Kurgman:"that era of partial cooperation in the 1990s came only after Republicans had tried all-out confrontation, actually shutting down the federal government in an effort to force President Bill Clinton to give in to their demands for big cuts in Medicare."
Cuts in Medicare are bad, right? So what have Obama and the Democratically controlled Congress done this year?
“In his analysis accompanying the recently released Annual Report of the Medicare Board of Trustees, Richard Foster, Medicare’s chief actuary, noted that Medicare payment rates for doctors and hospitals serving seniors will be cut by 30% over the next three years. Under the policies of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, by 2019 Medicare payment rates will be lower than under Medicaid. Mr. Foster notes that by the end of the 75-year projection period in the Annual Medicare Trustees Report, Medicare payment rates will be one-third of what will be paid by private insurance, and only half of what is paid by Medicaid.
Altogether, ObamaCare cuts $818 billion from Medicare Part A (hospital insurance) from 2014-2023, the first 10 years of its full implementation, and $3.2 trillion over the first 20 years, 2014-2033. Adding in ObamaCare cuts for Medicare Part B (physicians fees and other services) brings the total cut to $1.05 trillion over the first 10 years and $4.95 trillion over the first 20 years.”
Guess we don't need to worry about that anymore, next.
Krugman: "Mr. McConnell did say that he might be willing to work with Mr. Obama in certain circumstances — namely, if he’s willing to do a “Clintonian back flip,” taking positions that would find more support among Republicans than in his own party. Of course, this would actually hurt Mr. Obama’s chances of re-election — but that’s the point. "
Actually, Clinton's decision to triangulate, particularly on the issue of welfare reform (he vetoed the same legislation twice before it was presented a third time the summer before his election against Dole, when he actually signed it and later took credit for it), are part of why he rebounded and won. That, and Dole had the credibility and charisma of a rotting fish.
Krugman: "When Republicans took control of Congress in 1994, the U.S. economy had strong fundamentals. Household debt was much lower than it is today."
Gee, it's a damn shame people who should know better, like you Paulie, advocated for more household debt and were cheerleader numero uno for the Fed pressure on interest rates that made it all possible.
Krugman: "In this favorable environment, economic management was mainly a matter of putting the brakes on the boom"
Actually, the GOP Congress put the brakes on spending growth as a percentage of GDP (keeping it on average during the remaining 6 years of Clinton's presidency below the growth rate of the economy). The prescription for ending deficits is curbing spending growth so that the economy can grow sufficiently to reduce the relative scale of those deficits. While we never got to actual surpluses in government outlays/receipts (check www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np for yourself. Higher debt at the end of every fiscal year), we did seriously change the trend in deficits. Reduced deficits (and expectations of continuing that trend) strengthened the dollars and improved real returns. The GOP congress under Bush went on an insane spending spree, with spending (domestic and military) expanding well beyond the growth of the economy. Coupled with the Fed's ridiculous interest rate policy this undermined the economy and put growth on a hollow shell and unsustainable path.
Krugman: "They’ll refuse to do anything to boost the economy now, claiming to be worried about the deficit, while simultaneously increasing long-run deficits with irresponsible tax cuts"
Come'on, Krugman. Are deficits good, or are they bad? If they spur growth with the 'multiplier' then why won't a policy of enormous deficits in the future just bring that much more 'prosperity'?
I hope Krugman has the guts to accept
Murphy's challenge