Paul Krugman, "Inventing a Failure": Lies, Damned Lies?

Has Obamacare turned the corner? You might not be able to keep your doctor, you might not be able to keep your health care plan, and it might cost you more, but Paul Krugman thinks so.

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Inventing a Failure" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/05/opinion/krugman-inventing-a-failure.html?ref=opinion&_r=0), Krugman writes:

"Mainstream politicians didn’t always try to advance their agenda through lies, damned lies and — in this case — bogus statistics. And the fact that this has become standard operating procedure for a major party bodes ill for America’s future.

. . . .

The really big policy news of 2014, at least so far, is the spectacular recovery of the Affordable Care Act from its stumbling start, thanks to an extraordinary late surge that took enrollment beyond early projections. The age mix of enrollees has improved; insurance companies are broadly satisfied with the risk pool. Multiple independent surveys confirm that the percentage of Americans without health insurance has already declined substantially, and there’s every reason to believe that over the next two years the act will meet its overall goals, except in states that refuse to expand Medicaid.

. . . .

So Republicans are spreading disinformation about health reform because it works, and because they can — there is no sign that they pay any political price when their accusations are proved false."

"Mainstream politicians didn’t always try to advance their agenda through lies, damned lies"? Peculiar. The Obama administration's attempt to blame the attack on the Benghazi consulate on an Internet video amounted to just this sort of mendaciousness, but I am wandering off target. Is Obamacare the success that Krugman makes it out to be? Are Republicans hoodwinking the electorate?

In a recent Washington Post opinion piece entitled "The White House’s Obamacare victory lap looking more like a false start" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/04/29/white-houses-obamacare-victory-lap-looking-more-like-a-false-start/?tid=pm_politics_pop), Aaron Blake observes (my emphasis in red):

"As we have noted, a new Washington Post-ABC News poll shows approval of the law and of Obama's implementation of it have dropped after a momentary boost. Americans disapprove of the law overall 48-44 and disapprove of Obama's implementation 57-37.

What's perhaps more telling is that, despite the rare good news of the past few weeks, their perceptions of the law remain basically as-is -- that is, pretty dim. To wit:
•Americans say 50-41 that the implementation of the law has been worse than they expected rather than better.
•They say 44-24 that the health-care system is getting worse rather than getting better as a result of Obamacare.
•They say 29-14 that the quality of care is getting worse rather than better.
•They say 47-8 that their health-care costs are increasing due to the law rather than decreasing.
•They say 58-11 that the overall cost of health care in the United States is increasing rather than decreasing. "

These negative perceptions of Obamacare are all the result of Republican lies? I don't think so, unless Krugman would have us believe that Americans, who elected Obama twice to be their president, are all dunderheads, even when it involves their wallets and purses.

Is the Affordable Care Act affordable? Obviously many Americans don't think so.

What will be the ultimate effect of the Affordable Care Act on America's national debt? Or stated otherwise, is the Affordable Care Act affordable to the nation as a whole? The jury is still out - particularly given a second delay by the Obama administration of the employer mandate in February - but the prognosis is not sanguine, notwithstanding slightly lower deficit estimates (see: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/14/us-usa-healthcare-premiums-idUSBREA3D1KQ20140414).

Thomas Friedman, "It’s Not Just About Obama": It's All About a Carbon Tax

And to think that I was flabbergasted by Thomas Friedman's op-ed on Wednesday (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2014/04/thomas-friedman-challenging-putins.html) . . .

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "It’s Not Just About Obama" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/04/opinion/sunday/friedman-its-not-just-about-obama.html?ref=opinion), Friedman again seeks to let Obama off the hook for America's failed foreign policy. Tom Terrific writes:

"Our biggest problem, though, is not Europe or Obama. Our biggest problem is us and our own political paralysis. The world takes America seriously when they see us doing big hard things together — when we lead by example. If we want to do more nation-building abroad, then we have to come together on a plan to do more nation-building at home first — including infrastructure investment, replacing income and corporate taxes with a carbon tax, a major new push for both energy efficiency and properly extracted natural gas, skill-building and immigration reform and gradual long-term fiscal rebalancing. That’s how we build our muscle and weaken Putin’s."

