon, and although his credibility and motivation are now being questioned by others in the media, doesn't he deserve a minute of our attention, particularly if he is warning that the Obama administration is trying to control America's news media?
Query: Is it even possible that Obama is trying to "control" the news media? Absolutely, and we have the answer from none other than former White House Communications Director Anita Dunn. Listen to Dunn lecture on Obama’s media tactics during the 2008 election (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlGNhAnwp_Y):
"One of the reasons we did so many of the David Plouffe videos was not just for our supporters, but also because it was a way for us to get our message out without having to actually talk to reporters. We just put that out there and made them write what Plouffe had said as opposed to Plouffe doing an interview with a reporter. So it was very much we controlled it as opposed to the press controlled it. . . . very rarely did we communicate through the press anything that we didn’t absolutely control."
Obama is seeking "control" over the media? Actually, as acknowledged by Dunn, he has been seeking "absolute control."
Yes, it is frightening, and it's pitiful to see that Krugman, an economist and also a journalist, doesn't have the backbone to relate to the Woodward scandal.