congressmen/women. I interned for a prominent U.S. Senator. I have two masters in political science and a doctorate in political science and public policy. I've taught various political science and public policy courses for many years. I now work for the federal government. So yes, I think I do!

Krugman is an economist. I don't profess to know too much about economics. I know a little, but I would not provide an opinion on something that I know little about.

politics and complain about Obama??? Really? Because they do not have a Political Science degree?

There are MANY right wing GOP supporters with your credentials. Why are they not correct in your book?

Let us know the list of qualified people to provide opinions so we only listen to them! Thanks!

I think the OP has a point. Krugman is unrealistic to disregard congress role.

It's about thinking rationally about what is possible given the parameters that we are operating under. I'm just saying.

Again, I'm sure that I have some opinion on the economy, but I am VERY naive when it comes to a lot of economic theories that I have little to no clue about *in practice*.

the argument raised about the ballooning debt could have been effectively rebutted given the republican's drumbeat to the public about passing such debt onto the next generation. Krugman's response was to curtly inform Matthews that the public didn't have all the facts and was being led along. While that's true, it is still a political reality and just rejecting that reality isn't quite sufficient. Krugman has always been correct on the remedy for our economic ills, he just doesn't have the political answer for overcoming the difficulties in his argument.

They are elected in conservative areas. The choice is either a Blue Dog Democrat or a Republican. There is zero chance that a liberal would get elected in those areas.

At least Blue Dogs vote with the Democrats sometimes, whereas we've seen lately that the Republicans almost never vote for Democrat bills.

So that's the choice: a blue dog or a Republican. A conservative, or a far right conservative.

Obama told him to stand down. Called him at home to tell him to cut a deal with Judd Gregg and Joe Lieberman, with a lower dollar amount and a higher percentage being tax cuts.

Joe LIEberman might as well be. You have to get the VOTES! If you don't have the votes, you have nothing!

actually drove that point home multiple times and Krugman had actually conceded to it as well. He seems to weathervane like Tweety does...

Part of what was working against a bigger stimulus from the blue dog perspective, was the bank bailout that happened just before.

You know, go all LBJ on the Blue Dogs? You claim to be a political expert, so surely you know how LBJ worked, his methods would have been just as effective if used by Obama, especially since Obama, at the time, had such a huge store of political capital.

Instead, he remained above the fray, and made a conscientious decision to be "bipartisan" about it all. Thus, we wound up with a stimulus package that consisted of forty percent tax cuts and tax credits, the least effective form of economic stimulus, and an overall stimulus package that was too small, too weak, and squandered Obama's political capital.

As far as Krugman goes, get back to me when you've won a Nobel prize.

Time and again in 2009 and 2010, Obama gave away the store before negotiations even began, in some vain pursuit of the chimera of bi-partisanship. And while there are political realities in play that Krugman may not fully appreciate, there are also psychological and long-term realities that appeals to political realities ignore. Republicans are relentless in pursuing their misguided policies. They bring them up time and again, knowing they're going to lose time and again. Then they begin moving the train. And they gather a little momentum. And then some "sensible" Democrat or Liberal or Progressive looks at the crackpot idea and says, "Why not?" And the game is effectively over, and the stupid idea is adopted.

Krugman may be advocating a politically unrealistic position, but he was right. The only way you're going to make the right position politically realistic is through leadership and pressure. Too many Blue Dog Democrats were more afraid of the Republicans saying mean things about them than were interested in governing. And a lot of them are looking for new jobs, their small caucus is now a tiny rump presence of about 25.

I don't know exactly what this is in reference too, but Krugman's position the first time around was that the opening bid should have been bigger so that when the GOP lowered it in negotiations it would still be big enough to work on its own. Because everybody knew a second round of stimulus wasn't likely to happen.

But as Codaleeza would put it, "no one could have forseen" Republican lockstep obstructionism (despite pretty much doing the same to Clinton, and openly saying they'd do that to Obama).

No one who didn't plan on having to deal with brick-wall obstruction (even as a "plan B&quot is in no position to call anyone "naive".

treated Clinton: They were not going to support *anything*! I don't care how large or small. We now know that even on the even of the inauguration that they weren't going to vote for ANYTHING that the president put forward.

