[Vision2020] Nobel Laureate Economist Krugman on Debt Deal: The President Surrenders: "a catastrophe on multiple levels"

Ted Moffett starbliss at gmail.com
Mon Aug 1 17:28:09 PDT 2011


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/01/opinion/the-president-surrenders-on-debt-ceiling.html

The President Surrenders By PAUL
KRUGMAN<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/columnists/paulkrugman/index.html?inline=nyt-per>
Published:
July 31, 2011
A deal to raise the federal debt ceiling is in the works. If it goes
through, many commentators will declare that disaster was avoided. But they
will be wrong.

For the deal itself, given the available information, is a disaster, and not
just for President Obama and his party. It will damage an already depressed
economy; it will probably make America’s long-run deficit problem worse, not
better; and most important, by demonstrating that raw extortion works and
carries no political cost, it will take America a long way down the road to
banana-republic status.

Start with the economics. We currently have a deeply depressed economy. We
will almost certainly continue to have a depressed economy all through next
year. And we will probably have a depressed economy through 2013 as well, if
not beyond.

The worst thing you can do in these circumstances is slash government
spending, since that will depress the economy even further. Pay no attention
to those who invoke the confidence fairy, claiming that tough action on the
budget will reassure businesses and consumers, leading them to spend more.
It doesn’t work that way, a fact confirmed by many studies of the historical
record.

Indeed, slashing spending while the economy is depressed won’t even help the
budget situation much, and might well make it worse. On one side, interest
rates on federal borrowing are currently very low, so spending cuts now will
do little to reduce future interest costs. On the other side, making the
economy weaker now will also hurt its long-run prospects, which will in turn
reduce future revenue. So those demanding spending cuts now are like
medieval doctors who treated the sick by bleeding them, and thereby made
them even sicker.

And then there are the reported terms of the deal, which amount to an abject
surrender on the part of the president. First, there will be big spending
cuts, with no increase in revenue. Then a panel will make recommendations
for further deficit reduction — and if these recommendations aren’t
accepted, there will be more spending cuts.

Republicans will supposedly have an incentive to make concessions the next
time around, because defense spending will be among the areas cut. But the
G.O.P. has just demonstrated its willingness to risk financial collapse
unless it gets everything its most extreme members want. Why expect it to be
more reasonable in the next round?

In fact, Republicans will surely be emboldened by the way Mr. Obama keeps
folding in the face of their threats. He surrendered last December,
extending all the Bush tax cuts; he surrendered in the spring when they
threatened to shut down the government; and he has now surrendered on a
grand scale to raw extortion over the debt ceiling. Maybe it’s just me, but
I see a pattern here.

Did the president have any alternative this time around? Yes.

First of all, he could and should have demanded an
increase<http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/31/tax-cut-memories/?scp=1&sq=krugman%20conscience%20tax%20cut%20memories&st=cse>in
the debt ceiling back in December. When asked why he didn’t, he
replied
that he was sure that Republicans would act responsibly. Great call.

And even now, the Obama administration could have resorted to legal
maneuvering to sidestep the debt ceiling, using any of several options. In
ordinary circumstances, this might have been an extreme step. But faced with
the reality of what is happening, namely raw extortion on the part of a
party that, after all, only controls one house of Congress, it would have
been totally justifiable.

At the very least, Mr. Obama could have used the possibility of a legal end
run to strengthen his bargaining position. Instead, however, he ruled all
such options out from the beginning.

But wouldn’t taking a tough stance have worried markets? Probably not. In
fact, if I were an investor I would be reassured, not dismayed, by a
demonstration that the president is willing and able to stand up to
blackmail on the part of right-wing extremists. Instead, he has chosen to
demonstrate the opposite.

Make no mistake about it, what we’re witnessing here is a catastrophe on
multiple levels.

It is, of course, a political catastrophe for Democrats, who just a few
weeks ago seemed to have Republicans on the run over their plan to dismantle
Medicare; now Mr. Obama has thrown all that away. And the damage isn’t over:
there will be more choke points where Republicans can threaten to create a
crisis unless the president surrenders, and they can now act with the
confident expectation that he will.

In the long run, however, Democrats won’t be the only losers. What
Republicans have just gotten away with calls our whole system of government
into question. After all, how can American democracy work if whichever party
is most prepared to be ruthless, to threaten the nation’s economic security,
gets to dictate policy? And the answer is, maybe it can’t.
------------------------------------------
Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20110801/6356d09c/attachment.html 


More information about the Vision2020 mailing list