Paul Krugman's "The Fatal Distraction": A Nobel Solution to America's Economic Woes

A Nobel solution to the nation's economic woes? Sorry, but I'm being cynical again.

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Fatal Distraction" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/05/opinion/the-fatal-distraction.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss), Paul Krugman fantasizes over Obama's forthcoming speech on the economy:

"I find it useful to think in terms of three questions: What should we be doing to create jobs? What will Republicans in Congress agree to? And given that political reality, what should the president propose?

The answer to the first question is that we should have a lot of job-creating spending on the part of the federal government, largely in the form of much-needed spending to repair and upgrade the nation’s infrastructure. Oh, and we need more aid to state and local governments, so that they can stop laying off schoolteachers.

But what will Republicans agree to? That’s easy: nothing. They will oppose anything Mr. Obama proposes, even if it would clearly help the economy — or maybe I should say, especially if it would help the economy, since high unemployment helps them politically.

This reality makes the third question — what the president should propose — hard to answer, since nothing he proposes will actually happen anytime soon. So I’m personally prepared to cut Mr. Obama a lot of slack on the specifics of his proposal, as long as it’s big and bold. For what he mostly needs to do now is to change the conversation — to get Washington talking again about jobs and how the government can help create them."

Now unlike Krugman (and Obama), I have never won a Nobel prize nor will I, but Paul's three questions have set me wondering:

We need a lot of job-creating spending by the federal government? On what -- roads, bridges, railroads, airports and teachers? We've seen and heard this before, but notwithstanding China's grand infrastructure projects undertaken with slave labor, a new bullet train between New York and Washington is not going to cure the nation's ills. Ultimately, someone will have to pay the bill after it is discovered that fares alone do not cover the costs of such a boondoggle. Potholes? Sure, they can be filled, but they're not going to fire up today's economy. Money for teachers? This might win over the teachers' unions, but bankrupt states will tear through the money in less than a year and will not be able to sustain these programs on their own.

Will the Republicans try to torpedo anything the president proffers? I don't think so. Not if Republican legislators hope to retain their seats in Congress. Unlike Paul, I don't think Americans are stupid, and if Obama comes up with a sensible plan to reignite the economy, they're not going to tolerate such negativism.

Obama should propose something "big and bold"? Fabulous! While he was playing golf in Martha's Vineyard before the hurricane, I'm certain the president's White House elves were busy hammering together a proposal that will knock our socks off. I can hardly contain my excitement . . . not.

You see, I still believe in the productivity and power of American corporations. Sure, they can be mean and greedy, but they are also capable of startling innovation capable of changing lives, e.g., Apple, Intel, Microsoft and thousands more. Washington can't create by itself a sustainable recovery, whereas American corporations, if properly motivated by Washington, are capable of doing this.

Motivation? Use taxes as a carrot and a stick to allow American industry to foment growth. Obama should be meeting with the likes of Steve Jobs -- I'm confident he'll have answers that the bureaucrats and financial wizards from predatory financial institutions have yet to imagine.

Think about it: Jobs for jobs, or better still, Jobs for president. He's head and shoulders above anything else out there . . . .

Indeed, it's all about imagination, something in short supply in Washington, something that takes us far beyond a "cars, trains and planes" solution with a few teachers temporarily thrown into the bargain.

Maureen Dowd, "One and Done?": Livid With Obama

Maureen Dowd is livid with Obama. In her latest, most derogatory New York Times op-ed to date, entitled "One and Done?" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/04/opinion/dowd-one-and-done.html?_r=1&ref=opinion), she doesn't trouble to disguise her scorn for the president:

"Obama is still suffering from the Speech Illusion, the idea that he can come down from the mountain, read from a Teleprompter, cast a magic spell with his words and climb back up the mountain, while we scurry around and do what he proclaimed.

. . . .

The White House team is flailing — reacting, regrouping, retrenching. It’s repugnant.

After pushing and shoving and caving to get on TV, the president’s advisers immediately began warning that the long-yearned-for jobs speech wasn’t going to be that awe-inspiring.

'The issue isn’t the size or the newness of the ideas,' one said. 'It’s less the substance than how he says it, whether he seizes the moment.'

The arc of justice is stuck at the top of a mountain. Maybe Obama was not even the person he was waiting for."