So where do we go? The Blue Dogs. Maybe we simply do not know how much pressure Obama put on the Blue Dogs. People are assuming that he didn't put ANY pressure on them. How do we know this? All I know is that no matter what he said or did, Joe LIEbermann wasn't going for it and neither was Blanche Lincoln or Mark Pryor. Again, I think some of us are naive to believe that these Blue Dogs were going to move. They weren't. (It is the same problem that Bill Clinton confronted.)

...even in the likely event you don't get it and it gets scaled back, you're in a better position to ask for a second package, since you've already established that you regard the previous one as too small.

By being "realistic" and going for the smaller stimulus amount right away and claiming it was the right size, it undercut the chances of a second package if (when) one was needed by letting the Republicans claim "we gave him everything he asked for and it still didn't work". (Whether or not they actually did give "everything" being irrelevant to Republican claims made after the fact.)

Nothing naive about that.

any GOP votes.
That was his mistake. Instead of starting with a very large stimulus and negotiating down to win votes (which realistically he had a small chance of) he started with a default position and the only place to go was a too small stimulus.
The same thing happened on Health Care, with the same results. He conceded too much before negotiations.

and smaller is what you'll end up with. And they did.

we got a too small stimulus that did some good but not enough. And a Health Care Act that might be thrown out because he wouldn't fight for a good progressive one that would work, instead we get a retread of Romnycare that even Romny won't back.

Collins, Snowe and Specter

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00064

Collins was being a huge pain in the ass:

Progressive Democrats are targeting six moderate Republican senators.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/01/29/progressive-groups-target-gop-senators-over-stimulus-bill/

Maine Senators Break With Republican Party on Stimulus
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/11/us/politics/11cong.html

he started with the bar way too low.
He could have started with a way bigger stimulus and negotiated down to get there votes. And we still would have gotten a bigger bill.
On HealthCare he did the same thing and didn't even get their votes.

And he got zero GOP votes in the House on either.

"And he got zero GOP votes in the House on either."

...didn't need House Republican votes.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/roll070.xml

still made the bill weaker in an effort to get GOP votes in the name of bi-partisonship.
That is the point.

get Republican votes that they were never going to actually get?

Sounds like somebody was indeed naive about governance.

"So the administration intentionally hurt the economy in order to get Republican votes that they were never going to actually get?"

...he should have let it fail because a nearly $800 billion dollar package to keep the economy from sliding into a depression "intentionally hurt the economy."

So, how many people died because health care reform failed in the 1990s?

And, by *he*, I don't mean Obama. See, this thing about governance--the U.S. Constitution gives the Congress the "power of the purse."

going to support anything the president did, no matter how big or small, right?

So, what's the next step? Convincing those in the Democratic Party: a bunch of Blue Dog Democrats who also weren't going to go for something bigger. They pressured the party to include massive tax breaks and credits before they would sign on to anything.

Again, show me HOW to get the votes and I'm there with you.

Otherwise, I remain steadfast in my position. It's easy for us to sit here on the sidelines and complain. It's altogether another thing to observe policymaking/governing from the inside.

Easier said than done.

that is a good start towards change I can believe in.....

And I think it is also worth noting that when the administration has tried, they have succeeded.

I know. I read it on DU.

He argues that progressives in Obama's economic team were convinced that a much bigger stimulus was needed but that Obama was somewhat less eager to fight for it and was taken up in his own ideas of what would be a transformational presidency, which he very much aspired to. Perhaps he saw his route to this through reforming health care and thought that being "reasonable" on the economic issues would pay off down the road when he came to the health care reform fight.

At least that's the takeaway I got from the book. It's a good read, too, if you enjoy getting into the weeds on the intertwining of economics and politics. Scheiber is quite brilliant.

or simplistic as Krugman and some others make it to be. Being on the inside has taught me a lot about how the process really works.

Thanks for the suggestion. I do like Scheiber. He is truly brilliant.

on this. He had to rely on second hand sources. He wasn't there. But what he was told he presented in a straightforward way and it made sense.

I am hoping that Obama has learned from this painful lesson and it seems that he has, by all I have seen in the direction his reelection campaign is going.

