Your ten second summary of the New York Times op-ed page

Posted By Daniel W. Drezner Friday, February 6, 2009 - 8:02 AM Share

Shorter Paul Krugman:  "We're headed for deflation and depression, we need a really big stimulus, and if Barack Obama keeps trying to placate Republicans in the name of post-partisanship, we're all gonna be living in grass huts."

Shorter David Brooks: "There's a new coalition of moderates asking sensible questions about waste in the stimulus package, and if Barack Obama keeps trying to placate liberal interest groups and Congressman, we're all gonna continue to live in the era of extreme partisanship." 

Intriguingly enough, there is one point on which both Brooks and Krugman agree -- Barack Obama has been surprisingly passive during the drafting of the stimulus bills.   

I think there's a way to thread the needle.  If all the moderates want is to trim the package a little, then Obama could likely get yes votes from GOP moderates.  That would (just) be enough for him to claim bipartisan support, and then a package is passed.  I don't think it would be large enough for Krugman's tastes, but on the other hand I'm hard-pressed to believe that ust another $100 billion in stimulus is the difference between recovery and grass huts.

This, by the way, is the most pernicious effect of the entire financial meltdown on fiscal policy.  When $100 billion no longer seems like a significant sum of money, it's time for a good stiff drink. 

EXPLORE:MEDIASPHERE, FINANCIAL MELTDOWN, PUNDITRY, STIMULUS
 

BUZZ KILLINGTON

12:17 PM ET

February 6, 2009

I hear Belize is nice.

I hear Belize is nice.

 

MATTT

4:38 PM ET

February 6, 2009

Thread the needle?

You've probably heard the term coined (I believe) by Duncan Black for bipartisanship for the sake of bipartisanship, a priority for those DC Villagers who care less about the good of the nation than about avoiding awkwardness at cocktail parties: "Broderism."

Let's look at your two quotes. First, you have a Nobel prize winning, professional economist warning about deflation and a severe, prolonged economic depression. Grass huts is a bit of hyperbole, but in the real world of people who don't read or contribute to Foreign Policy, prolonged depression means that thousands of people in this country alone will literally die due to reduced access to shelter, food and healthcare, increased crime, and etc, while tens of millions more will endure lesser but still significant privations. Lost educational opportunities alone will reduce overall national productivity for the next generation.

On the other hand, you have a professional political hack who warns of the horrors of enduring partisanship.

Why in the name of God would you want to thread that needle?

As one of the few rational conservative voices with a real platform, Mr. Drezner, I think you owe the nation a little more truth on the inanity of GOP talking points on the stimulus plan, and less Broderism.

 

BLUE13326

4:47 PM ET

February 6, 2009

How about nonpartisan? The

How about nonpartisan?

The nonpartisan CBO says the Obama spending bill would be a disaster for the economy and worse than doing nothing.

'CBO, the official scorekeepers for legislation, said the House and Senate bills will help in the short term but result in so much government debt that within a few years they would crowd out private investment, actually leading to a lower Gross Domestic Product over the next 10 years than if the government had done nothing.'

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/04/cbo-obama-stimulus-harmful-over-long-haul/

And Gary Becker, an economist who actually won his Nobel for well, economics and opposed to just Bush-hatred, agrees:

'The amount of stimulus from the spending package would be far less than estimated in a study by the incoming Chairperson of the Council of Economic Advisers...The activities stimulated by the package to a large extent would draw labor and capital away from other productive activities. In addition, the government programs were unlikely to be as well planned as the displaced private uses of these resources.'

http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/index.html

Brooks is a nitwit and Krugman should go back to his work advising Enron (oh, wait...).

 

MATTT

9:47 PM ET

February 6, 2009

"The nonpartisan CBO says the

"The nonpartisan CBO says the Obama spending bill would be a disaster for the economy and worse than doing nothing."

That's a gross misread of the Washington Times, let alone the CBO. The CBO found that borrowing to fund the stimulus would reduce GDP in 2019 by 0.1 to 0.3%....but also that the stimulus pending would increase GDP by 2.8 to 4% in the short term. In other words, a small future price to pay for avoiding a deep and painful recession/depression in the short term.

