Asymmetrical Information

Well, if Krugman is representative of Democrats, they might as well all do the honorable thing and fall on their swords.

On second though, nah, if they're really like ol' Paul, they ouught to make it rusty spoons instead. Much more deserved.

[Tick]
SPOOOOOOOOOON!
[/Tick]

To: Republicans (and self-styled libertarians)
From: dd
Re: Krugman

If the cap fits, wear it.

Perhaps, D2, you might want to examine the worrying possibility of one-party rule a little closer to home before making judgements about polities you understand less well?

Before about a year ago, the right was quite vocal about wanting to privatize Medicare, essentially by voucherizing it. About a year ago, someone on the right decided that "privatization" was a bad word and promptly banished its use. Thereafter, descriptions of those same proposals as "privatization" have been treated by the right as vicious smears instigated by the left. (Efforts to rewrite history aside, you can still find the unbowdlerized documentation here and there.) The proposals linger on, although there doesn't seem to be any prospect that the administration or Congress will act on them anytime soon.

(Incidentally, my lefty tendencies notwithstanding, I'm not sure that privatizing/voucherizing Medicare is such a hideous idea, but that's another matter altogether.)

Jane, if you look at Kaus today, I think you'll see that he's making a bid for your attention:

"Either the drug companies get more money or they get less money, right? A system that sends them more money will be more expensive, no? Or is the miracle of the market even more miraculous than I thought? ... Plea for toughlove: Straighten kausfiles out at Mickey_Kaus@msn.com"

Of course, after reading that again, I think it's best that you do so from a distance.

Actually, i'll post on that if I get a chance before I get on th plane home. . .

Personally I agree with Krugman that that is what the GOP wants.

The evidence, in my mind, is pretty clear. Major figures within the GOP/conservative movement have said so explicitly over and over. The Texas redistricting case, quite unprecedented as Josh Marshall and the Washington Post have pointed out, is yet another example of this. I wonder how much more evidence people need.

Where I disagree with Krugman is about the likelihood of this happening. For all the talk of a conservative revolution the fact remains that conservatives have failed miserably, time and time again, when they have tried to pass anything of their agenda that is unpopular. Think of the whole fiscal debate. Yes, they got the tax cuts and yes, it is tilted to the richer income earners. But they have been unable to absolutely anything on the spending side. In fact, if anything, they have increased spending. Of course Norquist and others like him believe that this will eventually lead to a reduction in services since the revuene shortfall will become unsustainable. Krugman seems to believe it as well. But there is no evidence of this. Voters have made consistently clear that there is a basic level of federal government spending (which has hovered close to 20% of GDP for the last few decades) and that they will not accept any major cutbacks from this level. That’s why when the House leadership tried to pass significant spending cuts to ease the fiscal impact of the tax cuts they were promptly voted down. New Medicare benefits will only make things worse. Recent history is clear that when the time comes voters will accept higher taxes if the alternative is to cut spending in any significant way.

Same on social issues. The gay rights decision is a HUGE blow to social conservatives and just one of many. Gay marriages are now simply a question of when, no if.

Which is why I think Krugman is wrong. Americans simply do not want the policies conservatives propose. They’ll gladly take the easy parts (tax cuts) but do not support the revolution. So the only way the GOP can become a dominant party is to basically abandon truly conservative ideas and become, in effect, a new version of the 1960s dems. Most conservatives don’t seem to have fully realized this yet.

Being in power for a long time in order to pass their agenda is what both parties want, GT. Krugman implies that the Republicans are plotting some kind of Mexico-style takeover, which is ludicrous. And yes, before you ask, I think that if you don't see that it is ludicrous, it is because you are participating in the insanity that seems to afflict whatever party is out of the white house.

>>Perhaps, D2, you might want to examine the worrying possibility of one-party rule a little closer to home before making judgements about polities you understand less well?

I'm doing my bit; I've already declared my intention to vote Conservative in the next election, pretty much no matter what the policies on offer.