Replacing income and corporate taxes with a carbon tax is going to deter Putin, Khamenei and Assad?

Obama's lack of credibility overseas has nothing to do with "red lines" drawn in washable crayon, promises of "flexibility" to a former KGB lieutenant colonel, bowing to the king of Saudi Arabia and emperor of Japan, destruction of relationships with long-term allies, the unavenged murder of an American ambassador and three other Americans in Benghazi, secret negotiations with a maniacal theocratic regime in Iran, serial failed negotiations, or a mere penchant for "leading from behind"?

Does anyone - other than Obama - still take Friedman seriously?

In an editorial entitled "President Obama and the World" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/04/opinion/sunday/president-obama-and-the-world.html?ref=opinion&_r=0), The New York Times writes today:

"Taken as a whole and stripped as much as possible of ideological blinkers, Mr. Obama’s record on foreign policy is not as bad as his critics say. It’s just not good enough."

Not good enough? He still has another two and a half years in the Oval Office. When, if ever, does it get better?

Maureen Dowd, "42 and 45 Overpower 44": Ignore Benghazi? Wisely and Slow, Mo!

"Wisely and slow; they stumble that run fast."

- William Shakespeare, "Romeo and Juliet"

Can you name a single accomplishment attributable to Hillary in her roles as First Lady, senator or secretary of state? I can't, but why should that stand in the way of her becoming the next president of the United States?

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "42 and 45 Overpower 44" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/04/opinion/sunday/dowd-42-and-45-overpower-44.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=0), Maureen Dowd would have us believe that Hillary is a shoo-in to follow a faltering Obama as America's next president. Dowd writes:

"Things have now reached the point where it feels as though 42 and 45 have already taken over the reins of Washington power from 44, who is fading Snapchat-fast."

According to Dowd, many who supported Obama's candidacy in 2008 at Hillary's expense are now seeking to make amends, including the likes of Samantha Power, who once called Hillary a "monster."

The revival of the "Benghazi Scandal"? Ignore it! After all, her newspaper is not giving it any coverage, and Dowd would also have us know that the allegations are bereft of substance:

"Just to make the Clintons feel completely at home as they ramp up to the restoration, there is even a congressional investigation spurred by the vast right-wing conspiracy.

House Speaker John Boehner announced Friday that he would call a vote to set up a select committee to look into the Benghazi debacle, and whether Congress was misled by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and others in the Obama administration.

As Slate’s Dave Weigel tweeted, 'The nice thing about having a Benghazi select committee is you can roll it over into the Hillary presidency.'"

Of course, it doesn't matter that Beth Jones, Acting Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs at the State Department, wrote on September 12, 2012, one day after the fatal attack on the Benghazi consulate (http://chaffetz.house.gov/sites/chaffetz.house.gov/files/US%20Department%20of%20State%20-%20Beth%20Jones%20emails_0.pdf):

"When [the Libyan Ambassador] said his government suspected that former Qaddafi regime elements carried out the attacks, I told him the group that conducted the attacks—Ansar Al Sharia—is affiliated with Islamic extremists."

It doesn't make a particle of difference that two days thereafter, on September 14, 2012, Ben Rhodes wrote the email, suppressed by Obama and friends, stating the administration's "goal":

"To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure or policy."

Nor should it trouble us that on September 16, 2012, Susan Rice took to the airwaves to inform the American people that the attack on the Benghazi consulate was the result of that video:

"[O]ur current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous — not a premeditated — response to what had transpired in Cairo. In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated."

Moreover, it is absolutely of no consequence that Obama and Hillary thereupon disseminated this deceit during the days and weeks to come. Hillary was even cruel enough to foist this falsehood upon Pat Smith, the mother of Sean Smith, one of the four Americans who died during the attack (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/benghazi-victims-mom-obama-hillary-and-biden-all-lied-to-me/).

In a subsequent declaration that will come back to haunt her in 2016, Hillary infamously declared regarding the underlying reasons for the tragedy:

"What difference, at this point, does it make!"

