Follow by Email

Friday, April 24, 2015

Paul Krugman, "Zombies of 2016": No Mention of the Uranium One Scandal

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Zombies of 2016," Paul Krugman excoriates Republican presidential candidates for their views regarding social security and Obamacare. Krugman writes:

"A deep attachment to long-refuted ideas seems to be required of all prominent Republicans. Whoever finally gets the nomination for 2016 will have multiple zombies as his running mates."

Questions for Krugman:
  • US national debt is now $18.2 trillion (some $154,000 per taxpayer) and rising by the second. Is this sustainable?
  • What are Hillary's ideas concerning US debt? Oh, that's right, she has none. (She is making a point of not expressing ideas about anything.)
  • What are the ideas of Hillary's opponents for the Democratic nomination? Oh, that's right, she has no opponents, unless you actually believe that Martin O'Malley stands a chance.
It's strange how Krugman failed to add Hillary to his list of 2016 zombies.

More peculiar, however, is how Krugman has absolutely nothing to say about Hillary's Uranium One scandal. Even the editorial board of the Times declared today:

"Hillary Rodham Clinton’s determination to reconnect with voters in localized, informative settings is commendable, but is in danger of being overshadowed by questions about the interplay of politics and wealthy foreign donors who support the Clinton Foundation.

. . . .

The increasing scrutiny of the foundation has raised several points that need to be addressed by Mrs. Clinton and the former president. These relate most importantly to the flow of multimillions in donations from foreigners and others to the foundation, how Mrs. Clinton dealt with potential conflicts as secretary of state and how she intends to guard against such conflicts should she win the White House.

The only plausible answer is full and complete disclosure of all sources of money going to the foundation."

But why should any of this mess, which has absolutely nothing to do with campaign finance or global economics, weigh upon someone as idealistic as Paul Krugman?

[See also "New York Times Editorial, "Candidate Clinton and the Foundation": A Sugar-Coated Slap on the Wrist."]

1 comment:

  1. Nobel Prize hat trick: Obama for Peace; Krugman for Economics; Mrs. Clinton for Literature?