If pushed, I might opine that the question of whether the USA is a one-party state is hardly solved by alternating the presidency between the Republicans and the Democrats.

Kaus fails to understand that economic growth is not a zero sum game.

GT's stereotypes and resorts to a straw man.

Kaus fails to understand that economic growth is not a zero sum game.

GT stereotypes and resorts to a straw man.

Ludicrous?

They clearly want to become the dominant party and have shown they are willing to do things that the dems did not in the past (although they may do in the future if given a chance?). Maybe not up to Mexico-style but the intent is there.

I just think they will fail.

GT,
Yeah, ludicrous is the word.

The fact is both parties are made up overwhelmingly of people who value freedom. On the right the emphasis is on economic freedom while on the left its on issues of social freedom. But by and large both sides are concerned with the freedom of the individual and only the ideologically nutty on both sides can't understand this.

You (and Krugman) fall into the trap of being blinded by your biases. Just like how Rush would never see good in anything Clinton did.

GT

What is that supposed to mean "willing to do things that the dems did not do in the past"?

I suppose we can all agree with you if you mean that the GOP will choose to decline to engage in vote fraud the way the dems have. Or that the GOP will hold their candidates accountable for corruption in a way that the dems never have. Or that the GOP will be less likely to undermine democracy by trying to get courts to "enact" laws that legislatures and Congress do not pass.

But of course there are many such examples where the GOP will likely act in ways that are more honest and more democratic (small d).

"The Texas redistricting case, quite unprecedented as Josh Marshall and the Washington Post have pointed out, is yet another example of this."

This is absolutely ridiculous. We Texans simply put everything on hold until the state's politicians could resolve the matter. Since when were these matters restricted to the courts? Furthermore, the Democrats would be doing exactly the same thing if they were the majority party. Ever heard of sour grapes?

"If pushed, I might opine that the question of whether the USA is a one-party state is hardly solved by alternating the presidency between the Republicans and the Democrats."

This comment is so stupid. It is probably the result of someone learning about American politics via Michael Moore, Susan Sontag, and Gore Vidal. There are indeed similarities between the two parties---but there are also many major differences. A Brad DeLong, for instance, definitely agrees more with Milton Friedman than Ralph Nader. Still, DeLong is not quite ready to vote Republican.

"Or that the GOP will hold their candidates accountable for corruption in a way that the dems never have."

Iran-Contra ring a bell? The hypocrisy of the right never ceases to astound me.

Jane, if you do not see that Republicans are firming up their grip on power (redistricting, raising the hard money cap to $2,000). And yes, before you ask, I think that if you don't see that it this occurring, it is because you are participating in the insanity that seems to afflict whatever party is in the white house (whenever that party's symbol happens to be an elephant).

Grimace,

Yeah, the Democrats have NEVER played around with redistricting, always drawing compact districts retaining geographic integrity. NOT!! Just look at that abortion of a congressional district the Democrats drew in North Carolina. There were parts of that district that were only as wide as the highway it followed. It stunk so bad the US Supreme Court called bullshit on it.

Also, the hard money limit was raised in the Campaign Reform Act. The CFA was the baby of the Democrats (plus John McCain).

I always thought that Krugman's picture in the online edition of the NYT made him look a tad crazed (look at the eyes--they remind me of some old shots of Ty Cobb, who was a few tacos short of a combo plate). Reading this article (along with others) has caused me to conclude that this was less "incompetent photography" and more "truth in advertising."

Yeah, it's not as if the Democrats haven't drawn up any fractally complex districts in Florida, Georgia and Louisiana, either. Oops, guess they did.

Stan said,

Kaus fails to understand that economic growth is not a zero sum game.

It's also not bandwidth on demand.

"I always thought that Krugman's picture in the online edition of the NYT made him look a tad crazed"

Huh? Just looks amused.

Regardless, he's *definitely* got nothing on Stephen Moore when it comes to the Krazy look:

Put the gun down, Stephen! We're sorry!

