Paul Krugman, "Galt / Gekko 2012": The Man Who Praised Occupy Wall Street Trash Talks Paul Ryan

"Occupy Wall Street is starting to look like an important event that might even eventually be seen as a turning point.

. . . .

It’s clear what kinds of things the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators want, and it’s really the job of policy intellectuals and politicians to fill in the details."

Paul Krugman, "Confronting the Malefactors" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/07/opinion/krugman-confronting-the-malefactors.html), October 6, 2011

And so, less than a year ago, Krugman was singing paeans to those who would dismantle the American financial system, riot, espouse rabid anti-Semitism, and defecate freely in public parks whenever the urge came over them. Moreover, Krugman was not alone in expressing sympathy for these nihilists. During an October 6, 2011 press conference, fellow Nobel Prize winner Barack Obama also went to bat for them, seeking to explain their motives:

"What I think is that the American people understand that not everybody has been following the rules; that Wall Street is an example of that; that folks who are working hard every single day, getting up, going to the job, loyal to their companies, that used to be the essence of the American Dream. That's how you got ahead -- the old-fashioned way. And these days, a lot of folks who are doing the right thing aren't rewarded, and a lot of folks who aren't doing the right thing are rewarded."

Well, notwithstanding the fact that "policy intellectual" Krugman and "politician" Obama sought "to fill in the details" for OWS, the short-lived movement is now resting peacefully in the trash heap of American history. So much for Krugman's oracular powers.

In a New York Times "Conscience of a Liberal" blog item entitled "Galt / Gekko 2012" (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/?8dpc), Krugman, apparently nearing an apoplectic fit, takes aim at the Republican vice presidential candidate, Paul Ryan:

"What I do know is that anyone who believes in Ryan’s carefully cultivated image as a brave, honest policy wonk has been snookered. Mark Thoma reviews selected pieces I’ve written about Ryan; he is, in fact, a big fraud, who doesn’t care at all about fiscal responsibility, and whose policy proposals are sloppy as well as dishonest. Of course, this means that he’ll fit in to the Romney campaign just fine."

Peculiar. This is the same Paul Ryan with respect to whose choice by Romney The Wall Street Journal (see: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443537404577583323575899222.html?mod=WSJ_hps_LEFTTopStories) wrote on Saturday:

"The underlying assumption is that at this moment of declining real incomes and national self-doubt, Americans won't fall for the same old easy demagoguery. They want to hear serious ideas debated seriously. The contrast couldn't be greater with a President who won't run on his record and has offered not a single idea for a second term.

In choosing Mr. Ryan, Mr. Romney is betting that Americans know how much trouble their country is in, and that they will reward the candidate who pays them the compliment of offering solutions that match the magnitude of the problems."

So is Paul Ryan a "fraud" or a straight-thinker demanding that America confront its problems head-on?

Again, as observed by James Pethokoukis in an article in Commentary entitled "Ryan's Hope" (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/ryans-hope/):

"In 2008, publicly held debt as a share of GDP was 41 percent. The Congressional Budget Office’s best guess is that it will be 73 percent this year and 94 percent by 2022—with annual budget deficits averaging $1.1 trillion for the next decade. And it is in 2022 that Medicare really starts to contribute to our fiscal instability."

There is no fraud in the CBO's numbers. Moreover, these annual budget deficits are not sustainable, and although the federal government can ultimately print money in order to repay its debts, should this come to happen, there will be nothing left of social security or Medicare.

Do I agree with all that Ryan proposes? No. But I welcome an honest debate concerning the very real problems that he is addressing and for which Obama offers no solutions whatsoever.

I guess I've been snookered.

Maureen Dowd, "Likability Index": But What Happens When the Bubble Bursts?

As acknowledged by Maureen Dowd in her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Likability Index" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/12/opinion/sunday/dowd-likability-index.html), Obama has "lost the thread of his narrative of hope and change," yet he has retained his "likability." In fact, he has lost far more than this narrative, and his sustained popularity is little less than a marketing miracle.

Consider how someone like Obama, who was labeled by Dowd in her prior op-ed an "ungrateful president" (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2012/08/maureen-dowd-ungrateful-president-does.html), and who clearly suffers from a narcissistic personality disorder, can still find favor with a majority of Americans.

Even more remarkable, Obama gets good marks from most Americans for his foreign policy. Consider the price being paid by the US for Obama's escalation of the war in Afghanistan; his alienation of Poland, the Czech Republic and a host of other allies; his refusal to honor his promise to acknowledge Armenian genocide; his profound friendship with Turkey's Erdogan who has thrown a record number of journalists into prison; his failed overtures to tyrannical Iran and Syria which his administration deemed "misunderstood"; his demeaning bow to Saudi King Abdullah; his kowtowing to China notwithstanding devastating human rights abuses in that country; his ejection of the Dalai Lama out of a garbage strewn side door of the White House; his joyous embraces with Chavez and Qaddafi; his attempts to mollify Russia's Putin without receiving anything in return; and the list continues ad infinitum.

And then there is that minor matter involving an imminent US bankruptcy (yeah, I know, Krugman, the US can simply continue printing money). As observed by James Pethokoukis in an article in Commentary entitled "Ryan's Hope" (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/ryans-hope/):

"In 2008, publicly held debt as a share of GDP was 41 percent. The Congressional Budget Office’s best guess is that it will be 73 percent this year and 94 percent by 2022—with annual budget deficits averaging $1.1 trillion for the next decade. And it is in 2022 that Medicare really starts to contribute to our fiscal instability."

Fiscal instability? Why should this matter as long as Obama remains likable.

Dowd asks, "Will Mitt’s new mate, Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, make his run more personable?" I doubt it. You see, we all want the best medical treatment in the world at no added cost, college loans which don't need to be repaid, and job training for jobs that don't exist.

Well, the drunken debauchery is going to end, sooner rather than later, and at that time it may be too late for America to swallow the foul tasting medicine being served up by Paul Ryan.