Four Krugman Fibs
And I’m only half way through Monday’s column. (Yes, I know, if I wrote the way Krugman does I would call them “lies,” which means he knew what he said was wrong at the time he said it…but let’s not go there.) Here they are:
Mitt Romney wants to “lower taxes on the wealthy.”
I probably should call this a “big lie” because it repeats the DNC talking points and what the president is saying at every campaign stop. In fact, Mitt Romney has never said he wants to lower taxes on the wealthy.
Republican leaders have long insisted that the main thing holding the economy back is the “uncertainty” created by President Obama’s statements…
There is, however, no evidence supporting this dogma.
I’m counting this as two separate falsehoods. First is the complete misstatement of what Republicans are saying: It is policies, not statements that are creating the uncertainty (although the statements undoubtedly make things worse). Dodd-Frank is keeping banks from lending. ObamaCare is keeping businesses from hiring. The evidence that uncertainty is very important ― denied repeatedly in Krugman columns ― is here, here and here.
Our protracted economic weakness isn’t a mystery; it’s what normally happens after a major financial crisis…our prolonged slump was predictable…
What make this statement so jarring is that the blogosphere has been buzzing over the last few days about Krugman’s own prediction of a fast recovery and how wrong he was.
Krugman is odious. He’s the worst type of person: someone who won’t admit he was wrong even when his own words are staring him in the face.
Our economy needs more jobs; while our government needs more money. But you cannot have it both ways. Either you encourage job creation by allowing job creators to profit from successful ventures (that often create jobs). Or you tax away the profits — making job creation more risky in the process, since business investment is always a gamble. Voters — especially those who’ve suffered a recent job loss — are more likely to vote for the party in power if they have a job. Yet, if a candidate suggests lowering the tax burden on job creators, they are lampooned as giveaways to the rich.
I dont think Romney wants to lower the tax rate on the rich in order to make up for some kind of “social injustice”, rather, I believe Romney is looking for the ideal tax rates to add stability and consistency.
Romney also doesnt want to aplogize for how Americans are..Really we arent “perfect” take a look at our economy..
Feldstein’s points out that “My calculations presented here and in the WSJ are not estimates of the Romney plan but an indication that such a plan is feasible.” His calculations show that tax reform can work; however they include a 25% marginal tax rate and would (for those over 100,000 AGI) eliminate the child tax credit, tax employer contributions for healthcare, and raise the payroll tax.
I think Paul Krugman is skeptical that Romney’s plan would include such measures.
Romney has called for specific rate cuts, but has not offered any specifics on what expenditures he would eliminate. In the past, this has largely resulted in just the tax cuts taking place. Tax cuts are politically popular. Eliminating the mortgage deduction is not.
Steve
Republican leaders have long insisted that the main thing holding the economy back is the “uncertainty” created by President Obama’s statements…
The moment individuals understand the negative impact Obama’s policies are having in our current economic and political stability…that day they will stop defending the government…why is it so hard for some to see that reality when they have FACTS screaming at them? Not sure. Is it possible for them to ever open their eyes and see things for what they are? Let’s hope so.
Understanding the facts doesn’t change the effects of economic uncertainty. Political winds have been capricious for quite some time now, it’s difficult to commit to investments when there is no guarantee that the government will make rational decisions.