Krugman: Senate Stimulus "compromise" cuts most needed parts of plan.

[Baikonour]

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/07/what-the-centrists-have-wrought/

I’m still working on the numbers, but I’ve gotten a fair number of requests for comment on the Senate version of the stimulus.

The short answer: to appease the centrists, a plan that was already too small and too focused on ineffective tax cuts has been made significantly smaller, and even more focused on tax cuts.

According to the CBO’s estimates, we’re facing an output shortfall of almost 14% of GDP over the next two years, or around $2 trillion. Others, such as Goldman Sachs, are even more pessimistic. So the original $800 billion plan was too small, especially because a substantial share consisted of tax cuts that probably would have added little to demand. The plan should have been at least 50% larger.

Now the centrists have shaved off $86 billion in spending — much of it among the most effective and most needed parts of the plan. In particular, aid to state governments, which are in desperate straits, is both fast — because it prevents spending cuts rather than having to start up new projects — and effective, because it would in fact be spent; plus state and local governments are cutting back on essentials, so the social value of this spending would be high. But in the name of mighty centrism, $40 billion of that aid has been cut out.

My first cut says that the changes to the Senate bill will ensure that we have at least 600,000 fewer Americans employed over the next two years.

The real question now is whether Obama will be able to come back for more once it’s clear that the plan is way inadequate. My guess is no. This is really, really bad.

Honestly, Krugman has annoyed me in the past but he has been SPOT ON these past few days.

[drm604]

1. Yes, he's spot on.

And if you and I can see it, then what the hell is wrong with our legislators? I am so pissed right now with my Senator, Arlen Specter. :mad:

[Baikonour]

2. He's my senator too. I'm in PA as well.

I don't know why we keep voting him in..

2010, I'm hoping, is the end of his reign.

[BeyondGeography]

3. Why don't you go down there and work it out yourself, Paul?

Fact is, even though the plan is essential and that which was excised from it is hurtful to the economy, the plan itself was in danger of stalling in the Senate, after which it could have been fatally torched by the MSM. Thirty years of trashing government from the Right, a confused and easily manipulated public, and a complicit media have made legislators ever more gutless and cynical. Without the tax cuts that Krugman bemoans, the plan would have been even more vulnerable from the start. And, for all of the necessary compromises, which appear to have netted us a grand total of three Republican Senators, the bill still has to make its way through conference and another few rounds of abuse from the echo chamber and the MSM, which is why Obama is hitting the road to do town halls in IN and FL.

I've watched Krugman bemoan and belittle Obama for about two years now. A perspective-free blog post like this does little to refute the impression that he is either a political dunce or all those nasty e-mails he received from Obama supporters during the health care squabble really left a mark on the sensitive little man's psyche. One is left with the inescapable impression that Krugman is disappointed that Obama has accomplished anything at all.

[Dawgs]

4. Thank you.

Krugman may be a great economist, but his daily articles attacking goverment shows that he knows absolutely nothing of how politics works.

[Bjorn Against]

41. Politics does not have to work the way it works now.

This is supposed to be a democracy, the way politics works is not supposed to be set in stone. I know that the way that "politics works" has gotten us into a massive crisis, and it is time to change the way it works.

[Vinnie From Indy]

7. Wow!

So in your opinion Krugman is either a political idiot or a vindictive prick.

One could easily make the case that it is the Democrats in the Senate that are political dunces for their handling of this affair. It seems they STILL refuse to exercise their power even when it is at it's zenith. I agree with Krugman. If the Dems cannot win this battle so soon after the election, the next few years will be more of the same and we are all likely doomed to a much more severe and prolonged financial crisis.

It is a good thing that Krugman's advice is not tainted by the political process. We have seen in Iraq the terrible cost in lives of having political whims trump expertise and experience. Once again it appears Americans will pay the price in LIVES for the weakness and corruption in our political process.

[QC]

15. The cheerleaders around here have always despised Krugman.

He was one of the first of many good progressives to get thrown under the Hopemobile.

[AtomicKitten]

17. as opposed to disgruntled Clintonites hunkered down to resist at any cost

jumping on everything and anything to that end

[ChiciB1]

19. Really?? Didn't Know That. Thought He Was Up There With Robert Reich.

I've spent a little less time here than before, but Krugman seems relatively "sound of mind" to me.

