Saturday, April 18, 2009
Why Paul Krugman hates "tea parties": he's jealous!
This past week's April 15th, tax return filing day, was also "tea party day" on which scores of local protests against tax-and-spend government were held around the country.
Well, of course Paul Krugman couldn't resist taking a shot at them in his column -- but even by his standards this was a real name-calling fest (with precious little "analysis" of anything). He seemed at bit embarrassed about it himself ...
Well, Krugman's always been a gratuitous name caller, since long before his NY Times days, (see The Fraga Incident, Brian Arthur, John Kenneth Galbraith, Stephen Jay Gould, "the Galbraith of his subject", and on and on). It's enough to make one wonder why someone who's been so greatly blessed by fate, in nearly every visible way, carries such a chip on his shoulder (something he seemed to wonder himself once in a WaPo profile).
But even so, this "tea party" column seemed a specially gratuitous exercise in venting, being so totally devoid as it was of any actual analysis of the tax issues involved in the tea party movement ... such as one might hope to receive from, you know, a Nobel economist.
Why was this little exercise so nasty and devoid of analysis too? I suspect it is because Krugman feels ... jealous of the tea party movement. And probably threatened by it as well. (We all know how jealously and insecurity often run together.)
That's because he knows that there is no chance on God's Green Earth that he will ever see grassroots demonstrations around the country supporting his favored policy -- big tax increases ...
In 2007, the last year numbers weren't affected by the recession, all income taxes totaled 11.2% of GDP, and all federal revenue totaled 18.8%. So to collect an extra 9.2% of GDP in revenue would require...
[] An across-the-board increase of all income taxes (personal and corporate) by 82%; or
[] An across-the-board-increase of all federal revenue raisers (income, payroll, estate, gas and excise taxes, tariffs, admission fees to national parks, et. al.) by 49%; or
[] A new national source of revenue, such as maybe a national sales tax, to produce the revenue combined with hikes in current taxes.
That's how much! Does Krugman expect to ever see grassroots "tax hike parties" breaking out across the nation in favor of any of those options? But it's much worse than just that for him. He's got two more problems...
[] He is right that just to maintain the spending programs the politicians have already given us, which he fully supports unchanged as they are (Medicare, Social Security, etc.), is going to require truly massive tax increases in the fast approaching future (about 15 years) and then further tax hikes forever more. That's not counting his ambitions for national health care and all the rest.
And what message do you imagine he is receiving about the likely political future of these huge tax hikes from the "tea parties" around the nation protesting today's level of taxes? Ouch. But even more aggravatingly...
[] He can't tell the truth about what he believes, even in his own column. We deduce this from the fact that he hasn't in nine years. He will say we need a 49% revenue increase now, today, easily enough when traveling in Asia ... but not once in his own column here in the US.
The reason is pretty clear. Imagine him saying before last year's election, or before the coming 2010 election, "We Democrats should responsibly promise to raise all taxes by more than 50% right away to fund our existing social spending programs and national health care too..."
How many seconds would pass on the clock before Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and the rest of Democratic establishment would be protesting to the electorate: "No! No! No! That man does not speak for us!...", with the Mick Jagger of liberal economic punditry being exiled to lecture the audiences of The Nation and Mother Jones?
This is a guy who thinks of himself, and bills himself, as the great and brave teller of truth to power, and who apparently really believes it. But he can't speak the plain truth about the simple economics of this situation -- or of the "tea parties" -- because it would blow up his own party's side before the next election ... and him with it. For such a brave truth teller, that got to be aggravating.
And yet even moreso ... today Krugman's Democrats are in command of the entire government, the Presidency and Congress, the best political position he can ever hope to see -- but are they enacting anything like his tax increases? No! They are bailing out on tax increases and actually voting for more tax cuts!...
So these "tea parties" ... we can easily imagine that they are aggravating. And what happens when a snarky guy gets aggravated and can't vent by telling the truth of what he thinks ("we need a 50% tax increase on everyone")? Maybe he instead vents with just one long stream of insults.
"Oh, if only we could have grassroots demonstrations of people demanding tax increases!" A man can dream.
This past week's April 15th, tax return filing day, was also "tea party day" on which scores of local protests against tax-and-spend government were held around the country.
Well, of course Paul Krugman couldn't resist taking a shot at them in his column -- but even by his standards this was a real name-calling fest (with precious little "analysis" of anything). He seemed at bit embarrassed about it himself ...
This is a column about Republicans — and I’m not sure I should even be writing it.Not that it stopped him...
Republicans have become embarrassing to watch. And it doesn’t feel right to make fun of crazy people.... the “tea parties” ... have been the subject of considerable mockery, and rightly so ... Crazy stuff — but nowhere near as crazy as the claims, during the last Democratic administration, that the Clintons were murderers ... what’s the implication of the fact that Republicans are refusing to grow up... ? [etc., etc.]... including his signature bogus personal slur.