Actually, it should make all the difference in the world, unless we have truly reached a day and age when "public servants" can lie with impunity to the electorate.

Charles Krauthammer, "Obama’s foreign policy of denial": Saudi Arabia Repudiates the US

America's status around the world is in decline, and nowhere is this more obvious than in Saudi Arabia, which has now become blatantly hostile to the Obama administration.

Writing about Obama's "foreign policy weakness" in a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Obama’s foreign policy of denial" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-obamas-foreign-policy-of-self-delusion/2014/05/01/3e17ad48-d16c-11e3-937f-d3026234b51c_story.html?hpid=z3), Charles Krauthammer specifically observes with regard to Saudi Arabia (my emphasis in red):

"Add to [the failure to reach a trade agreement with Japan and the termination of the Kerry-sponsored negotiations between Palestinians and Israelis] the collapse of not one but two Geneva conferences on Syria, American helplessness in the face of Russian aggression against Ukraine and the Saudi king’s humiliating dismissal of Obama within two hours of talks — no dinner — after Obama made a special 2,300-mile diversion from Europe to see him, and you have an impressive litany of serial embarrassments."

As further noted in a Washington Free Beacon article entitled "Saudi Arabia Shows Off Chinese Missiles" (http://freebeacon.com/national-security/saudi-arabia-shows-off-chinese-missiles/) by Bill Gertz:

"Saudi Arabia’s military for the first time displayed Chinese made intermediate-range missiles during a recent military parade in the kingdom.

The unveiling of the two Chinese DF-3 missiles is the latest sign that the oil-rich kingdom is distancing itself from the United States.

. . . .

The disclosure of the missiles follows a recent visit to China by Saudi defense officials who U.S. officials say are angered at the Obama administration over its policies toward Iran.

Saudi Crown Prince and Defense Minister Salman bin Abdulaziz al-Saud traveled to Pakistan in February. U.S. officials said the visit was an indication that the Saudis are preparing to purchase Chinese-designed JF-17 combat jets from the Pakistanis.

Saudi Deputy Defense Minister Prince Salman bin Sultan also visited Pakistan’s Heavy Industries Taxila fueling reports that the Saudi are buying the Chinese-Pakistani Al-Khalid tank.

The visit was viewed by U.S. officials as a clear indicator of Saudi anger at conciliatory Obama administration policies toward a deal with Iran on its nuclear program, and a perception in Riyadh that the United States is not supporting its friends."

A full blown war between Saudi Arabia and Iran, beyond the proxy wars they are waging in Yemen and Syria? The Saudis believe that Obama has encouraged Iranian efforts at achieving hegemony throughout the Middle East, i.e. facilitating a new balance of power in the region in which Iran is awarded greater standing, and a direct confrontation between Saudi Arabia and Iran is well on its way.

Paul Krugman, "Why Economics Failed": Simple, Because Economics Is Not an Exact Science

I am blessed to work with companies in the fields of biotechnology and medical devices. One of the basic challenges in both these areas is, through the application of the exact sciences of mathematics, physics and chemistry, taking the guesswork out of biology.

Economics? Also not an exact science, and that's why we still have economic downturns. Moreover, economics never will be an exact science.

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Why Economics Failed" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/02/opinion/krugman-why-economics-failed.html?hp&rref=opinion&_r=0), Paul Krugman asks why economic knowledge was not used to prevent the "Great Recession." Krugman responds to his own question by observing:

"One answer is that most people find the logic of policy in a depressed economy counterintuitive. Instead, what resonates with the public are misleading analogies with the finances of an individual family, which is why Mr. Obama began echoing Mr. Boehner."

True, individual families cannot print their own money or borrow it without limitations. On the other hand, if a government prints or borrows money without limitation, inevitably the value of its currency is eroded. US national debt? Now some $17.5 trillion, which will never be returned, and yes, ultimately one of the loaners - be it China or someone else - will ultimately get wise with horrific consequences across the globe.

Krugman's conclusion:

"Whatever the reasons basic economics got tossed aside, the result has been tragic. Most of the waste and suffering that have afflicted Western economies these past five years was unnecessary. We have, all along, had the knowledge and the tools to restore full employment. But policy makers just keep finding reasons not to do the right thing."