If you're so worried about minimizing long term impact of the stimulus bill, how do you feel about all the permanent tax cuts supported by the GOP senators via the DeMint Amendment? As Drezner and Brooks hope for bipartisan compromise, we have 36 out of 41 republican senators voting for permanent repeal of the estate tax, permanent repeal of the AMT, permanent cap on the capital gains tax, permanent cut in the top marginal tax rate.... What would those measures do to the federal deficit in 2019? How is this responsible opposition?

As Andrew Koppleman wrote at balkinization: "The vote [on the DeMint alternative] makes clear that most Republicans fundamentally disagree with the Keynesian premises of Obama’s stimulus package. Their public statements have harped on details of spending, but the DeMint vote shows that they are opposed to any attempt to stimulate the economy by government spending. They are unalterably convinced that tax cuts are the universal elixir for any economic problem. Under these circumstances, bipartisanship is a delusion. Democrats and Republicans have nothing to negotiate about."

 

KENNETH ALMQUIST

11:07 PM ET

February 6, 2009

CBO projections

If blue13326 thinks that legislation which is projected to reduce GDP by 0.1 to 0.3 percent in 2019 is a "disaster for the economy," one wonders what he thought of Bush's budget proposals. According to the CBO's analysis of Bush't 2004 budget proposal:

"The textbook growth model projection, which makes no assumption about future financing, estimates that the budget will decrease GDP by about 0.2 percent, on average, over the 2004-2008 period and by 0.7 percent over the 2009-2013 period"

If an 0.2 percent reduction in GDP is a disaster, an 0.7 percent reduction must be a calamity of epic proportions.

 

DNOON

5:25 PM ET

February 6, 2009

Passive?

I understand that the enormity of this issues makes it contentious for people from both ends of the political spectrum - this is to be expected and is appreciated as part of the process.

I would disagree with the notion that Obama has been passive in this process. Just this week, the President wrote an op-ed, conducted interviews to every news network explaining his thoughts on the stimulus, and given a number of speeches (at DOE and in Williamsburg) about the importance of the package.

To me this seems like a very active campaign of engaging the American public as stakeholder in the stimulus package.

 

DATROY

7:28 PM ET

February 6, 2009

Obama's been all over the

Obama's been all over the news, writing op-eds, etc., having meltdowns and fear mongering and recycling his own empty campaign rhetoric

 

MATTIE

4:25 AM ET

February 9, 2009

Rethinking The Economic Crisis

During the presidential election noted political scientist Dr. Dudley Weeks posted a commentary on his website we would all do well to review. In it he expressed the concern that America had allowed itself to be lulled into an illusion that the system (economic) would fix itself if we kept on using the same old theories. But, he pointed out, the world is evolving at a rapid rate, and so to must the economic system(s). He expressed concern that exactly what is described in NY Times Op Ed Paul Krugman-David Paul comments would happen...that we would be so focused on the small pieces or 'dots' of the current system and get so lost in them that we would miss the need and opportunity to evolve our whole economy in a way that it would meet not only present but future needs. And here we are, arguing over 'dots'. I encourage you to read his commentary "Election 2008: Rethinking the Economic Theory" at www.dudleyweeks.com/commentaries/

To tempt you there and tease your curiosity and thought process a little here is a direct quote from the summary:

"People want, and need, to be able to find meaning in life, meet their needs, develop positively, and participate in systems that help rather than hinder those primary goals. The individuals and institutions who profit from the existing system are not the ones we should listen to as we make improvements. Many of them seem obsessed with trying to force a square peg into a circular hole as they use the same ineffective and flawed theories as their tools of analysis. Perhaps the real experts are the everyday people who feel the effects of the economic system every minute of their lives. Their wisdom comes from practical economic experience, not blind loyalty to economic theory."

I think once you have read one of Dr. Weeks commentaries you will go back to read others, I always do.

 

Daniel W. Drezner is professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University.

Read More