[AtomicKitten]

22. nah, that's just deflection coming from a disgruntled cheerleader casting aspersions n/t

[ChiciB1]

25. Olbermann Has Him On His Show A Lot, Or Is It Tweety?? He Seems To Have

garnered respect in their corner. But then, we're STILL talking MSM for the most part even though many of us hold KO & Tweety in high regard. I still have my problems with Tweety even though he's coming back to his roots lately. I'm sure it's because he may run for Senator.

I'm a Reich fan myself, but then again Berkeley and liberalism are more to my liking. I'm willing to compromise from time to time since I'm clearly out of fashion, still I want more for "we the people" first and foremost.

I fear kicking the can down the road might make the can end up in a ditch.

[AtomicKitten]

27. Unfortunately the Senate needs 60 votes to get the bill to conference, 51 thereafter.

This bill remains a work in progress. In conference, I am hopeful much will be restored. Obama is clear that spending is stimulus and most Dems (with the exception of the Blue Dogs :mad:) agree.

My daughter is a UC Berkeley graduate and took classes with Reich. She became a fan close up. I like Krugman, respect his expertise, but he's really stepping in it with his incessant line of political attack. Obama has invited him to the White House, but Krugman appears content to take potshots from the comfort of his Op-Ed column.

[ChiciB1]

31. Coincidence... MY Daughter Always Wanted To Go To Berkeley & Took

a quick trip from down here in Florida JUST TO SEE it! As I'm a Boomer AND a SERIOUS political junkie, she & my son have had to listen to my diatribes throughout the years!

She happened to go see the movie "Across The Universe" and thought THAT was how it was!! Of course, the movie was just a snippet back in time! I bought the movie and watched it, found it rather tame but gave it to her. That's when she said she HAD to go to San Fran! She called me almost EVERY day until I had to tell her to stop because it brought back too many memories and mad me sad! She was ready to pack up and move out there as soon as she returned.

Long story, but my husband and I told her things would never be the same as back then. They never are. She was unaware of what really happened after the "Summer of Love" and Haight etc. I'm glad she went though, it was a real HIGH for her and her husband! San Fran is the antithesis of where we live and I warned her before she went she would become depressed when she got home. She did apply to USF to pursue a masters in nursing and got accepted magnum cum laude (God I hate to brag like this) but she's 39 and it is an honor at her age. My grandson one-upped her and will be off to Gainesville, land of the Gators, a more liberal school this fall! That's about as liberal as you can get in Florida! Still, she talks San Fran whenever she can.

I understand your reservations about Reich, but I personally think he simply wants to keep issues up front. After all, if my memory is correct, he actually left the Clinton Admin. before the end of his second term. What Reich states won't ever come to pass either IMO, but I lean more to his way of thinking. I'm more of a Wellstone, Sanders person which keeps me forever in the "minority" as always. I'm one who would like to think that Obama and his approach regarding bi-partisanship can work, but I'd bet money he'll never sway many Repukes!

I'll give him points for making McConnell give him praise, but McConnell and Boehner are two peas in a pod as I see it.

Sorry for the rant... I too would love a visit to CA myself!

[AtomicKitten]

43. It's been a great experience here in SF.

We moved here for my son to attend the Art Institute and then he changed majors and had to start pretty much from ground zero. Next year we're moving back to Santa Cruz, where we started, for my son to finish at UCSC. Grad school is still up in the air. My daughter was on Teen Jeopardy when she was a senior in high school, went to Berkeley on full scholarship, and is now a Ph.D. I'll join you in exercising bragging rights!

On point, I actually like Reich very much and only wish Krugman would take the edge off his nonstop criticism splashed across the NY Times.

Cheers.

[ChiciB1]

59. You Betcha... Cheers For The Kids & Congrats To The Them All!

Guess us Liberals aren't all "welfare Mom's" 'eh?? That's an OLD one, but because I actually graduated from Killeen Texas, I still have some Red-Neck friends who are Repukes and bring up these things to this day!!! My grandson wants to major in something like Pharma-Genetics. Not sure that's the correct classification, but it has something to do with the science of making drugs and working for the CDC! I have some dubious thoughts about this because I'm not sure a Government job with the CDC isn't sort of a place that covers up what's actually going on behind the scenes. On the other hand, it may be beneficial to have an inside track! I'm NOT keen on big Pharma, Insurance Companies and Corporate greed! But he has quite a few years ahead of him.

