<div class="header">
<div class="left">
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/"><img src="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/misc/nytlogo153x23.gif" alt="The New York Times" align="left" border="0" hspace="0" vspace="0"></a>
</div>
<div class="right">
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto&opzn&page=www.nytimes.com/printer-friendly&pos=Position1&sn2=336c557e/4f3dd5d2&sn1=583f0e00/12f0b84f&camp=FSL2012_ArticleTools_120x60_1787507c_nyt5&ad=RubySparks_Apr20_120x60_noText&goto=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efoxsearchlight%2Ecom%2Frubysparks" target="_blank">
<br></a>
</div>
</div>
<br clear="all"><hr align="left" size="1">
<div class="timestamp">June 3, 2012</div>
<h1>This Republican Economy</h1>
<span><h6 class="byline">By PAUL KRUGMAN</h6></span>
<div id="articleBody">
<p>
What should be done about the economy? Republicans claim to have the
answer: slash spending and cut taxes. What they hope voters won’t notice
is that that’s precisely the policy we’ve been following the past
couple of years. Never mind the Democrat in the White House; for all
practical purposes, this is already the economic policy of Republican
dreams. </p>
<p>
So the Republican electoral strategy is, in effect, a gigantic con game:
it depends on convincing voters that the bad economy is the result of
big-spending policies that President Obama hasn’t followed (in large
part because the G.O.P. wouldn’t let him), and that our woes can be
cured by pursuing more of the same policies that have already failed.
</p>
<p>
For some reason, however, neither the press nor Mr. Obama’s political team has done a very good job of exposing the con. </p>
<p>
What do I mean by saying that this is already a Republican economy? Look
first at total government spending — federal, state and local. Adjusted
for population growth and inflation, such spending has recently been
falling at a rate not seen since the demobilization that followed the
Korean War. </p>
<p>
How is that possible? Isn’t <a title="Blog post on government spending" href="http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/03/1937-2/">Mr. Obama a big spender</a>?
Actually, no; there was a brief burst of spending in late 2009 and
early 2010 as the stimulus kicked in, but that boost is long behind us.
Since then it has been all downhill. Cash-strapped state and local
governments have laid off teachers, firefighters and police officers;
meanwhile, unemployment benefits have been trailing off even though
unemployment remains extremely high. </p>
<p>
Over all, the picture for America in 2012 bears a stunning resemblance
to the great mistake of 1937, when F.D.R. prematurely slashed spending,
sending the U.S. economy — which had actually been recovering fairly
fast until that point — into the second leg of the Great Depression. In
F.D.R.’s case, however, this was an unforced error, since he had a
solidly Democratic Congress. In President Obama’s case, much though not
all of the responsibility for the policy wrong turn lies with a
completely obstructionist Republican majority in the House. </p>
<p>
That same obstructionist House majority effectively blackmailed the
president into continuing all the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, so that
federal taxes as a share of G.D.P. are near historic lows — much lower,
in particular, than at any point during Ronald Reagan’s presidency.
</p>
<p>
As I said, for all practical purposes this is already a Republican economy. </p>
<p>
As an aside, I think it’s worth pointing out that although the economy’s
performance has been disappointing, to say the least, none of the
disasters Republicans predicted have come to pass. Remember all those
assertions that budget deficits would lead to soaring interest rates?
Well, U.S. borrowing costs have just hit a record low. And remember
those dire warnings about inflation and the “debasement” of the dollar?
Well, inflation remains low, and the dollar has been stronger than it
was in the Bush years. </p>
<p>
Put it this way: Republicans have been warning that we were about to
turn into Greece because President Obama was doing too much to boost the
economy; Keynesian economists like myself warned that we were, on the
contrary, at risk of turning into Japan because he was doing too little.
And Japanification it is, except with a level of misery the Japanese
never had to endure. </p>
<p>
So why don’t voters know any of this? </p>
<p>
Part of the answer is that far too much economic reporting is still of
the he-said, she-said variety, with dueling quotes from hired guns on
either side. But it’s also true that the Obama team has consistently
failed to highlight Republican obstruction, perhaps out of a fear of
seeming weak. Instead, the president’s advisers keep turning to happy
talk, seizing on a few months’ good economic news as proof that their
policies are working — and then ending up looking foolish when the
numbers turn down again. Remarkably, they’ve made this mistake three
times in a row: in 2010, 2011 and now once again. </p>
<p>
At this point, however, Mr. Obama and his political team don’t seem to
have much choice. They can point with pride to some big economic
achievements, above all the successful rescue of the auto industry,
which is responsible for a large part of whatever job growth we are
managing to get. But they’re not going to be able to sell a narrative of
overall economic success. Their best bet, surely, is to do a Harry
Truman, to run against the “do-nothing” Republican Congress that has, in
reality, blocked proposals — for tax cuts as well as more spending —
that would have made 2012 a much better year than it’s turning out to
be. </p>
<p>
For that, in the end, is the best argument against Republicans’ claims
that they can fix the economy. The fact is that we have already seen the
Republican economic future — and it doesn’t work. </p>
<div class="articleCorrection">
</div>
</div>
<br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)<br><a href="mailto:art.deco.studios@gmail.com" target="_blank">art.deco.studios@gmail.com</a><br>