Paul Krugman (my aptly named dumbest Nobel Laureate in history) never fails to impress by his stupidity.
On August 5th, Krugman had an editorial titled “The Flimflam Man”, regarding Paul Ryan and his Roadmap for America. You can read it here, if you wish, but point by point I plan on showing how ridiculous and political Krugman is in his analysis.
1. “Mr. Ryan isn’t offering fresh food for thought; he’s serving up leftovers from the 1990s, drenched in flimflam sauce.”
The ridiculous of this statement is profound. Why? Krugman and other Keynesian economists criticize Ryan for coming up with economic ideas that created one of the greatest economic booms ever, with over 20 million jobs created.
Instead, Krugman would like us to follow not a plan from a decade ago…but a failed plan from 80 years ago…that being FDR’s response to the Great Depression. Krugman thinks Obama’s stimulus was too small, and that is why we are having anemic growth. Again, Krugman proves his complete and utter lack of understanding reality. Obama’s stimulus did not fail because it was too small; it failed because there was nothing in the bill that would stimulate private sector growth. People forget that in FDR’s first and second terms, there was little private sector growth outside of direct funding from the government. It was only after the ‘stimulus’ of World War II did we get the private sector boom. History tells us exactly why the Obama/Krugman economic policies are failing.
2. “Mr. Ryan’s plan calls for steep cuts in both spending and taxes. He’d have you believe that the combined effect would be much lower budget deficits, and, according to that Washington Post report, he speaks about deficits “in apocalyptic terms.” And The Post also tells us that his plan would, indeed, sharply reduce the flow of red ink: “The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that Rep. Paul Ryan’s plan would cut the budget deficit in half by 2020. But the budget office has done no such thing. At Mr. Ryan’s request, it produced an estimate of the budget effects of his proposed spending cuts — period. It didn’t address the revenue losses from his tax cuts.”
Whether this is true or not, no one knows. But Mr. Krugman is playing a shell game here. When he was discussing the Obamacare bill, he specifically used the CBO numbers, which made similar assumptions regarding that bill as they did regarding Ryan’s bill. If Mr. Krugman would prefer to use another entity to use as the gold standard, fine. But after establishing the rules of debate, now he conveniently wants to move the goalposts. That is a sign of a weak intellect.
3. “Finally, let’s talk about those spending cuts. In its first decade, most of the alleged savings in the Ryan plan come from assuming zero dollar growth in domestic discretionary spending, which includes everything from energy policy to education to the court system. This would amount to a 25 percent cut once you adjust for inflation and population growth. How would such a severe cut be achieved? What specific programs would be slashed? Mr. Ryan doesn’t say.”
This is the crux of the matter for Krugman. He does not want any cuts in government spending…almost ever. You either believe in government cuts or you don’t. People like Krugman believe every government program is sacrosanct, because it is ‘doing good’. Conservatives simply believe there is only so much you can do within your means.
Krugman then asks for specific programs that Ryan would cut…knowing that he would attack Ryan on those specifics as well. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
Ultimately, what you see is that it is Krugman, and not Ryan, that is the flimflam artist. Krugman provides no answer to economic growth other than out of control deficit spending, while at the same time criticizing serious men having serious discussions about the way forward. For Krugman, the government is simply the only entity that can restore America’s wealth. Conservatives such as Ryan simply believe otherwise, and that the people of this country will benefit more from utilizing their own wealth in their own deemed ways.
Again, Krugman proves his bias, and frankly, his utter stupidity, without adding anything to the national discourse.