Let's keep our fingers crossed and keep the pressure on the Repukes. Nice chatting with you! You've been blogging here for a long time, as I have, but I think we've not always been on the same page. Still, I'm one who's always open to agree to disagree! More the kill 'em with kindness type as opposed to "in your face" and skewering an opponent. But I have my moments. I have some friends in CA, and would rather be there than here. Florida leaves a bad taste in my mouth for the most part!

One more thing, I have a DISH and was able to watch Reich in action as he was teaching what he does best. FSTV or LINK I think!

:thumbsup: :toast:

[QC]

30. delete

wrong place

[Seen the light]

36. We have cheerleading smilies now?

:rofl:

Awesome.

[QC]

37. Well, they're not standard issue smilies.

I found them elsewhere.

In addition to the cheerleaders, there are also groupie smilies, very useful around here:

[MadHound]

8. God forbid the Dems in Congress actually fight for what's right eh?

Sorry, but these are tired old excuses. First the Dems couldn't do anything because they were in the minority, then they couldn't do anything because they had such a small majority, now they can't do anything because they don't have sixty votes. And I imagine that when/if the Dems got sixty plus votes, there would be some other bullshit excuse for why the Dems can't get a damn thing done.

Meanwhile, if you look back at the record of the 'Pugs, they didn't have sixty votes in the Senate, yet they rammed through their legislative package, and even when they're in the minority they get a lot of what they want. Why? Because unlike the Congressional Dems, they are disciplined and are willing to get down and dirty to fight for what they want. The Dems aren't willing to fight, either for themselves or for what is best for the American people. So much like what's going on in this stimulus bill, we can expect that the American people will continue to get thrown under the bus, and there will be apologists to make excuses for them.

Krugman is spot on, and the economy is going to continue to falter, all because rather than fighting, the Dems caved on this.

[NorthCarolina]

9. I am thankful that intelligent truth tellers like Krugman are finally getting exposure

Krugman is bemoaning the stimulus plan which is being drafted by Congress, he is not bemoaning or belittling Obama. It really escapes me how when those folks whose voices of reason and Democratic principles have been absent from the media discussion for so long are now targets of attack from Democrats. Or is it simply that I am wrong to assume that these attacks are from Democrats?

[jerryster]

13. Not sure I agree with you

First, no one has been on the receiving end of more criticism from Krugman than W was, and of course rightly so. He has also said many times that something needs to be done and Obama is at least trying. Krugman has consistently been critical of Bush's tax cuts (see his many appearances on Olbermann) and I think his criticism here is not about cuts for the middle class, but more about Republicans making the cuts too high a percentage of the overall package. Tax cuts do not generate spending, no matter what delusional Republicans tell themselves or us. They have also cut badly needed aid to states and I agree with what Krugman said about that being a bad idea. Rachel Maddow the other day pointed out that Republicans wanted to cut the amount allotted for food stamps even though 100% of food stamps are used, i.e, SPENT.

I just don't share your feeling that Krugman is disappointed that Obama has accomplished anything. I think his criticism of the stimulus package falls squarely and correctly on the Republicans.

[Mojorabbit]

14. I totally disagree

He has a large public forum and can be of great help lighting a fire under congress. His voice and many others are needed.

[AtomicKitten]

18. Krugman is a good economist but a lousy politician ignorant of process.

Obama said he would listen to good ideas, yet Krugman declines meeting with the White House to offer them up on this work in progress like a man with honorable intentions.

Instead Krugman's incessant nipping at Obama's heels splashed across his Op-Ed column is petulant and continues his general election theme of eviscerating Obama while doing a cursory fly-by over McCain.

Krugman gets an 8 for content and zip, nada, goose-egg for presentation.

[Bjorn Against]

44. Krugman is not a politician, and this process has been getting us in trouble for decades now.

We need change, and the Republicans and so called "centrists" are doing everything they can to stop that change. Krugman is right to call them out.

[AtomicKitten]

45. Calling out the GOP and Blue Dogs is deserved and worthwhile.

However, Krugman should accept the White House invitation to come in and be part of the solution instead of his barrage of potshots at Obama in the press. In that regard, Krugman isn't helping.