Dowd has seized upon an important point: Obama didn't buckle to Boehner out of diffidence and reschedule his speech. Rather, the speech was political, and there was nothing within its text that could alter the downward trajectory of the US economy. Moreover, Obama's seasoned political advisors realized that an anguished American electorate is seeking answers to unemployment, not canned inspiration read from teleprompters, which could only lead to a further decline in his Gallup presidential approval rating.

On the other hand, Obama's faintheartedness is indeed the hallmark of his presidency, and it is peculiar that this character flaw is only now being discovered by those who once adulated him. His diffidence was on display across the world stage long before House Republicans made a mockery of the man.

Recall the bow to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia.

Of greater significance, remember Obama's outreach program to the world's vilest tyrannies, including Iran, Syria and Burma.

It has taken Obama months to call upon Assad to step down, and notwithstanding the thousands butchered by Syria's leader, Obama refuses to bring Ambassador Ford home from Damascus.

Far more frightening was Obama's willingness to tolerate Iran's thinly disguised nuclear weapons program. How many times has Obama drawn a line in the sand, only to watch the Iranians ignore his toothless warnings? Today, Iran is burrowing into the mountains astride the "holy" city of Qom in order to protect its centrifuges from aerial assault. The centrifuges are producing quantities of enriched uranium far in excess of any justifiable medical research requirement, yet Obama remains silent.

Obama's timidity has created a power vacuum in the Middle East, avidly being explored by both Iran and Turkey, which could ultimately lead to a disruption of the world economy far greater than the financial tumult experienced in 2008.

It will not be long before Iran's longstanding rival, Saudi Arabia, whose leadership was appalled by the manner in which Obama discarded Egypt's Mubarek, unveils its own atomic weapons initiative.

"Maybe Obama was not even the person he was waiting for"? Sorry, Maureen, but not much chance of that. This narcissistic procrastinator-in-chief is incapable of seeing, no less remedying, his own character flaws.

David Brooks, "The Vigorous Virtues": The Ongoing Need for an Instigator State

In his most recent New York Times op-ed entitled "The Vigorous Virtues" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/02/opinion/brooks-the-vigorous-virtues.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss), David Brooks tells us that streamlining and reforming government are insufficient to restore America's "vigorous virtues" and that government still must play a role in instigating renewal by addressing educational, structural and social deficiencies. Of particular interest is Brooks's claim regarding economic stagnation:

"There’s strong evidence to suggest that the rate of technological innovation has been slowing down. In addition, America is producing fewer business start-ups. Job creation was dismal even in the seven years before the recession, when taxes were low and Republicans ran the regulatory agencies. As economist Michael Spence has argued, nearly all of the job growth over the past 20 years has been in sectors where American workers don’t have to compete with workers overseas."

From my own limited subjective perspective, I don't see any slowdown in technological innovation. My aging head spins from the new ideas which I confront almost daily in the fields of medicine, medical devices, communications and defense. Also, a day does not go by when I am not asked to opine upon the prospects of a start-up seeking capital for expansion.

However, innovation and resultant efficiency can cost jobs. Moreover, my belief is that advanced computing and communications capabilities have enabled the elite few to do the work once performed by thousands of persons who together cannot achieve at the same lofty level.

How do we nevertheless jumpstart the economy? We often see suggestions that the US needs to renovate its infrastructure and provide bullet train service of the kind available in China, but given the past decade's advances in communications, much of my work, for example, does not require my physical presence in a client's office. Again on a personal level, my time is better spent avoiding travel.

I agree with Brooks that there is a need for government and that an "instigator state will have to be built up." Yet, I think more time needs to be devoted to defining the challenges to be presented by government to corporations and society as a whole in order to foster renewal and growth in fields offering sustainable employment opportunities. I think taxation must also be regarded as a carrot and stick mechanism intended to stimulate economic revival, as opposed to a mere burdensome encumbrance.

Most important of all, there is no one route back to recovery, and there has to be a confident experienced guide, in whom those being led place their trust, at the head of the convoy. This is sorely lacking.

Nicholas Kristof's "'Thank You, America!'": Distorted and Disturbing

Nicholas Kristof has written a frighteningly distorted and disturbing New York Times op-ed entitled "'Thank You, America!'" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/01/opinion/kristof-from-libyans-thank-you-america.html?ref=opinion), in which he drools praise over Obama's assistance to the Western coalition that toppled Qaddafi in Libya:

"As I was walking back from Green Square (now renamed “Martyrs’ Square”) to my hotel on Wednesday morning, a car draped in the victorious Libyan flag pulled up and offered me a lift. 'I just want you to feel welcome here,' explained the driver, Sufian al-Gariani, a 21-year-old salesman. He beamed when he heard where I was from and declared: 'Thank you, Americans. Thank you, President Obama.'