Full employment? My guess is that it's a thing of the past. For better or worse, we've entered an age when a handful of geniuses armed with powerful computers can do the work of an army of mediocre personnel, and nowhere is this more obvious than in . . . biotechnology and medical devices.

How will society cope with perpetually higher rates of unemployment? No one knows for sure, but you might want to have another look at Huxley's "Brave New World."

My guess is that it's not going to be pretty.

David Brooks, "Love Story": Love in the Time of Chimera

Gabriel García Márquez, author of "Love in the Time of Cholera," died two weeks ago, and with his passing, at least for me, love died as I had once imagined it. Sure, I can take my copy of his masterpiece off the shelf and blow the dust from its cover, but I doubt, today, whether I am capable of emulating Florentino Ariza's enduring passion.

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Love Story" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/02/opinion/brooks-love-story.html?ref=opinion&_r=0), David Brooks describes a real-life love story from Leningrad, which occurred almost 70 years ago, involving philosopher Isaiah Berlin and poetess Anna Akhmatova. Brooks concludes:

"For Berlin, this night was the most important event of his life. Akhmatova was stuck in the Soviet Union, living under a regime of manipulation, fear and lies. She suffered horrendously for it. The regime decided that she had cavorted with a British spy. She was expelled from the Writer’s Union. Her son was thrown into prison. She was desolated but never blamed Berlin, speaking of him fervently and writing movingly about the numinous magic of that night.

I’m old enough to remember when many people committed themselves to this sort of life and dreamed of this sort of communion — the whole Great Books/Big Ideas thing. I am not sure how many people believe in or aspire to this sort of a life today. I’m not sure how many schools prepare students for this kind of love."

How many people "believe in or aspire to this sort of a life today"? Not many. They're too busy seeking a prestigious job with Google (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2014/04/thomas-friedman-how-to-get-job-at.html).

Or, they're preoccupied with adding a selfie to their homepage on Facebook.

Or, like me, they are overwhelmed by nausea after contemplating Jay Carney's efforts to explain away the White House's refusal to turn over to Congress an email from Ben Rhodes, which established the "goal" of underscoring "that these protests [in Benghazi] are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy" (see: http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-benghazi-documents-point-white-house-misleading-talking-points/). It's hard to fathom, but Americans are paying Carney for his equivocation and derision, i.e. a new age masochistic indulgence.

"How many schools prepare students for this kind of love"? You are truly imagining a different epoch, David.

Air Force Brigadier General Robert Lovell (Ret.), "We Should Have Tried" to Help Benghazi Consulate: A Blow to Hillary in 2016?

As reported by NBC News in an article entitled "Official: 'We Should Have Tried' to Help During Benghazi Attack" (http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/official-we-should-have-tried-help-during-benghazi-attack-n94796) by Carrie Dann, the US military "should have tried" to send help to the Americans under attack in Benghazi on September 11, 2012, but instead waited for instructions from the State Department:

"A retired military official who served at U.S. Africa Command in Germany during the time of the Benghazi attack says that the United States 'should have tried' to send help to Americans under fire there.

'There are accounts of time, space and capability discussions of the question, could we have gotten there in time to make a difference,' Air Force Brigadier General Robert Lovell (Ret.) told the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. 'Well, the discussion is not in the ‘could or could not’ in relation to time, space and capability. The point is we should have tried.'

Lovell also told the panel that U.S. officials knew at the outset of the attack that it was 'hostile action' and not a spontaneous reaction to an anti-Islam video. But as the military weighed its reaction, he said, 'there was a lot of looking to the State Department for what it was that they wanted.'"

And then there is also the recently revealed Rhodes email, which established the "goal" of underscoring "that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy" (see: http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-benghazi-documents-point-white-house-misleading-talking-points/).

Could these bombshells have an impact upon the chances of Hillary ('What difference does it make") in 2016? Although her nomination will still be a cakewalk, her election is far from assured.

Might she not run? Not a chance. Vanity will conquer reason.