[Bjorn Against]

46. I don't know Krugman's reasons for not working with Obama more closely.

I don't think it is fair to judge him without having a full understanding of those reasons, working with the White House on something like this is no small deal and Krugman may feel he is more effective on the outside. We need people both inside the system and outside of the system, those outside the system are often going to be critical of the ones on the inside and that is a good thing. It is not as if Krugman has focused all his energies on attacking Obama, sure he has offered some criticism but his criticism of Obama has been nothing compared with the way he has gone after Republicans.

[AtomicKitten]

47. I disagree on one point.

Krugman eviscerated Obama during the election with 8 or 9 caustic Op-Eds, and did a cursory fly-by over McCain in ONE Op-Ed. I think most people would agree McCain doesn't know his head from his ass when it comes to the economy.

On edit: That probably explains why Krugman doesn't want to accept a White House invitation to be part of the solution. LOL.

[Bjorn Against]

48. Actually that's not true, here are links to the last ten columns Krugman wrote before the election.

You will notice that in all ten of these columns McCain is criticized at least once, often very harshly. In addition Krugman says some very positive things about Obama in some of these columns, it is very clear that Krugman supported Obama after the primaries ended. I only went back to look at the final ten columns of Krugman's before the election, but considering there were attacks on McCain in all ten of them I would think it is a pretty safe bet that Krugman went after McCain other times as well.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/03/opinion/03krugman.html?_r=1
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/26/opinion/26krugman.html
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B02E0DA1730F933A15753C1A96E9C8B63
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/17/opinion/17krugman.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/06/opinion/06krugman.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/29/opinion/29krugman.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/26/opinion/26krugman.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/12/opinion/12krugman.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/05/opinion/05krugman.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/01/opinion/01krugman.html

[AtomicKitten]

49. Check back to the primaries. n/t

[Bjorn Against]

50. The key word there is "primaries"

Krugman got over the primaries, and I think the rest of us should too. During the primaries we all need to expect criticism of the candidate that we support from other members of the party, that is what primaries are for. The fact is that Krugman did write more than one column criticizing McCain, he wrote a lot of columns criticizing McCain.

[AtomicKitten]

51. I think Krugman is and was inappropriately political.

He should stick to economics IMHO.

[Bjorn Against]

52. In a democracy there is no such thing as being "inappropriately political"

When economic systems are determined by politics there is no way to separate economics from politics.

[amborin]

56. sounds like a standard "fresh water" criticism of Krugman

[Hippo_Tron]

58. Okay how do you suggest we change this process?

Because according to the constitution, both the House and Senate are required to pass legislation. I suppose we could propose a constitutional amendment to get rid of the senate. That would certainly be interesting.

[Bjorn Against]

60. What I meant by process was not so much the legal process...

But the process of introducing bills which start as a compromise and then compromising on them even more. Maybe process was not the best word to use, it would have been better to use the word "politics" because I am not suggesting do anything that would require a Constitutional amendment in this case. I am just suggesting that we play hardball and not let the Republicans control the game.

[hay rick]

28. Inescapable impression.

If you ignore what Krugman actually says you might be entitled to your conclusion that "Krugman is disappointed that Obama has accomplished anything at all." He is disappointed that an inadequate plan was watered down further. It is easy to fault the relative failure on Obama's initial attempt at bipartisanship. It is equally easy to say there would be no stimulus plan forthcoming without the bipartisan push. Neither position can be proved or disproved. Calling Krugman a "sensitive little man" adds nothing constructive to the discussion.

Going back two years and referencing "the health care squabble" takes us into the pre-primary competition in which Krugman championed Edwards' health plan over Clinton's and Obama's. After Edwards dropped out, Krugman still preferred Clinton's health care plan to Obama's. Krugman has invested a lot of time on this issue over the years. The fact that he doesn't always agree with Obama on this important issue does not make him some kind of sworn enemy.

Your post was pretty good without the last paragraph.

[paulk]

32. "sensitive little man's psyche"

If, in fact, Krugman is still pissed about the abuse he recieved from "supporters" of Obama (which I doubt) he would be fully justified, IMO.

Fanatics like you, always willing to attack the messenger in the most vicious of ways, do far more harm than good in the long run.