. . . .

President Obama took a huge political risk, averted a massacre and helped topple an odious regime. To me, the lesson is not that we should barge into Syria or Yemen — I don’t think we should — but that on rare occasions military force can advance human rights. Libya has so far been a model of such an intervention."

Obama does not deserve the same credit accorded Cameron and Sarkozy, who entered the fray without knowing whether Obama would ultimately assist them, although the Libyan rebels couldn't have overcome Qaddafi's forces without low-flying US AC-130 flying gunships and A-10 attack aircraft together with spotters.

No mention by Kristof that the rebels are refusing to extradite Abdel Basset al-Megrahi, responsible for the 1988 Lockerbie bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, to the West.

No mention by Kristof that Iran is inviting the chairman of Libya's National Transitional Council to visit Teheran.

Re Syria, where Kristof says Syrians mostly don’t want multinational intervention (I'm unaware of any such poll), the conduct of Obama and the EU has been disgraceful from a humanitarian standpoint. There have been embarrassingly belated denunciations from Obama, again leading from behind, regarding Assad's atrocities, and both the US and the EU have been delinquent in imposing sanctions upon the purchase of oil from Syria.

Moreover, Obama, who several times sent Senator John Kerry to woo Assad and appointed an ambassador to Damascus without Senate approval, has demonstrated his reluctance to acknowledge his flagrant error in judgment, and is again procrastinating with respect to a future course of action.

Iran's Ahmadinejad is now reassessing his relationship with Syria's Assad, and we soon could face an anomalous situation in which Iran withdraws its ambassador from Damascus before Obama requests that Robert Ford abandon the Syrian capital.

From the lyrics of "Won't Get Fooled Again" by The Who:

And the parting on the left
Is now the parting on the right
And the beards have all grown longer overnight

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around me
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
Don't get fooled again
No, no!

YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss

Query: Has smiling Nicholas been fooled again for the umpteenth time?

Maureen Dowd, "What Price Life?": Blame It on Bush

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "What Price Life" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/31/opinion/dowd-what-price-life.html?_r=1&hp), Maureen Dowd scolds those Republicans who would cut the budget of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Again referring to Dick Cheney's new memoir (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2011/08/maureen-dowds-darth-vader-vents-crazy.html), in which Cheney criticizes Louisiana Governor Blanco for failing to request timely federal assistance, Dowd concludes:

"The awful hypocrisy is this: As we saw when they spent trillions trying to impose democracy on Iraq and Afghanistan, W. and Cheney believe in big government, in a strong, centralized executive power. But with Katrina, they chose not to use it."

Notwithstanding her recent criticism of Obama's aloof, effete, incompetence, she now reprises what is fast becoming the theme of Obama's 2012 campaign: Blame it on Bush.

Sorry, Maureen, but Obama promised to fix the economy. Ordinarily, you break something in a store, it's yours. Here, Obama didn't fix the economy - he made it worse - and it's his.

Obama also had us believe that he would bring US troops home. Instead, he escalated the war in Afghanistan. Sorry, Maureen, but once again, he didn't fix the situation - he made it worse - and it's his.

Time to forget Bush and 70-year-old Dick Cheney, who are long gone from the scene. Problems with cutting FEMA's budget? Speak to the new boss, whose response to Irene was to cut short his vacation in Martha's Vineyard.

New York Times Editorial, "NATO's Teachable Moment": "What Would It Be Like to Have to Fight a Real Enemy?"

In an editorial entitled "NATO's Teachable Moment" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/30/opinion/natos-teachable-moment.html?hp), The New York Times lavishes praise upon Cameron, Sarkozy and Obama for intervening in Libya:

"The Western allies, especially the British and French forces backed up by the United States, can be justly proud. So can Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain, President Nicolas Sarkozy of France and President Obama, who ignored the naysayers who claimed that Libya was a quagmire and the battle not worth fighting."