Well, Krugman's always been a gratuitous name caller, since long before his NY Times days, (see The Fraga Incident, Brian Arthur, John Kenneth Galbraith, Stephen Jay Gould, "the Galbraith of his subject", and on and on). It's enough to make one wonder why someone who's been so greatly blessed by fate, in nearly every visible way, carries such a chip on his shoulder (something he seemed to wonder himself once in a WaPo profile).
But even so, this "tea party" column seemed a specially gratuitous exercise in venting, being so totally devoid as it was of any actual analysis of the tax issues involved in the tea party movement ... such as one might hope to receive from, you know, a Nobel economist.
Why was this little exercise so nasty and devoid of analysis too? I suspect it is because Krugman feels ... jealous of the tea party movement. And probably threatened by it as well. (We all know how jealously and insecurity often run together.)
That's because he knows that there is no chance on God's Green Earth that he will ever see grassroots demonstrations around the country supporting his favored policy -- big tax increases ...
Professor Paul Krugman, currently enjoying the status of being the Mick Jagger of political/economic punditry, currently in Bangkok ... starts talking to Asia Times Online about the US and the global economy.... [W]hat would he do to extricate the US from this mess? ... Tax increases: "We should be getting 28% of GDP in revenue. We are only collecting 17%." ...Wow. How much would taxes have to go up to collect "28% of GDP in revenue"? Well...
In 2007, the last year numbers weren't affected by the recession, all income taxes totaled 11.2% of GDP, and all federal revenue totaled 18.8%. So to collect an extra 9.2% of GDP in revenue would require...
[] An across-the-board increase of all income taxes (personal and corporate) by 82%; or
[] An across-the-board-increase of all federal revenue raisers (income, payroll, estate, gas and excise taxes, tariffs, admission fees to national parks, et. al.) by 49%; or
[] A new national source of revenue, such as maybe a national sales tax, to produce the revenue combined with hikes in current taxes.
That's how much! Does Krugman expect to ever see grassroots "tax hike parties" breaking out across the nation in favor of any of those options? But it's much worse than just that for him. He's got two more problems...
[] He is right that just to maintain the spending programs the politicians have already given us, which he fully supports unchanged as they are (Medicare, Social Security, etc.), is going to require truly massive tax increases in the fast approaching future (about 15 years) and then further tax hikes forever more. That's not counting his ambitions for national health care and all the rest.
And what message do you imagine he is receiving about the likely political future of these huge tax hikes from the "tea parties" around the nation protesting today's level of taxes? Ouch. But even more aggravatingly...
[] He can't tell the truth about what he believes, even in his own column. We deduce this from the fact that he hasn't in nine years. He will say we need a 49% revenue increase now, today, easily enough when traveling in Asia ... but not once in his own column here in the US.
The reason is pretty clear. Imagine him saying before last year's election, or before the coming 2010 election, "We Democrats should responsibly promise to raise all taxes by more than 50% right away to fund our existing social spending programs and national health care too..."
How many seconds would pass on the clock before Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and the rest of Democratic establishment would be protesting to the electorate: "No! No! No! That man does not speak for us!...", with the Mick Jagger of liberal economic punditry being exiled to lecture the audiences of The Nation and Mother Jones?
This is a guy who thinks of himself, and bills himself, as the great and brave teller of truth to power, and who apparently really believes it. But he can't speak the plain truth about the simple economics of this situation -- or of the "tea parties" -- because it would blow up his own party's side before the next election ... and him with it. For such a brave truth teller, that got to be aggravating.
And yet even moreso ... today Krugman's Democrats are in command of the entire government, the Presidency and Congress, the best political position he can ever hope to see -- but are they enacting anything like his tax increases? No! They are bailing out on tax increases and actually voting for more tax cuts!...
By a 51-48 vote, the Senate passed an amendment which would provide for an exemption level of $5 million [up from $3.5 million] and a top estate tax rate of 35 percent [down from 45%]. Responding quickly ... Senate Assistant Majority Leader Richard Durbin, D-Ill., offered an amendment to condition any additional reduction in the estate tax with equally large middle-income tax breaks. That amendment passed, 56 to 43.Such is the power of "tea party politics" on his own Democrats! How aggravating must that be for Krugman? Is any real tax increase at all coming from his Democrats? If not, then from whom? If nobody, then what of the fate of his big spending programs?
The Senate also dealt a blow to President Obama's plan to fund his planned healthcare reform by limiting deductibility of charitable contributions from high-income taxpayers by cutting the rate at which taxpayers earning more than $250,000 could claim deductions from 35 percent to 28 percent. By voice vote, the Senate adopted an amendment by Sen. Robert F. Bennett, R-Utah, that would bar such a change to the deduction....
At the first signs of congressional opposition, the administration caved on its $180 billion proposal to limit itemized deductions for upper-income taxpayers ... [Tax Analysts]
So these "tea parties" ... we can easily imagine that they are aggravating. And what happens when a snarky guy gets aggravated and can't vent by telling the truth of what he thinks ("we need a 50% tax increase on everyone")? Maybe he instead vents with just one long stream of insults.
"Oh, if only we could have grassroots demonstrations of people demanding tax increases!" A man can dream.