The Big Lie in all this is that the American people don't want a populist president. That so-called "centrism" of most of America, a meme pushed over and over again by Joe Scarborough on Morning Joe, just isn't proving to be the case, IMO.

What do you think? Has Obama turned a corner and is now making real political headway with his new populist theme?

Lawmakers have to listen to economists, and when lawmakers don't listen to the brilliant economists, the whole country suffers.

Blame poor fiscal policy on economists if you want, but politicians have the power, if not the will, to put money in infrastructure projects that have the greatest multiplier effects on the domestic economy.

Blame the public if you want, but maybe by allowing regulatory capture of public airwaves of fascists and conservatives, it's a bit difficult to get sound economic policy messages heard by Americans. Thus, undereducated via the fourth estate, Americans aren't making accurate decisions at the polls.

disagreement between them and us political scientists. We see the world very differently.

It doesn't change the fact that American families are increasingly becoming less economically stable. It behooves Krugman to continue to point out failed fiscal policies which are directly affecting Americans. That's Krugman's job. There are so few people speaking for policies that would benefit the least powerful Americans -- Americans who also happen to be in the most precarious economic conditions. I applaud Krugman for continuing to use his media microphone to express his concerns. He's a hero, and a patriot.

provide his view for why these families continue to struggle. However, it also doesn't mean that I'm in no position to voice MY opinion about what he thinks are the remedies. And let me be clear: I totally agree that he's right that the stimulus should have been bigger. It definitely should have been. I take issue with the fact that he doesn't seem to understand, in my view, what is likely or unlikely to get done given the political parameters within which policymakers MUST operate. I'm not suggesting that he shut up. Read my post again. I'm merely suggesting that he be realistic about what can and what cannot be done.

climate. Krugman is merely the doctor prescribing how to help the sick economy. The rest of America has to figure out to how adhere to the doctor's orders, and America's akin to a low-income, diabetic, obese person in a high-crime, food-desert whose doctor has prescribed moving, getting rid of stress, eating better, and exercising. Easier said than done. I understand your frustration.

I do believe you have a more difficult position. Thankfully, you're articulate, thoughtful, and smart. That gives me hope.

And he's also right about his sentiments in today's article that he wrote:

We're in bad times, and that is largely becuase the stimulus has run out. Add to that Republican governors laying off public workers, deliberately keeping the unemployment rate up. The bad news is that Krugman still puts the blame squarely on the president and not on a Congress that he admits is deliberately blocking jobs bills or laying off workers at the state level.

The federal agencies have little money, so there's little in the way that he can do to direct them. (For example, HUD doesn't have much and is often ignored or undervalued as an agency because its mission is to serve low-income famillies.)

This is incredibly frustrating because we're all familiar with the cycle:

1. Republicans in office want to prove the ineffetivelness of government by destroying it from within.
2. Fed up with Republican mess, Americans vote for Democrats.
3. Faced with the issue of having to clean up Republican mess, Democrats are often confronted with difficult issues and have to make unpopular choices. (We're in this stage now.)
4. Impatient and unhappy Americans become disenchanted with the Democrats for having to make unpopular decisions and/or failling to clean up the mess quickly enough. In response, they reelect Republicans (often those same Republicans who created the mess in the first place).

And the cycle starts all over.

This is where we liberals have to use more common sense. The American people have two different standards for the two major political parties. They expect Republicans to play politics and to govern on principle. However, they expect Democrats to *govern* and they also expect Democrats to govern with bipartisanship and compromise in mind. Since the Democratic Party is also a large tent, there is natural discord among the various factions. That is the price we pay for being Democrats. We will seldom speak with one voice but are expected to compromise.

I have always held that if we elect a larger *progressive* majority, we will see the progressive policy outcomes that we want. But even then, we need to exercise a bit of reason here: that progressive change didn't happen overnight. It takes time and it takes patience and hard work. We liberals often cannot except that fact and thus we easily give up and become disillusioned...often apathetic.

We must continue to fight, and we have no choice. The Republicans are kicking our collective ass at the state and local levels. We cannot give up.

It's been difficult to convince more centrist-minded friends and acquaintances that they shouldn't support their friend or colleague running as a Republican. I can understand their disdain for voting straight-party lines, and belief that they should vote for the right person for the job.