[Better Believe It]

33. Did you pop your champagne bottle when you found out about the Senate cuts in education assistance?

These conservative Senate "Democrats" functioned as Bush enablers when the Republicans ran the Senate. And now 15 Senate Democrats function as political whores for Wall Street and banksters while they permit the Republicans continue to undermine the nation and working people in the name of bi-partisanship.

And you want to be their apologist while you and a few others "swiftboat" Krugman?

Tell everyone unemployed DU'er how wonderful it is that this Gang of 18 (the big-partisan group of stimulus cutting conservative Democrats and Republican Senators) were able to cut spending for education, aide to states and cities and other badly needed job creation and saving programs that you apparently oppose.

Did you pop the champagne when you learned of these cuts?

[Wetzelbill]

39. No he's right

You're not. You sound like you're the little person who is disappointed that Krugman has accomplished anything at all. Like, you know, winning a Nobel Prize. The plan wouldn't have been any less vulnerable if Obama played it Krugman's way and used Thom Hartmann's language. 3 votes for giving up the farm and promoting weak policy? Especially when Obama has public opinion on his side? Legislators aren't the only ones who are gutless and cynical that's for sure.

[BeyondGeography]

53. There's where you and all the Krugman apologists/defenders miss the boat

Public opinion is on the side of action, but it can still be easily swayed on the details, which is why people who know better than Krugman see the benefits of being able to frame the stimulus as a balanced package so as to defuse our cultural (and, yes, ruinous) antipathy toward government.

They're all over the map,” said Andrew Smith, director of the University of New Hampshire Survey Center.

“The way I would characterize what the public view is they know something has to be done, they're not quite sure what should be done,” Smith said. “They've been told that the economy is in dreadful shape and getting worse. They don't want it to get worse. So just do something – anything.”
A national Diageo/Hotline Poll shows 54 percent of registered voters favor the more than $800 billion stimulus package backed by President Barack Obama even if it means increasing the federal deficit. Only 34 percent were opposed.

Yet when the same poll asked voters if they thought the package of spending and tax cuts would be spent and managed wisely, 14 percent said they were “very confident” it would.

Twelve percent said they were “very confident” the stimulus package would be effective in turning around the economy.

http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/feb/08/1n8support231614-americans-have-doubts-about-plan-/?zIndex=49862

It would be nice if we were at the point where Obama and the Democrats could be as unabashedly pro-government as Reagan was anti-government, but, guess what: stories like the above are typical, and the country isn't there yet. Obama isn't just charged with saving the economy, he has to change the way people see government. The stimulus debate shows just how far we have to go, even if it comes as news to the Krugmans of the world.

[Wetzelbill]

55. wrong

And I'm not an apologist. You're starting from a false premise by saying I am one. But by all means, go ahead and roll over to the Republicans, it always ends up well.

[depakid]

42. "the plan itself was in danger of stalling in the Senate"

Only because of cowadice and rationalization- which you've exemplified quite well.

[biopowertoday]

5. He is giving us the facts. I respect his analysis.

[Thrill]

6. Lets just hope Obama and Pelosi add it back in Conference

[stray cat]

10. Does that mean it should be voted down according to Krugman?

[Karmadillo]

12. Might not be a bad idea.

nt

[hay rick]

16. No.

He thinks it will have to be supplemented by one or more additional stimulus bills. He thinks the initial bill should be larger, not smaller. This kicks the can down the road, and watching the politics of the first bill play out, Krugman is rightly pessimistic.

[Better Believe It]

34. Absolutely and pass a strong, meaningful stimulus bill with 51 votes

Of course that won't happen because the Democratic majority continues their policy of surrender and capitulation to the Republican Senators who represent 11% of the voting population in the United States. They functioned as Bush enablers when the Republicans ran the Senate, (never voting against Bush's appointments or legislation and frequently voting in favor of Bush's most reactionary appointments and policies!) and today they empower a minority political party that the people rejected just 12 weeks ago!

Does anyone still wonder why over 80% of the people have no faith in Congress under the control of either Republicans or Democrats?

[DCBob]

11. Larry Summers just said there is 90% overlap in the Senate and House versions..

He did not seem too concerned about the items trimmed as long as they get the bulk of the bill passed.

