One of his most recent columns begins thusly:

We need to pinch pennies these days. Don’t you know we have a budget deficit? For months that has been the word from Republicans and conservative Democrats, who have rejected every suggestion that we do more to avoid deep cuts in public services and help the ailing economy.

But these same politicians are eager to cut checks averaging $3 million each to the richest 120,000 people in the country.

REALLY!  Which Republicans might you be referring to, Mr. Krugman?  The imaginary “fairy” Republicans that live in your imagination perhaps?  Last I checked, a significant percentage of republicans voted to “cut” the 787 billion-dollar stimulus package and the 950 billion-dollar Health-care bill.  Did you miss this?  You couldn’t have, given the fact you criticized them for opposing the stimulus in one of your own columns back in 2009… and charged Republicans with trying to “dismantle” Medicare “with spending cuts of about $650 billion over the next decade” in your column this past February.  What universe have you been living in the past few years, Mr. Krugman?  Well, as James Taranto so eloquently put it… “It seems Krugman himself lives in two different universes–the universe of the academic economist and the universe of the bitter partisan columnist.”

When it comes to misrepresenting Republican positions… it seems that even your own statements to the contrary in no way influence which “facts” you choose to cite in subsequent columns.  In other words, when it comes to “facts” you choose to cite in any given column… you a prone to make them up as you go.

You continue with your column by positing that the reason bush’s tax cuts were designed with an expiration date was because Republicans were trying to “disguise the fiscal irresponsibility of the tax cuts”.  Funny, I thought the expiration was part of the compromise – supported by many democrats then and now – that allowed the legislation to get passed.

The irony here, of course, is that Krugman simultaneously rejects the thought of letting the rich spend money they’ve earned… while advocating for massive government debt to finance “stimulus”.  He laments the “dishonesty” of the Bush administration’s tax policies while saying with a straight face that massive debt burdens “create wealth”.

Mr. Krugman… try reading your own columns next time… you might find their contents surprising.

via Op-Ed Columnist – Bush Tax Cuts – Now That’s Rich – NYTimes.com.

Mia Lamar, the Author begins her “article” thusly:

The arguments for both are the same: tax cuts—whether for individuals or corporations—will kickstart economic growth and create jobs at a time when the recovery appears to be stalling.

Actually mia, this isn’t really an argument at all… but more of a conclusion  (that tax cuts will jumpstart the economy) based on an argument (reasons why tax cuts will jumpstart the economy) you haven’t even acknowledged.  This sloppiness in your introduction is not an encouraging sign… I must say…

You continue with your analysis:

Though many economists agree a higher rate makes the U.S. less competitive over the long term, they are mixed about whether cutting the corporate rate would have any immediate impact.

The reason, they say, is that cutting corporate taxes isn’t focused specifically on expanding operations or creating jobs.

“You could create more opportunity for job creation,” said John Canally, an economist for LPL Financial. “But (corporations) could take that money and invest overseas. You can’t tell them what to do.”

SEE… SEEE (I hear you saying) tax cuts won’t stimulate jobs because, gosh darn it, you can’t tell corporations what to do with their money.  They “might” invest overseas and we just can’t take that risk now, can we?  But then you had a light-bulb moment, didn’t you!  WHAT IF… the government could tell corporations what to do with their money!  Problem solved!

[T]ax incentives—like the payroll tax exemption enacted last March to encourage hiring—are textbook tax approaches to economic downturns, says Doug Shackelford, a tax professor at the University of North Carolina Kenan-Flagler Business School.  ”These targeted jobs credits, that’s what supposed to work,” Shackelford said. “So if you told me you have one tax trick to play, I’d say we are playing the right trick right now.”

This “textbook approach” wouldn’t happen to be written by former Enron Advisor Paul Krugman, now , would it?!   No, seriously though… providing one-time tax incentives (aka government coercing business to act in pre-determined ways through the pulling of financial strings) isn’t really working all that great in helping to actually create jobs now, is it?  Mia, do you not even begin to doubt these self-proclaimed “experts” relying on “textbook” fixes when the reality of their results is so clearly in contradiction with their projections?!

Clearly you haven’t because in the very next paragraph… just moments after arguing that one-time tax credits DO INCENTIVIZE businesses to hire… you then reject the notion that LONG TERM incentives would do the same:

via US Corporate Tax Rate: Would Lower Corporate Taxes Help Jumpstart US Economy? – CNBC.

At a time when workers’ pay and benefits have stagnated, federal employees’ average compensation has grown to more than double what private sector workers earn, a USA TODAY analysis finds…

Federal civil servants earned average pay and benefits of $123,049 in 2009 while private workers made $61,051 in total compensation, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. The data are the latest available.

The federal compensation advantage has grown from $30,415 in 2000 to $61,998 last year.

Twice the average compensation. Shocking, isn’t it?  And what makes matters worse is that the public sector… which has been hurting like never before… is subsidizing the extravagance of public sector employees.  It is one thing if someone EARNS more in the private sector because he or she creates greater value or sells a product someone else wants to buy… thereby gaining wealth by the voluntary exchange of goods and services.   It is quite another thing when an employee of the state — who produces nothing more of value than their private sector counterparts — earn far more simply by virtue of their connections to political power and influence.

