Up today is Paul Krugman with his op-ed
America Is Not Yet Lost over at NYTimes.com. Now, Krugman is upset. He is looking out over the sad, barren fields that a year ago he thought had been seeded so well by a Progressive movement that had won control over all levels of the federal elected government. House, Senate, Presidency... all theirs. The people were with them and although you aren't really supposed to count your chickens and all that... just look - it's obviously
in the bag.
Finally they would be able to follow through on their vision. Health insurance 'reform', cap and trade, green energy,
war... they were gonna fix it all.
Yes we can. And we can because we
know how. We know how things
should work and so don't you worry - we're just gonna take care of it. In the process we'll drag the bitter clingers across the finish line - against their own will if we have to - because that's how
awesome we are.
But nothing has panned out like it should have
. And so the finger pointing ensues. Who is to blame for this travesty? Well, Krugman has the answer: Republicans, of course. You see, even though Republicans up until Scott Brown's victory have not been able to do
anything, practically speaking, to stop the Obama movement - they are still to blame. This requires a singular perspective on the universe: Democrats could have passed
anything without the need for a
single Republican vote. It was, of course, moderate Democrats that caused the trouble - since the Democrats needed every vote, Democrats like
Landrieu and
Nelson could play the ol' Washington Pork Hustle and get some goodies for their states. Despite the end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it rush, people took a look at what was being proposed and didn't much care for it. They started putting heat on their representatives. Elections in
Virginia,
New Jersey, and
Massachusett[e]s made moderates carefully consider the new political tailwinds.
I'm not going to get into that here but suffice to say that 'the people'
are not terribly thrilled with how things are going. So what does all this
mean? Well, let the man earn his (considerable) paycheck:
We’ve always known that America’s reign as the world’s greatest nation would eventually end. But most of us imagined that our downfall, when it came, would be something grand and tragic.
What we’re getting instead is less a tragedy than a deadly farce. Instead of fraying under the strain of imperial overstretch, we’re paralyzed by procedure. Instead of re-enacting the decline and fall of Rome, we’re re-enacting the dissolution of 18th-century Poland.
A brief history lesson: In the 17th and 18th centuries, the Polish legislature, the Sejm, operated on the unanimity principle: any member could nullify legislation by shouting “I do not allow!” This made the nation largely ungovernable, and neighboring regimes began hacking off pieces of its territory. By 1795 Poland had disappeared, not to re-emerge for more than a century.
Well. We're doomed, apparently. Republicans have gone and killed America. By his example I guess we might have a century or so to sort this problem out... But we are simple people; what hope do we have of solving this immense problem? Help us Dr. Krugman!
Today, the U.S. Senate seems determined to make the Sejm look good by comparison.
Phew, emergency averted. Rejoice, the country is saved! Maybe you do deserve your money, Krugman. You dirty capitalist swine, you. Krugman: Saving civilization as we know it...
for profit.
So, the Senate is the problem. See, the Senate has all these little pesky
rules. And those rules are standing in the way of reform. Reform that will
save the Empi... err, Republic. Which rules? Well, the filibuster, to be precise. And so the filibuster must go:
The truth is that given the state of American politics, the way the Senate works is no longer consistent with a functioning government. Senators themselves should recognize this fact and push through changes in those rules, including eliminating or at least limiting the filibuster. This is something they could and should do, by majority vote, on the first day of the next Senate session.
Now the obvious ploy is to point out that in 2005 Dr. Krugman had a
slightly different take on the filibuster:
But the big step by extremists will be an attempt to eliminate the filibuster, so that the courts can be packed with judges less committed to upholding the law than Mr. Greer.
Yes, so in this regard Krugman is like the politicians; he's a bit of a hypocrite. No doubt he would claim that he meant it would be extremist to end the filibuster to appoint non Krugman-approved justices. But nixing the fili' to pass health insurance reform?
Divine. Onward:
Today, by contrast, the Republican leaders refuse to offer any specific proposals. They inveigh against the deficit — and last month their senators voted in lockstep against any increase in the federal debt limit, a move that would have precipitated another government shutdown if Democrats hadn’t had 60 votes. But they also denounce anything that might actually reduce the deficit, including, ironically, any effort to spend Medicare funds more wisely.
And with the national G.O.P. having abdicated any responsibility for making things work, it’s only natural that individual senators should feel free to take the nation hostage until they get their pet projects funded.
Nevermind the embarrassing
lie about Republicans not offering any specific proposals and the justification of pet pork. The key to his thinking is:
Goverment "makes things work". That's all you need to know, really. It justifies everything he says. Krugman looks at American Government like it's the engine in your car. Without it we are "paralyzed". The country will simply not function without the Government doing... well,
something. But most of the time it
is Government action that precipitates the very problems that people such as Krugman cry out for Government intervention to fix. Health insurance is a great example. We stifle competition and don't allow insurance policies to be purchased across State lines. We have tied health insurance to employment. We mandate what insurance companies must cover. Through these and many, many other regulations we have caused the price of health insurance to go up.
All of these problems
were caused by the Government. How shall we go about fixing this? More Government, obviously. We will add even more layers of bureaucratic and government regulation or incentive which will,
this time, fix the problems caused by the previous layers. Prior regulatory 'setbacks' (failures) are simply evidence of the need for further reform (intervention).
If you were an overpaid New York Times columnist you would understand.
Posts