Fast forward to the 2010's elections that were a bitter pill for Liberals and Progressives, but there is a silver lining. Walker's et.al. "mandate" governance illustrates how much can get done (and damaged) when enough like-minded people are in control. A disillusioned progressive citizenry isn't necessarily bad. There's still huge support for a public option and single payer health care initiatives. A disillusioned electorate tells politicians who didn't fight for these two crucial fixes to many Americans problems that there's still work to do. Individual politicians who are too compromising should find themselves at a loss to more liberal candidates.

If Dems don't fight to common sense things that virtually, every small-business person will admit to needing (i.e. public options, debt forgiveness for underwater homes, ending the credit crunch for small businesses), then a disillusioned base may become an apathetic base, and then Dems need to find a better candidate to connect with the people.

Diligence.

fact in this entire debate is that the stimulus was too small.

Here we had 5 Blue Dogs in Congress...today we have 1....That should tell everyone some thing....Blue Dogs thought they wouldn't win re-election because they need some moderates to vote for them...Well the moderates did not help them one bit..now those seats are in the have Rethugs sitting in them....

and told that if they don't want a well-funded primary challenger and cancellation of all their pork barrel projects, they'd better toe the line.

The Party lets anyone call themselves a Democrat, even if they agree with the Republicans on all the economic issues.

Paul Krugman as a side job get's to write opinion about his ideas on economic policy. He talks about policies he thinks are best, and problems with current policy. If the government can not or is incapable of producing good policy, that really isn't his problem. The reality that our government is too stupid to do the things the President wanted to do is of no help to our economy. The reality is they didn't do it, Krugman knows they didn't and has no problem pointing out the real things they didn't do.

I get Biden and Obama might of wanted a better policy, but they didn't get it done. What is Krugman suppose to do, talk about the fantasy economy that exists in the alternate universe where they did? Why is it Krugman's problem so many of our politicians suck. Aren't we to blame for that. We voted them in. If Biden and Obama want to pass better policy, perhaps they need to do better than the horrible 2010 elections. Perhaps they should stop listening to the blue dogs (which is easier to do as so many lost last election cycle).

Krugman's job is to talk about the actual economy as it actually exists. It is Obama and Biden to get their policies past. It's our fucking job to put the people into office that don't suck ass and prevent them from doing it. Blaming Krugman as not understand governance because too many Americans elect totally ineffectual policy makers is pointless. If I wanted to read an economist column about fantastical policies that effect the world in impossible ways, I'd read George Will or Ben Stein

And let me be clear: I totally agree that he's right that the stimulus should have been bigger. It definitely should have been. I take issue with the fact that he doesn't seem to understand, in my view, what is likely or unlikely to get done given the political climate and the parameters within which policymakers MUST operate. I'm not suggesting that he shut up. I'm merely suggesting that he be realistic and understand what's going on internally, that's all.

No one should take issue with the fact that Krugman is a brilliant economist.

Obama prefers to work through intermediaries and back channels to find out what can be passed, then supports that. Krugman wanted Obama to use the bully pulpit of the Presidency to try and force congress to vote for a bigger stimulus package. I have no idea if this latter tactic would have worked, it has in the past for some Presidents and has failed for others. I think, in retrospect, Krugman underestimated the resolve of the Republicans to take down Obama at any cost, and in reality using the bully pulpit might have lost Obama the few republican votes he did get. We will never know.

On the other hand, Krugman is useful in that he is one of the only pundits out there pushing from the left. Most of what we get is centrist or RW crap. We need voices pushing from the left to try and get their ideas out there.

Say you know three things:

1) To work the stimulus has to be 2 trillion dollars.
2) Congress will not pass anything over 850 billion dollars today.
3) If limited to 850 billion dollars today unemployment will be even higher a year from now.


Knowing those things, what is the correct course?

You say, "To really work this needs to be 2 trillion dollars. We will negotiate to get whatever we can because one dollar is better than no dollars, but those obstructing a package that will work are just guaranteeing that unemployment will continue to rise."

First, it blames the obstructors for what is going to happen. Second, and more importantly, it is TRUE. If Obama thought the stimulus was too small then he should not have pretended otherwise.

