<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=917bb2bd/6da1b9d&camp=FSL2012_ArticleTools_120x60_1787507c_nyt5&ad=LolaVersus_120x60_NoText_June8&goto=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efoxsearchlight%2Ecom%2Flolaversus" target="_blank">
<br></a>
</div>
</div>
<br clear="all"><hr align="left" size="1">
<div class="timestamp">June 14, 2012</div>
<h1>We Don’t Need No Education</h1>
<span><h6 class="byline">By PAUL KRUGMAN</h6></span>
<div id="articleBody">
<p>
Hope springs eternal. For a few hours I was ready to applaud Mitt Romney
for speaking honestly about what his calls for smaller government
actually mean. </p>
<p>
Never mind. Soon the candidate was being his normal self, denying having
said what he said and serving up a bunch of self-contradictory excuses.
But let’s talk about his accidental truth-telling, and what it reveals.
</p>
<p>
In the remarks Mr. Romney later tried to deny, he derided President
Obama: “He says we need more firemen, more policemen, more teachers.”
Then he declared, “It’s time for us to cut back on government and help
the American people.” </p>
<p>
You can see why I was ready to give points for honesty. For once, he
actually admitted what he and his allies mean when they talk about
shrinking government. Conservatives love to pretend that there are vast
armies of government bureaucrats doing who knows what; in reality, a
majority of government workers are employed providing either education
(teachers) or public protection (police officers and firefighters).
</p>
<p>
So would getting rid of teachers, police officers, and firefighters help
the American people? Well, some Republicans would prefer to see
Americans get less education; remember Rick Santorum’s description of
colleges as “indoctrination mills”? Still, neither less education nor
worse protection are issues the G.O.P. wants to run on. </p>
<p>
But the more relevant question for the moment is whether the public job
cuts Mr. Romney applauds are good or bad for the economy. And we now
have a lot of evidence bearing on that question. </p>
<p>
First of all, there’s our own experience. Conservatives would have you
believe that our disappointing economic performance has somehow been
caused by excessive government spending, which crowds out private job
creation. But the reality is that private-sector job growth has more or
less matched the recoveries from the last two recessions; the big
difference this time is an unprecedented fall in public employment,
which is now about 1.4 million jobs less than it would be if it had
grown as fast as it did under President George W. Bush. </p>
<p>
And, if we had those extra jobs, the unemployment rate would be much
lower than it is — something like 7.3 percent instead of 8.2 percent. It
sure looks as if cutting government when the economy is deeply
depressed hurts rather than helps the American people. </p>
<p>
The really decisive evidence on government cuts, however, comes from
Europe. Consider the case of Ireland, which has reduced public
employment by 28,000 since 2008 — the equivalent, as a share of
population, of laying off 1.9 million workers here. These cuts were
hailed by conservatives, who predicted great results. “The Irish economy
is showing encouraging signs of recovery,” declared Alan Reynolds of
the Cato Institute in June 2010. </p>
<p>
But recovery never came; Irish unemployment is currently more than 14
percent. Ireland’s experience shows that austerity in the face of a
depressed economy is a terrible mistake to be avoided if possible.
</p>
<p>
And the point is that in America it is possible. You can argue that
countries like Ireland had and have very limited policy choices. But
America — which unlike Europe has a federal government — has an easy way
to reverse the job cuts that are killing the recovery: have the feds,
who can borrow at historically low rates, provide aid that helps state
and local governments weather the hard times. That, in essence, is what
the president was proposing and Mr. Romney was deriding. </p>
<p>
So the former governor of Massachusetts was telling the truth the first
time: by opposing aid to beleaguered state and local governments, he is,
in effect, calling for more layoffs of teachers, policemen and firemen.
</p>
<p>
Actually, it’s kind of ironic. While Republicans love to engage in
Europe-bashing, they’re actually the ones who want us to emulate
European-style austerity and experience a European-style depression.
</p>
<p>
And that’s not just an inference. Last week R. Glenn Hubbard of Columbia
University, a top Romney adviser, published an article in a German
newspaper urging the Germans to ignore advice from Mr. Obama and
continue pushing their hard-line policies. In so doing, Mr. Hubbard was
deliberately undercutting a sitting president’s foreign policy. More
important, however, he was throwing his support behind a policy that is
collapsing as you read this. </p>
<p>
In fact, almost everyone following the situation now realizes that
Germany’s austerity obsession has brought Europe to the edge of
catastrophe — almost everyone, that is, except the Germans themselves
and, it turns out, the Romney economic team. </p>
<p>
Needless to say, this bodes ill if Mr. Romney wins in November. For all
indications are that his idea of smart policy is to double down on the
very spending cuts that have hobbled recovery here and sent Europe into
an economic and political tailspin. </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>