Oh Paul, Again With The Nonsense?

James Miller
Twice a week, Paul Krugman and the New York Times bless us with editorials filled with partisan liberal rhetoric and the occasional economic theory.  From the never ending calls for more government "stimulus" to fear mongering over deflation, a small amount of Krugman's Times column is used to promote the Keynesian economic doctrine.  The rest of it is used to slander the GOP and their "say no" strategy.  It's bizarre why a Nobel Prize winning economist wastes his time with petty political attacks, especially when the political party he promotes has failed to "jumpstart" the economy at this point.  But it's Krugman's column and he can write whatever political drivel he, and his New York Times editors, see fit.

Normally, Mr. Krugman serves as comic relief amid other editorialists, and a recent column of his continues the tradition. 

On August 23, 2010, he once again took aim at Republicans and their desire to keep the Bush tax cuts.  To be fair, Krugman also criticized the tax cuts when they were first implemented and warned of the threat of an increased deficit.  At least he got that part right.   

Krugman once again plays the class-warfare card and calls for the tax cuts on the "middle class" to remain, while those for the "people who already have plenty" of money should expire.  While no one should be surprised by his position, it is the way he describes the tax cut extensions that is particularly infuriating.

Describing Republicans as "eager to cut checks averaging $3 million each to the richest 120,000 people in the country" only shows Krugman's complete misunderstanding in how taxation works.  It is hard to understand how someone with such notable economic credentials can genuinely proclaim this.

First of all, the so called "richest 1 percent" would not be "cut checks" as Krugman likes to phrase it.  Since tax money is confiscated from the population, there would be no need for the government to send out checks.  Basically, the "rich" would keep more of their earnings and not have the government "give" them back their money after taking it.  

Second, the "checks" image implies the government is somehow entitled to our money.  That's a pretty scary thought and not in line at all with what the founders of this country thought about government. Krugman's assertion of "cutting checks" can only be interpreted as being purposefully disingenuous for the sake of making another partisan attack on the GOP.

So basically, it's typical Paul Krugman.

The truth is that cutting taxes, not government spending, has always set the foundation for economic growth.  Just look at J.F.K. or Ronald Reagan who had struggling economies when they came into office.  Both cut taxes and thus presided over economic prosperity.  Since anyone who reads a simple graph can deduce that cutting taxes leads to economic growth, it's hard to see why a world renowned economist can't.

William L Anderson, an economic professor at Frostburg State University, has written an open letter to Mr. Krugman suggesting how he should spend his money.  Since he seems to believe the government is entitled to our money, Mr. Anderson implores the Nobel Laureate to "spend all of your current income" and "eliminate all of your investments except for any portfolio of government bonds."  Judging by Krugman's constant promotion of government spending, surely that means it's more effective than private spending. 

That's why the Stimulus bill kept unemployment below 8% and the economy isn't teetering on the edge of recession, right?

As for my own advice for Mr. Krugman: drop the Joy Behar-imitation and leave the political attacks to the pundits.  Stick to economic theory, even if you are wrong on that too.
Twice a week, Paul Krugman and the New York Times bless us with editorials filled with partisan liberal rhetoric and the occasional economic theory.  From the never ending calls for more government "stimulus" to fear mongering over deflation, a small amount of Krugman's Times column is used to promote the Keynesian economic doctrine.  The rest of it is used to slander the GOP and their "say no" strategy.  It's bizarre why a Nobel Prize winning economist wastes his time with petty political attacks, especially when the political party he promotes has failed to "jumpstart" the economy at this point.  But it's Krugman's column and he can write whatever political drivel he, and his New York Times editors, see fit.

Normally, Mr. Krugman serves as comic relief amid other editorialists, and a recent column of his continues the tradition. 

On August 23, 2010, he once again took aim at Republicans and their desire to keep the Bush tax cuts.  To be fair, Krugman also criticized the tax cuts when they were first implemented and warned of the threat of an increased deficit.  At least he got that part right.   

Krugman once again plays the class-warfare card and calls for the tax cuts on the "middle class" to remain, while those for the "people who already have plenty" of money should expire.  While no one should be surprised by his position, it is the way he describes the tax cut extensions that is particularly infuriating.

Describing Republicans as "eager to cut checks averaging $3 million each to the richest 120,000 people in the country" only shows Krugman's complete misunderstanding in how taxation works.  It is hard to understand how someone with such notable economic credentials can genuinely proclaim this.

First of all, the so called "richest 1 percent" would not be "cut checks" as Krugman likes to phrase it.  Since tax money is confiscated from the population, there would be no need for the government to send out checks.  Basically, the "rich" would keep more of their earnings and not have the government "give" them back their money after taking it.  

Second, the "checks" image implies the government is somehow entitled to our money.  That's a pretty scary thought and not in line at all with what the founders of this country thought about government. Krugman's assertion of "cutting checks" can only be interpreted as being purposefully disingenuous for the sake of making another partisan attack on the GOP.

So basically, it's typical Paul Krugman.

The truth is that cutting taxes, not government spending, has always set the foundation for economic growth.  Just look at J.F.K. or Ronald Reagan who had struggling economies when they came into office.  Both cut taxes and thus presided over economic prosperity.  Since anyone who reads a simple graph can deduce that cutting taxes leads to economic growth, it's hard to see why a world renowned economist can't.

William L Anderson, an economic professor at Frostburg State University, has written an open letter to Mr. Krugman suggesting how he should spend his money.  Since he seems to believe the government is entitled to our money, Mr. Anderson implores the Nobel Laureate to "spend all of your current income" and "eliminate all of your investments except for any portfolio of government bonds."  Judging by Krugman's constant promotion of government spending, surely that means it's more effective than private spending. 

That's why the Stimulus bill kept unemployment below 8% and the economy isn't teetering on the edge of recession, right?

As for my own advice for Mr. Krugman: drop the Joy Behar-imitation and leave the political attacks to the pundits.  Stick to economic theory, even if you are wrong on that too.