The adequacy r inadequacy of the thing is a matter of economic fact. If inadequate then real things will happen down the road. And then you are sitting pretty because you can say, "I told you it was too small but you wouldn't listen. Now we need a bigger plan."

Instead we have Republicans saying the Obama stimulus didn't work and the WH has a hard time on defense because Obama said it was big enough and would be sufficient... he chose to own a bullshit republican-hindered package.

It is bad to lie to the American people. But it is very, very, very bad to lie to the American people in a way that is certain to make you look like a fool.

The (false) defense that Obama knew it was too small paints him as an idiot. If he knew that unemployment was going to go up then why did he chose to own that issue by saying that the package was fine? He would have to be stupider than Bush to do that.

The accurate defense is much kinder--that he just didn't get it at the time and misplayed the thing. I don't think he was lying, I think he didn't know he was wrong. People make mistakes. It happens.

All we would have heard would have been "He's spending Two TRILLLLLLLIIIIOOONN DOOOLLLAARRS" over and over from the MSM. The symbolism would have played right into their hands. I do agree with you that Obama listened to those who thought 800 billion, with a big chunk of it in tax cuts, was the proper size. Those were the same people telling him to bail out the banks at all costs, and to not mess with the wars. I don't think that if he knew it was too small but pushed for 800 billion anyway, that it paints him as an idiot. It was what he and his advisors thought they could pass. It did help. He did try some other things, but 2010 ended all hope of any serious stimulus extension, and ushered in a new round of cutting by the states that made things worse.

The difference between 850-B and 2 trillion represents a real world difference in where unemployment, federal tax revenues, state balance sheets and national GDP will be in two years.

If you know that you can only get a small package and that with the small package the economy will continue to suck then you would be thinking in terms about how to deal with the real-world certainty that the economy will still suck... how to handle the politics of it, as well as the policy.

By taking ownership of the "just right" economic package Obama was taking ownership of where the economy would be down the road.

Obama is smart man and a good politician so when he took ownership of it--versus saying, this is not enough and will not work--he must have been optimistic about where the economy was heading. (He must also have bought into some of the nonsense about how a huge package had a downside in that it would would create inflation and higher interest rates. Any package that worked would, of course, raise inflation and interest rates... that's the objective of the stimulus! In 2009 the CPI was -0.8% and we couldn't have stood many eyars like that.)

If he thought it was going down further he would never have taken political ownership of it.

That is why I reject the current, "oh, we knew it was too small" line. Obama isn't that dumb!

However, I think he can often be an unwitting participant in the political Right's mission to destroy this president because he gives them too much of an out. I don't think he holds them accountable enough. And he says virtually nothing about the Blue Dogs and their role in all of this. I think he is fair in his assessment of Obama in some respects, but I maintain that he is unrealistic when it comes to understanding how the political environment factors into all of this.

His complaint is that the Obama administration kept publicly claiming the stimulus was "just right". Which they did. Remember "recovery summer"?

There was no need to sell the stimulus after it already passed. What there was a need for was a 2nd round of stimulus.

When you say the last one was perfect, you've completely gutted your ability to go back for more.

Competent economists know that the stimulus worked insofar as it did exactly what one would have expected it to do. It worked as well as 800 billion that is half tax-cuts could work.

But in political terms, "the stimulus didn't work" is fair game precisely because it did not do what was claimed politically. If Obama thought it was just right and then unemployment goes up instead of down then it "didn't work."

So obviously Obama thought that the economy would rebound on its own and he would be positioned to take credit for that.

It was a miscalculation.

And it makes the idea that they knew it was too small ridiculous. If you knew it was too small then why take ownership of its effects by saying it is sufficient???

I respect Obama too much to think he understood it was too small.

First, remember that Republicans were going around the country bragging about the stimulus and holding ribbon cutting ceremonies. Secretary LaHood wrote that while publicly denouncing the stimulus, privately they were begging him for transportation stimulus.

Second, as I stated earlier in this thread, this stimulus package DID in fact represent a first start. Remember that I stated that the federal agencies were preparing for a second round of stimulus. And in fact Obama wanted one, but guess what happened? Not only did the Republicans obstruct, the Blue Dogs ran scared! And don't forget: with the help of a complicit Corporate Media, the Republican lies convinced Americans that the stimulus failed and that austerity and deficit reductions were preferable.