Perhaps it is best said another way:  Government profits far more of the backs of the private sector than the private sector profits by means of the free market.  The very liberals who lament “greedy” and “evil” corporations don’t even bat an eye when the political class profits by a 2-to-1 factor off the working class.  If your worldview revolves around the idea that government is intrinsically good… than I suppose one wouldn’t find this to be some great injustice… but for the rest of us… those of us who see the waste, the inefficiencies, and the incompetence systematic of government activity… than this is truly an outrage.

via Federal workers earning double their private counterparts – USATODAY.com.

The nascent US economic recovery would be halted in 2011 if Congress fails to extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, analysts at Deutsche Bank said…

Deutsche said the drag on gross domestic product should they lapse could be as much as 1.5 percent, with the more likely impact at 1.1 percent.

The impact would be worse, the analysts said, if Congress fails to fix the Alternative Minimum Tax, which was enacted in 1969 to make sure rich people pay taxes but was never indexed for inflation, and thus is now hitting middle-income workers.

“In a worst-case scenario, allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire and failing to fix the AMT could result in (1.5 percent) of fiscal drag in 2011 on top of the 1 percent fiscal drag we expect to occur as the Obama fiscal stimulus package unwinds,” Deutsche said in a note to clients. “If the recovery remains soft/tentative through early next year, this additional drag could be enough to push the economy to a stalling point.”

But those stupid Europeans… they don’t know what they are talking about… or, so says Secretary Treasury Timothy Geitner.  In an interview with Jake Tapper, news, Geitner said that letting Bush’s tax cuts expire for the wealthiest Americans would, and I quote, “be the right thing to do”.

what the President’s proposing to do is to leave in place, to extend tax cuts that go to more than 95 percent of working Americans and to leave in place tax cuts that are very important to incent businesses to hire new pe — new employees and to invest in expanding output. We think that’s a — the — it’s a very strong package. We think it’s the right package. We think it’s fair. We think it’s responsible. Now, we also think it’s responsible to let the tax cuts expire that just go to 2 percent to 3 percent of Americans, the highest earning Americans. We think that’s the responsible thing to do because we need to make sure we can show the world that they’re willing as a country now to start to make some progress bringing down our long — our long-term deficits. TAPPER: Don’t you think it will slow economic growth? GEITHNER: No. Just letting those tax cuts that only go to 2 percent to 3 percent of Americans, the highest earning Americans in the country expire. I do not believe it will have a negative effect on growth.

But even while Geitner was explaining the administration’s economic policy, his logic starts to break down.  If Geitner is admitting that tax cuts for couples making under 250,000 would stimulate the economy… why wouldn’t tax cuts for people making over 250,000 also stimulate the economy? And if it would have a stimulative effect… why wouldn’t the Obama administration be in favor of it?  Well, the answer is hidden in plain view in Geitner’s response to the question:  Obama’s economic policies are much more concerned about fairness than about growth.  The reason Obama’s economic policies have failed to bring about a definitive end to the recession is because they have always been designed to remedy the perceived inequity of American capitalism rather than to incentivize wealth creation.  Instead of letting the market transfer wealth from rich to poor by encouraging the rich to buy goods produced by small businesses… the Administration thinks that tax cuts for small business — paid for by higher taxes on the rich — will solve the country’s economic woes.  However, the rich — who already pay a huge percentage of all taxes — are not spending because their belts are being ever tightened by liberal economic policies.  It doesn’t matter how many tax cuts you give to small businesses; if no one is buying their products, they won’t have enough income to hire those workers.

The unfortunate consequence of this policy is that Obama’s huge transfer of wealth — either future wealth in the form of debt payments or higher taxes on high earners — has failed to actually benefit the poor in any meaningful way.  Obama’s huge spending projects have not increased demand for the cars unions produce… encouraged investment in business the poor work in…  or increased spending by the upper class.  Instead, his debt agenda has created a permanent under-class… dependent on government handouts (e.g. extending “unemployment benefits”… the new welfare) … and has forced us into a position where massive tax revenue will be required… not to pay for anything the poor need… but to pay a autotelic debt burden that that has not achieved any meaningful benefit for the middle class.

What we are seeing is a failure of Liberal policies… a failure of Keynesian economics… a failure of New York Times Columnist Paul Krugman’s entire worldview.  Lets hope we change directions this November.

via Letting Bush Tax Cuts Die Would Kill Recovery: Analysts – CNBC.

There is nothing wrong with my deciding how much money is enough for me or your deciding how much money is enough for you, but when politicians think that they should be deciding how much money is enough for other people, that is starting down a very slippery slope.

Politicians with the power to determine each citizen’s income are no longer public servants. They are public masters.

…Once you buy the argument that some segment of the citizenry should lose their rights, just because they are envied or resented, you are putting your own rights in jeopardy — quite aside from undermining any moral basis for respecting anybody’s rights. You are opening the floodgates to arbitrary power. And once you open the floodgates, you can’t tell the water where to go.