"Backed up by the United States"? Indeed, this was another instance where Obama was "leading from behind," and Obama does not deserve the same credit accorded Cameron and Sarkozy, who entered the fray without knowing whether Obama would assist them. On the other hand, the Libyan rebels could not have overcome Qaddafi's forces without low-flying US AC-130 flying gunships and A-10 attack aircraft, which pounded Qaddafi's ground troops and supply convoys into submission.

The Times editorial concludes with a question:

"In June, Defense Secretary Robert Gates pointedly told European NATO allies that they risked becoming militarily irrelevant unless they stepped up investment in their forces and equipment. His successor, Leon Panetta, needs to drive that message home.

European leaders need to ask themselves a fundamental question: If it was this hard taking on a ragtag army like Qaddafi’s, what would it be like to have to fight a real enemy?"

Indeed, let's not beat around the bush and ask outright whether Europe could contend with Syria, which in past months has been busy murdering and torturing thousands of its citizens. Unlike the conflagration in Libya, which was primarily tribal in nature, the uprising in Syria represents an attempt by the majority Sunni population to wrest control from the ruling Alawite minority, which dominates the upper echelons of Syria's armed forces and security agencies.

There have been embarrassingly belated denunciations from Obama, again leading from behind, regarding Assad's atrocities, and both the US and the EU have been delinquent in imposing sanctions upon the purchase of oil from Syria. Syria's economic outlook, dismal even before the insurgency, is buckling under the strain: exports, tourism, trade, manufacturing and foreign investment are all failing (see: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/29/us-syria-economy-idUSTRE77S1W420110829), and the likelihood remains that even without Western intervention, Assad will be forced to depart for Iran.

The bottom line, however, remains: Europe is not prepared to contend with Syria's army, which is the repository of the world's largest arsenal of chemical weapons, and Obama, who several times sent Senator John Kerry to woo Assad and appointed an ambassador to Damascus without Senate approval, has demonstrated his reluctance to acknowledge his flagrant error in judgment, and is again procrastinating with respect to a future course of action.

Thousands more Syrian civilians will die before Assad is ultimately forced to flee Damascus, but in the mean time, the US and EU, which were reluctant to effect economic and diplomatic sanctions, will do little to assist those seeking to dethrone Assad.

From a humanitarian standpoint, the conduct of Obama and the EU has been disgraceful. On the other hand, it is unclear what will emerge from the chaos in Libya, as evidenced by the rebels refusal to extradite the Lockerbie bomber (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2011/08/libyan-rebels-refuse-to-extradite.html), and the post-Assad outlook for Syria is even more abstruse, given the possibility that the Muslim Brotherhood, will rise from the ashes of Hama, and vie for control of the government, as in Egypt.

Today's news: Iran is inviting the chairman of Libya's National Transitional Council to visit Teheran. Perhaps the omniscient editorial board of The New York Times would care to explain what this should teach NATO.

Arab Spring, my eye!

Libyan Rebels Refuse to Extradite Lockerbie Bomber

As reported by Lebanon's Daily Star (http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2011/Aug-29/Rebels-will-not-hand-over-Lockerbie-bomber.ashx#axzz1WPyOesQt), Abdel Basset al-Megrahi, one of those responsible for the 1988 Lockerbie bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, will never be extradited to the West:

“'We will not give any Libyan citizen to the West,' Mohammad al-Alagi, the NTC [National Transitional Council] justice minister, told reporters in Tripoli. The NTC is the de facto government of Libya’s rebel movement.

'Megrahi has already been judged once and he will not be judged again … We do not hand over Libyan citizens. [Moammar] Gadhafi does.'

Megrahi, who had been diagnosed with cancer, served eight years in a Scottish prison for orchestrating the bombing of the Pan Am passenger plane which blew up over the Scottish town of Lockerbie in 1988 killing 270 people. He was released in 2009 on compassionate grounds after doctors gave him only months to live."

The Daily Star article states that Megrahi was "whisked away" by security guards last week and his whereabouts are being kept secret.

So much for the Arab Spring and the nascent forces of democracy in Tripoli.

From the lyrics of "Won't Get Fooled Again" by The Who:

There's nothing in the street
Looks any different to me
And the slogans are replaced, by-the-bye
And the parting on the left
Is now the parting on the right
And the beards have all grown longer overnight

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around me
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
Don't get fooled again
No, no!

YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss

Won't get fooled again? Sing it to the New York Times's Kristof, Cohen and Friedman. Maybe they'll be smarter next time around.