I often think we liberals live in a bubble just as the Right has its own bubble. We truly can't accept how susceptible the average American is to political propaganda.

as I said.

Let's look at what happened, now that people have leaked the events:
Their advisers ran the math, figured out they needed something like $1.2-1.5T in stimulus. Terrified of the enormous number, Volker said $800B would be enough. Then that got cut by the Republicans to $400B of stimulus, and $400B of tax cuts.

So we've got a combination of advisers lying to Obama, but even without that, they knew they only got 1/2 of what they asked for. To turn around and call it "perfect" was dumb. Team Obama knew they needed another $400B, and the people with expertise knew they needed about another $1T.

This is the entirety of Krugman's complaint: The Obama administration knew the stimulus was too small, and pretending it was "just right" opens the door wide for "stimulus didn't work - you said it was perfect yet the economy still sucks". If we instead imagine the stimulus bill advertised as "a good start", then whether or not Obama could get more politically, he was not in the position of having to pretend a stimulus that was too small was going to fix the entire economy.

that the initial stimulus would be all they could get out of that Congress (and remember Blue Dogs were running scared) they HAD to sell it! What were they to say? "This stimulus package sucks?" The Republicans, Tea Baggers, the Media and cowardly Democrats were already doing that!

The bill had already passed. There was nothing left to sell.

And if you're trying to claim they needed to build public support, claiming it was perfect is the absolutely dumbest way to do so, since they knew they did not receive enough and thus it would not work as well as they hoped.

the people onboard and explain to them what the policy would mean to their lives. And he did that. I'm shocked that you and others don't remember this. The president went around the country explaining the stimulus. Many Democrats ran scared. We later got the Tea Party when moving to health care.

"Hello, Mr. Public. This new-fangled product I'm selling you will do an excellent job of washing your dishes. Oh, it actually smeared tar all over your dishes? But at least they're sanitized! Why are you angry?"

If the goal was to sell it to the public, then they were morons who were lying to the public. Because they claimed the stimulus package, as passed, was just the right size to fix the economy quickly. It wasn't. And they knew it wasn't.

The logical result of such stupid "salesmanship" is the public turning away from stimulus, since it was too small to work. And that would make any additional stimulus politically untenable.

My argument is they made a mistake based on the unprecedented size of the downturn. Your argument is the administration was too fucking stupid to breathe, and that was a good thing.

I'm saying the complete OPPOSITE! They were probably too pragmatic! I'm trying to get you to see that they DID want the stimulus to be bigger, but realized that they weren't going to get the votes from Republicans or Blue Dogs. I'm attempting to make the argument that the blame goes around in terms of the politics of this issue: The administration probably should have pushed for a bigger stimulus but realized that they would get resistance from Republicans and Blue Dogs. Where the administration went wrong is assuming that they could get ANY Republicans onboard, since we now know that the Republican mission was to say no to any and everything that the president proposed. They spent too much time trying to get a Republican or two onboard. They eventually got Arlen Specter, but by then, the stimulus bill had been watered down by the Blue Dogs in that effort to court Republican votes.

The entire premise of my OP is that people are either forgetting or are naive about the internal dynamics of the political process. We all wanted a larger stimulus package. We all agree on that goal, which is what Krugman was also arguing for. Where I think Krugman is wrong is that he seems to not account for the fact that resistance to this package wasn't just coming from Republicans but Democrats as well. (The SAME happened to Bill Clinton.)

I'm not really sure where you're going with this, but I would just conclude that we will not agree here and should leave it at that.

Thanks.

You are claiming that they were trying to sell the public on stimulus, with the goal of fixing the economy through additional rounds of stimulus.

How'd they do that? By claiming the first round of stimulus was "just right". For that to make any sense, they have to be dumb.

If their goal was additional stimulus, and selling the idea of additional stimulus to the public, then "just right" is exactly the wrong thing to say.

If that was their goal, they would have highlighted positive effects of the stimulus that did pass, and try to get the public to pressure Congress for more stimulus. This is what you are claiming, yet this is not what they said or did.

The Obama administration got this one wrong, and when they figured that out it was too late politically to fix their mistake.