Now, some of you may read this analysis and say: well, we limit rights of individuals all the time, just because we limit this one right doesn’t mean we put all of our rights in jeopardy.  Well, you might be right.  Maybe we can still have some rights and not others… but who will get to decide what rights those will be?  And how many of them will we have?

If someone can just categorically say that he or she dislikes the freedom to earn the income you are capable of… and turn this personal preference into a moral axiom… what other personal preferences could just as easily be turned into axioms?  Could the right to other personal property be repudiated?  What about the right to political speech?  What about the right to due process?  Could we at some point have “too much” due process?  What about Children?  China already has proven THAT personal right can be trampled pretty easily if enough power is influenced on a population… what about our right to practice religion?

But these questions aside… assuming we got past the rather uncomfortable political conflict I just addressed;  assuming we accepted that government SHOULD have this prerogative… How are we to weigh and evaluate the value of one right vs the other?  Do we have a coherent framework to make this balancing process fair and equitable (and perhaps more importantly… subject to the will of society as opposed to the whim of those in power?)  I ask this rather rhetorically to point out that for those of you on the left… who are comfortable with Obama’s statement… you had better have ready answer to this question because if you don’t… than you have lost the debate.  If you don’t have a solution or a philosophy on balancing rights (and a way to enforce this process on those in power)… than we are not subject to anything other than the whims of those in power and Sowell would therefore be not only right but justified in his argument.

Now, philosophical arguments aside, I think the more important question is really this: what KIND of politicians do we want to be governed by?  Public masters or public servants?  I don’t know about you, but I’d prefer the latter.

via ‘Enough Money’ – Thomas Sowell – National Review Online.

“We can’t finance our social model anymore — with 1 percent structural growth we can’t play a role in the world,” European Council President Herman Van Rompuy said Monday in remarks at the World Economic Forum in Brussels, just hours after European Union finance ministers approved the new program. European growth rates are lagging behind those in the United States and the rest of the world as the recovery takes shape, with Spain and Greece still in recession.

…Greece, for example, is considered by the IMF to be one of the most inefficient economies in Europe because of the patchwork of rules governing its labor markets — including the public sector’s “employment for life” practices; the syndicates that keep control over pharmacies, law offices and other professions; and the array of early-retirement rules that drive up pension costs.

via Europe rewrites its rule book in creating fund to contain financial crisis.

The old deal seemed fair: public employees would earn lower salaries than Americans working in the private sector, but would receive a somewhat better retirement and more days off. Now, public employees get higher average pay, far higher benefits, and many more days off and other fringe benefits. They have also obtained greatly reduced work schedules, thus limiting public services even as pay and benefits shoot ever higher…

The story doesn’t end with the imbalance in pay and benefits. Government workers also enjoy absurd protections. The Los Angeles Times did a recent series about the city’s public school district, which doesn’t even try to fire incompetent teachers and is seldom able to get rid of those credibly accused of misconduct or abuse. Misbehaving teachers are sometimes kept from teaching, but they may spend years, even a decade, getting paid while they fight attempts to fire them…

The media have finally started to take notice… News reports have also focused on scandals at CalPERS, the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, which has faced record losses after making risky leveraged investments in bizarre real-estate deals. (The government pension system encourages such risky behavior: with defined-benefit systems, union members stand to gain if the investments go well, while taxpayers shoulder the burden if they don’t.) Meanwhile, the Los Angeles Times reported on a politically connected insider who received $53 million in finder’s fees from CalPERS, raising questions of pay-to-play deals.

But the real scandal is a two-tier society where government workers enjoy benefits far in excess of those for whom they supposedly work. It’s past time to start cleaning up the mess by reforming retirement systems and limiting the public unions’ power. If we don’t, California’s financial problems will become insurmountable.

via Plundering California by Steven Greenhut, City Journal 23 November 2009.

“Highway-construction companies around the country, having completed the mostly small projects paid for by the federal economic-stimulus package, are starting to see their business run aground, an ominous sign for the nation’s weak employment picture.”

But… I though Obama’s stimulus package was specifically designed for (how did he put it?) SHOVEL READY jobs?!  I guess when Obama meant “shovel-ready” jobs… he didn’t mean what we all THOUGHT he meant.  Kind of like when he told us all about healthcare REFORM… that wasn’t what we thought it meant either…. or when he said that it would be crazy to give Khalid Sheikh Mohammed a full civilian trial… I guess he didn’t really mean that either.  Or maybe when he said he’d get the troops out of Iraq… maybe he meant something else there too…

If I didn’t know any better, I’d say I was being lied to.

via Help Wanted, No Private Sector Experience Required « The Enterprise Blog.

The blame-Bush mantra, of course, is an echo of Obama’s own rhetoric. So how do we renew and restore ourselves? Maybe by waiting till 2012 and electing a president who has the capacity to lead rather than pre-emptively make excuses for failure by whining about the “mess” he “inherited.”

Amen brother.  via ‘You’ve Taken the Words Out of My Mouth’.