I have somewhat of a love/hate relationship with Paul Krugman. It started when I spent 28 bucks on Amazon for his Return of Depression Economics book, which turned out to be the size of Sports Illustrated’s swimsuit issue and contained what was essentially a series of Wikipedia entries. Having read a previous book of his, this was a huge disappointment, but should not have been unexpected, considering the topic and speed at which publishers demand “relevant” books and articles. Today, however, the love has returned.
In his article entitled “State of Paralysis” in the New York Times Monday, in what is an indictment of the Republican Party in California, a simple, concise yet brilliant statement is made. “To be blunt: recent events suggest that the Republican Party has been driven mad by lack of power.” I could not have said that better myself. From insanely idiotic ads being released to passing resolutions calling the Democrats the “Democratic Socialist Party,” Republicans seem intent on becoming the party of choice for third-graders. The issues in California are far from being solved, or even attacked, because the Republicans refuse to work with their Republican governor, as they steadfastly refuse to raise any taxes. This brings new meaning to the term “cutting your nose to spite your face.”
Today, the “socialist” accusation you hear from the right following every new idea from the Democrats has become the new “your mother” retort, the ultimate insult from those with nothing intelligent left to say. “We need to change the vast amount of wealth going to the top 1 percent. “You’re a Socialist.” We need a rising tax system. “You’re a Socialist.” We need to go after the trillions of dollars sent overseas to avoid tax payments. “You’re a Socialist.” My grandmother is sick. “You’re a……” You get the point.
The scariest part of all of this is a point my new friend (again) Paul Krugman makes regarding the Republicans, and it is quite frankly, frightening.
“And that party still has 40 senators.”
My Blog List
-
-
-
Coming Up Next On the Punch12 years ago
-
Episode 81: The Small Government Paradox14 years ago
-
-
2 comments:
Having been a resident of California for a year (10 days from today actually) and being moderately active in the politics here, I can say from personal experience that the Calirfornia's political system has to be one of the worst in the country.
First of all, let's put politicians aside. The California state constitution is a f'n mess. it is bloated and essentially full of corssouts and whiteout. Second, even with the democratic majority in the state house and senate, there needs to be a 2/3 vote to pass any legislation. The party of NO is precisely why overpass (under which cars frequently go under) was left incomplete because they blocked the passage of stimulus funds, and third Arnold, though becomign increasingly moderate, is really an inept politician with no control over the state whatsoever.
Rant Over.
I really like Krugman, and think he has some really great ideas. I say all the time, that the GOP is really missing a big opportunity here, because they have a president who WANTS to listen, and get good ideas. It is sad that they really think their scare tactics and Rovian politics is going to work, after its disaterous results in 2008. Remind me again, what is the definition of insanity...?
I'm not sure that I could disagree more, with any statement other than the state of California being an incoherent mess. Let me lay out the reasons in brief (I've ranted much more about most of these in my own blog):
Raising taxes: this is a "solution" which never actually solves anything, ever (well, at least as long as I have been alive). Politicians have the ability to waste more money than they collect, always, and still fight about spending, while still leaving vital projects underfunded. Raising taxes just takes more money from the people who spend it rationally, and gives it to the most politically connected and corrupt individuals and businesses. More taxes is never a solution, which makes it all the more ironic that it is usually the first suggestion from politicians to fix out-of-control spending, waste, and corruption.
2/3 majority: I favor this, actually. First, understand that this rule only applies to budgets, spending, and increasing taxes; all of which should be approved by 2/3 of the state Congress precisely to ensure that spending be only for the things the state really actually needs, and not just what one party wants to spend money on to further their agenda. I support the 2/3 requirement regardless of which party is in control: it just makes sense.
California budget: this needs a new procedure, I agree; see my suggestion here. What we absolutely must avoid, at virtually any cost, is giving in to the politicians trying to strong-arm the people into dismantling their own 2/3 protection on spending, and letting them get free-reign to ruin the state even more severely in the future (if California manages to recover from this disaster our legislature has created).
On socialism: The current president is a socialist, in action if not also in thought. The fact that the characterization is oft aptly applicable and sometimes thus applied liberally does not diminish the accuracy, assuming the source is familiar with the actual meaning, and not just using it spuriously.
On Obama wanting to listen to other ideas, or be bi-partisan: I can't really see anyone looking at the actual facts holding this opinion, so I'm not sure where it comes from (outside of rhetoric). Feel free to point to any idea originating from the Republicans which Obama has adopted and endorsed and implemented, aside from the broken or delayed campaign promises (releasing Gitmo prisoners, etc.).
Post a Comment