[ChiciB1]

21. I'm Afraid My Liberalism Must Be Fogging My Vision... Cuts Look Bad To Me!!!

And yes, I do know "they say" it will be re-visited, but I've learned never to hold my breath too long, or maybe not at all!

Hit 'em while the iron's hot!

[bread_and_roses]

38. and I should put faith in that corporate tool's complacence why?

his mission is to turn more tax $$ over to our corporate over-lords - not to help the taxpayers or, goddess forfend, the poor.

[GinaMaria]

20. This was sent to me by Believing Is Art

www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/assissing-the-impa...

This is a pdf. Believing Is Art pointed me to the table on page 4.

Basically, the top (bang for the buck) four ways to stimulate the economy all fall under the category of Spending increases. In order of most impact they are:

1. Temporary increase in food stamps
2. Extending Unemployment Insurance
3. Increasing Infrastructure spending
4. General Aid to State Governments

After these, tax cuts, the most impactful being Refundable lump sum tax rebate (the kind repukes don't like).

This was written before Obama became President. This was written around the * stimulus (Ridiculus) plan.

I am sending this to my reps in Washington as well as my state reps (hoping they can exert some pressure on DC). This is a common sense approach, with the ability to measure success. Maybe pushing the media to include Moody analysts as talking heads on their shows would help.

[izzybeans]

23. I agree with him. But I still hold out hope that some of these things will be

passed more easily through other legislation. Republicans will vote for it, when the media spotlight is not shining on them. They are hedging their bets that they can position themselves, if the economy doesn't recover by 2010.

[Yavin4]

24. So What Would Krugman Have Obama Do?

If Obama had a bigger stimulus package, it would be defeated by the Republicans. That point is clear.

[amborin]

57. you should read Krugman's blog, including back posts from past months, along with posts from all the

other brilliant economists who post to his blog.....

Krugman laid it all out in excruciating detail....

it's all available for you to read, free, on line....under "conscience of a liberal"

great reading from a Nobel prize winning economist, whose views are always opposed to the right wing and many centrists.....

[Yavin4]

61. Look, I Agree With Krugman, But My Point Is

That Obama needs two or three Republicans in order to get anything passed. That's just how things work. A larger stimulus would have no chance in the Senate. None.

So, my question still stands. What does Krugman want Obama to do to persuade the two or three Republicans to sign onto the bill?

[amborin]

62. Krugman

explained what he, Krugman, had wanted Obama to do.....

it's all laid out in his blog posts (different than his op-ed pieces) on his blog, 'conscience of a liberal' on the ny times website

bottom line: he wanted Obama to start bargaining with a vastly larger stimulus package, with a vastly smaller % devoted to tax cuts

K (and a large number of posters to the blog) argue that it's always crucial to start out demanding what one cannot possibly hope to get in reality, and water it down a bit through compromise.....whereas Obama started right out with a compromise plan, that could only get worsened through compromise, as we've in fact seen occur

[fencesitter]

26. what ,specifically, are the tax cuts?

In the last ten years, I've never had a cut in my taxes that I know of, have you?

[Frank Booth]

29. I agree. Krugman's incessant criticism of Obama (which has seemed more like sour grapes

than anything) has been annoying, but this bill definitely deserves some strong criticism.

I can understand compromising with the three Republicans to a point (though I think Reid should have just dared them to filibuster), but pulling the funding to the states is indefensible. Just in California alone, this is going to result in thousands of people losing their jobs. Shouldn't avoiding even more unemployment be a main emphasis of a stimulus bill?

[Name removed]

35. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Triana]

40. Spot on - here's the graph:

[Danger Mouse]

54. Then why the fuck isn't Krugman helping?

[democracy1st]

64. Isn't writing these articles being on tv exposing the GOP lies helping us out ?

[Baikonour]

66. Excuse me, but how exactly is he NOT helping?

He's one of the few strong liberal voices in the media, and he's got the brains to back up it. Just because he occasionally criticizes the democratic leadership, and rightfully so, does NOT make him a right wing zealot.

[democracy1st]

63. TY Mr Krugman

[Hello_Kitty]

65. Old Mr. In Praise Of Cheap Labor himself

Sorry, I know Krugman's something of a god around here but I will never forgive him for the role he played in our current debacle. And I don't care how "great" he is now. When he publicly recants his unapologetic support for outsourcing back in the 90s, I'll respect him. Until then, pffft.