A Not Insignificant Member Of The 99.99%...

Paul Krugman, every now and then, manages to get it half right. Today is one of those half-right days. Here's the part he gets right:

Count me among those who always believed that President Obama made a big mistake when he created the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform — a supposedly bipartisan panel charged with coming up with solutions to the nation’s long-run fiscal problems.

And here's the part he gets wrong:

It seemed obvious, as soon as the commission’s membership was announced, that “bipartisanship” would mean what it so often does in Washington: a compromise between the center-right and the hard-right.

Krugman's error stems from the fact that he is one of the 99.99% of "professional" economists who are completely full of shit. Here's why:

Simpson-Bowles doesn't address the central isssue of the problem at hand.

What is the central issue?

Why, over the long run, do Congress and presidents choose to incur deficits and why, over the long run, do voters consistently reward them for doing so?

Until someone can offer a meaningful (and comprehensive) explanation as to why Democratic and Republican legislators and presidents tend to behave in exactly the same manner when it comes to federal spending and governmental finance, exercises such as Simpson-Bowles will remain just as obviously silly as they are now.

What we need to understand is this: 

Why is choosing deficit spending rewarded?

Note: I'm sure Krugman, DeLong and the rest know this, and it's useful to remember that they avoid the issue because for them, this is all about partisan politics... Which is why they're part of the 99.99%.

Comments

[Tim]

Is it so hard to understand that whoever the deficit spending is spent upon votes for the spenders who spent upon them, no matter that it creates larger deficits?

[JeffS]

Why is choosing deficit spending rewarded?

Because people like their bread and circuses, that's why, and damn the costs, especially when someone else is doing the work.

If you don't believe me, just ask the Romans. But don't ask Krugman; he'll tell you that the Romans are hard-right.....

[Nodrog]

Maybe we just need a dictator to give us the medicine we need and line up those who still disagree against a firing squad wall.

[jwest]

1. The numbers of "entitled" are swelling.
2. They (we) scream like wounded hyenas at any threat to their (our) rice bowls.
3. As a disabled veteran, expect my monthly check to be on time and etc.
4. In a couple years, can add social security to that. And Medicare atop my VA health benefits.
5. Not sure, but think we entitled ones may be approaching a majority.
6. Lots of precedent for that across the pond.
7. Anyway, that's why....
V/R JWest

[richard mcenroe]

48% of American households either pay no taxes or get money back in tax refunds.

71%+ of Americans believe the rich aren't taxed enough.

There's the problem right there.

[Dave]

Deficit spending is rewarded because people are morons. That doesn't seem too hard to me.

[marcus]

Is Bi-Partisanship possible in modern political America? Watch documentary SPLIT: A DIVDED AMERICA http://bit.ly/SPliT

[Tim Worstall]

Why is choosing deficit spending rewarded?

There's a whole section of 3economics devoted to this.

Public choice economics.

Peeps like Krugman and DeLong are not great fans of it if the truth be told....

[Dennis the Peasant]

Tim-

I knew you'd know that, I just wondered if anyone else would. Certainly none of the commentariat seems to have a clue...

[uggs discount]

The remedy can be to determine which wine adds probably the most or distracts the astonishingly least. And regularly people really can be the options when exotic dishes could possibly be served.