Moore just looks constipated.

Krugman looks like Michael Madsen in Resevoir Dogs just before he cut off that cop's ear.

Thanks for posting the picture, which now that I see it does make Krugman look a bit crazied. I guess that fits with his writting.

If you want to see a real gaggle of idiots, check out http://www.commondreams.org/

"So the only way the GOP can become a dominant party is to basically abandon truly conservative ideas and become, in effect, a new version of the 1960s dems. Most conservatives don’t seem to have fully realized this yet. "

Actually, most do realize this since it is already true. Liberals don't believe in MLK's "I Have a Dream" theme. They advocate separate but equal, or maybe "separate and a plus factor". Could JFK with his anti-communist views be a Democrat today? It's tough to see.

In America today, classical liberalism is called conservatism. My personal opinion is that this is why we have competitive elections in a country where registered Dems significantly outnumber registered Reps. Many registered Dem when it meant one set of values, and they still vote those values. The party moved without them.

Yes, PK is overly shrill and pessimistic (as usual), but as usual he also makes a lot of good substantive points. I mean, can you imagine all the howls that would be coming from the right it was Hillary Clinton who said, "If you want to play in our revolution, you have to play in our rules?"

An actually Jane, on the Medicare issue Krugman is closer to the facts than you are. Bush's original proposal only gave seniors a drug benefit if they left traditional Medicare and enrolled in a private plan. It was only Democratic opposition which caused that provision to be dropped.

Umm. . . that's not quite the same thing as "privatizing medicare", RC. Privatization is a specific thing -- the sale or transfer of existing state assets to private owners -- not a catchall that includes using private providers on teh supply side of a brand-new program.

Privatization is a specific thing -- the sale or transfer of existing state assets to private owners -- not a catchall that includes using private providers on teh supply side of a brand-new program.

For better or worse I don't think that's true any more. Think of how privatization has been used in the context of SS reform, for example.

Damn, Sean E.! Now I;m never gonna be able to read a Krugman column again without "Stuck in the Middle with you" going through my head...

Come to think of it, given PK's histiry of sneering at Democrats in the 90's and attacking Repubs in the 00's, that probably how he sees himself:

Clowns to the left of me,
Jokers to the right...
Here I am, stuck in the middle with you...

"The fact is both parties are made up overwhelmingly of people who value freedom. On the right the emphasis is on economic freedom while on the left its on issues of social freedom. "

From where I'm sitting, it looks more like the two parties are both made up overwhelmingly of people who don't much like freedom at all. On the left, the emphasis is on getting rid of economic freedom, while on the right the emphasis is on limiting social freedom. Each side seems willing to talk about preserving one sort of freedom or another, but rarely go out on a limb to actually accomplish that; they're far more enthusiastic about measures to limit freedom of their least favorite sort.

Yes, GT, it's the transfer of a state owned asset, the revenue stream, to a private entity with control over the stream. The associated liabilities transfer at the same time. The government isn't going to transfer either the assets or the liabilities of Medicare merely because seniors purchase a private plan. It certainly can't privatize something that is currently private.

Jane,

The Republicans sure were happy to talk about "privatization" of Social Security when it sounded good. When it got a bad name Mr. Rove sent out a memo saying "don't use that nasty P-word any more." I'm sure he's pleased by your obedience.

Yes, Bernard, you caught me -- I am only fighting the battles my Dark Master commands.

The plan the administration had was indeed a partial privatisation: the government would transfer both the assets (the revenue stream) and the liabilities (the payouts) into private hands -- the people who own the accounts. In the case of Medicare, the assets and liabilities would still be on the government -- they'd just be paying a third party provider, on a year-by-year basis, to provide the services. Moreover, since the prescription drug benefit is a new benefit, it's no more appropriate to speak of "privatizing Medicare" than it is to speak of "privatizing the NSA" because their new computers are purchased from Cray instead of built from scratch in-house.

Comments are Closed.