"There is no middle ground."

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

I wrote something a while back describing David Broder as the "radical centrist" par excellence... a rabid idealogue whose ideaology is difference-splitting for its own sake. Nice to see he hasn't lost the faith!

Bipartisan bromides
Paul Krugman
February 3, 2009

Josh Marshall gives us David Broder talking about stimulus — which he says failed to achieve the predicted results the first time. It’s not clear whether he was referring to the TARP or the early 2008 stimulus package, but either way it’s a poor comparison. The TARP isn’t stimulus; the early 2008 package was 1/5 the size of the Obama proposal, and contained nothing but tax cuts.

But the part that really got me was Broder saying that we need “the best ideas from both parties.”

You see, this isn’t a brainstorming session — it’s a collision of fundamentally incompatible world views. If one thing is clear from the stimulus debate, it’s that the two parties have utterly different economic doctrines. Democrats believe in something more or less like standard textbook macroeconomics; Republicans believe in a doctrine under which tax cuts are the universal elixir, and government spending is almost always bad.

Obama may be able to get a few Republican Senators to go along with his plan; or he can get a lot of Republican votes by, in effect, becoming a Republican. There is no middle ground.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/03/bipartisan-bromides/

[Skink]

1. I thought Obama was a Republican.

Albeit a good one. A fiscally responsible sensible conservative who understands issues like climate change.

[TheWraith]

2. I hope you're being sarcastic. nt

[Skink]

3. No sarcasm. I like my presidents a tad bit conservative.

Congesses on the other hand should be able to offer progressive legislation and ease off on playing politics. Part of the problem IMO is that we live in the age of the perpetual campaign and folks have to spend to much time worrying about reelection. That is if they are performing well.

[Thrill]

6. There is nothing in his record in the US Senate or State Senate that would give

you that impression.

[grantcart]

4. I object to the idea that tax cuts are a purely Republican strategy

The fact is that tax cuts as a stimulus was proved effective under Kennedy who used it that way for the first time.


Reducing taxes on the poor and the working middle class would have a strong and immediate impact on the economy. Refunding payroll taxes (social security and medicare) for minimum wage and low income workers would translate into an immediate increase in consumer demand and by some studies has the biggest stimulus impact (something like $ 1.73 for every dollar spent).


This is completely different than tax reduction on the wealthy or even capital gains reductions which has been shown to have virtually no stimulus effect at all.


The right tax reductions - payroll taxes on the working poor and low income families for example - is both progressive and effective stimulus and should be claimed as a Democratic principle.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

5. I agree, and I think there's a big role for tax cuts in the current situation

But I favor a much bigger program so I'm not in either/or mode.

That said, though I favor some Republican proposals in specific there can be no philosophical compromise because the pug philosophy is incoherent and any compromise view will be incoherent as well. So we might as well be talking about the relative worth of proposals generated at random.

For instance, I favor tax cuts but don't care about the deficit. Their established view is that the deficit is super important but that tax cuts increase revenue.

It's like if I eat pistachio ice cream because I like the taste and someone else eats it because though it tastes nasty to them they think it cures cancer. Can we really be said to agree?

But yes, we can agree to buy some pistachio ice cream, so it's better than nothing.

[Zynx]

7. The problem is that we are at a point on tax rates where permanent reductions will canibalize

future revenue. Tax rate cuts are essentially gimmicks. While in 1963 they made sense with taxes as high as they were, I'm not sure that is the case anymore. If we cut rates too low, then we will be unable to collect sufficient revenues for programs.

[grantcart]

8. not talking about anything permanent - helping ease payroll taxes on

working poor for 2 years would not be a gimmick and helps stimulate real spending for people who need it.

[Zynx]

9. The trouble is that does screw up the Social Security structure. You would have to credit

them for not paying in as much.