Where Is The Outrage?

---

"More than three years after we entered the worst economic slump since the 1930s, a strange and disturbing thing has happened to our political discourse: Washington has lost interest in the unemployed.

"... [N]o jobs bills have been introduced in Congress, no job–creation plans have been advanced by the White House and all the policy focus seems to be on spending cuts.

"So one–sixth of America's workers — all those who can't find any job or are stuck with part–time work when they want a full–time job — have, in effect, been abandoned."

Paul Krugman
New York Times

---

If you read that excerpt in an opinion piece and had no idea what the identity of the author might be, you'd probably think it came from one of his diehard critics.

Well, perhaps not. But you probably wouldn't think the criticism came from someone who considers himself a liberal.

It did.

Paul Krugman is a widely respected economist. In fact, he is the 13th–most cited economist in the world, according to Research Papers in Economics (RePEc), and he is a self–professed liberal.

Now, I was raised by progressive parents, and, for many years as an adult, I voted accordingly. My politics have shifted more to the center as I have gotten older, but I feel qualified to make the kind of assessment I am about to make ...

... which is ...

I believe there are essentially two kinds of liberals in America today, and you will find them in all walks of life. Some are economists. Some are journalists. Some are economic journalists. Krugman happens to be an economist who is also a journalist.

One kind of liberal cares more about the success of the Obama presidency than the results of his policies — because of (I can only presume) what Barack Obama represents. The logic behind this (and, again, this is my presumption) is that the first black president must be seen as a success because there will not be a second black president if he is not.

For that kind of liberal, perception is more important than reality. When the reality does not support the perception, it is because of racism — or something else that is beyond Obama's control.

To suggest otherwise undermines Obama's presidency.

The other kind of liberal is more realistic. To those liberals, Obama is a president who happens to be black. When he was battling Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination in 2008, it wasn't about black vs. female to those liberals. It was about who could get the job done.

Once the Democrats had settled on their nominee, those liberals backed him enthusiastically, even if they had not done so in the primaries. And now, when they see policies that are not succeeding, they do not hesitate to point that out.

A recent example that comes to mind is Ruth Marcus' column in the Washington Post about seven weeks ago, in which she worried about an absence of leadership in the aftermath of the State of the Union address.

That places policy above all other factors — personality, race, gender, everything — which is how it should be.

I think Krugman is caught somewhere in between. He has not hesitated to criticize policy. In fact, when Congress was voting on the stimulus package in the early days of the Obama presidency, Krugman often criticized it for not being enough — and, with hundreds of thousands of Americans slipping through the cracks two years later, one can only conclude that he was right about that.

But, in spite of the fact that he was so skeptical about the chances of the package's success when he believed that so much more money would be needed to repair the economy, he went along with it — often because (it seemed) that he was willing to give more than the usual amount of time for Obama to become comfortable in the job.

Today, however, Krugman seems to have reached his tolerance limit, and he tells readers, in today's New York Times, that "Washington has lost interest in the unemployed."

He seems genuinely baffled by this since, as he points out, "polls indicate that voters still care much more about jobs than they do about the budget deficit." Thus, he finds it "quite remarkable" that "it's just the opposite" in Washington.

He delves into some economic principles that are probably over the heads of most people, but then he gets back to the point that really ought to outrage the people who voted for Obama expecting him to be the champion and the defender of the average guy, the oppressed, the down–trodden.

"[T]he obsession with spending cuts flourishes all the same," he writes, "unchallenged, it must be said, by the White House."

He now asserts that Obama "surrendered very early" in the "war of ideas" and that it is understandable why most Americans see little difference between what Obama says about spending cuts and what Republicans say. Many Americans who are still employed no longer feel threatened by layoffs because that wave appears to have crested.

But, like the tsunamis that followed the earthquakes in Japan and Indonesia, they have left a great deal of human wreckage in their wake.

The price for this "unfortunate bipartisanship" in Washington, Krugman writes, will be paid by "[t]he increasingly hopeless unemployed."

"[Y]ou have to wonder," Krugman writes, "what it will take to get politicians caring again about America's forgotten millions."

Perhaps it's time for a bumper sticker that says "I'm unemployed and I vote."

Financial Reform

Let your mind go back in time to September 2008.

Remember? That was when the economic collapse really began. People's 401ks were losing value at a dizzying pace. The economy was bleeding jobs. That was when the whole system seemed to be imploding around us.

The desire for financial regulation probably hasn't been higher in my life than it was then.

"[H]ere's the situation," writes Paul Krugman in the New York Times. "We've been through the second–worst financial crisis in the history of the world, and we've barely begun to recover: 29 million Americans either can't find jobs or can't find full–time work."

But, Krugman laments, the drive to reform the system is sputtering to the extent that, if the choice is between a watered–down version of the modestly effective House bill or no bill at all, "the second option is starting to look preferable."

Krugman is an award–winning economist. But his observation about the nature of legislative procedure indicates how legislation can be strangled in the Senate by its procedure. Forget what the legislation may be designed to achieve or the issues that are behind it. When the members of the minority party stand together against something, as the Republicans have often done in the last year, the members of the majority party must stand together or the legislation will die.

Democrats aren't good at that loyalty thing. Never have been. That's why Will Rogers used to say he didn't belong to an organized party; he was a Democrat. That't a pretty good line, and pretty good lines have the virtue of almost always being true.

Financial reform may be one of those things that Barack Obama can't turn into a bipartisan effort. It should be because it is clearly the responsible thing to do. But if the Republicans can't be appeased, if it is impossible to negotiate with them on this, the Democrats must go ahead and do the right thing, anyway, regardless of the political risks.

I agree with Krugman when he warns against watering down the legislation in the name of bipartisanship.

"There are times when even a highly imperfect reform is much better than nothing; this is very much the case for health care," Krugman writes. "But financial reform is different. An imperfect health care bill can be revised in the light of experience, and if Democrats pass the current plan there will be steady pressure to make it better. A weak financial reform, by contrast, wouldn't be tested until the next big crisis. All it would do is create a false sense of security and a fig leaf for politicians opposed to any serious action — then fail in the clinch."

I don't know about you, but I've had enough of seeing what comes from a false sense of security.

It's Complicated

There's a movie called "It's Complicated" that is currently getting a lot of Oscar ink.

It's a comedy, but the title sounds like it would be good for a subject that isn't a comedy — like, say, for example, the U.S. economy.

I've been reading Paul Krugman's column in today's New York Times. His subject is the second–year second–guessing of the Barack Obama administration, specifically the suggestion that Obama tried to do too much by taking on health care reform in his first year instead of focusing on the economy.

Krugman takes exception. "The Obama administration's troubles are the result not of excessive ambition, but of policy and political misjudgments," he writes. "The stimulus was too small; policy toward the banks wasn't tough enough; and Mr. Obama didn't do what Ronald Reagan, who also faced a poor economy early in his administration, did — namely, shelter himself from criticism with a narrative that placed the blame on previous administrations."

As Krugman explains, the stimulus has helped, but it wasn't big enough. Likewise, not taking a harder line on the banks "further entrenched the power of the very institutions that caused the crisis, even as it failed to revive lending."

That brings us to the Reagan example. Reagan, like Obama, inherited a bad economy, but unemployment, as Krugman puts it, "soared" when the 1981 tax cuts were enacted. "Reagan, however, had a ready answer for critics," Krugman writes, "everything going wrong was the result of the failed policies of the past. In effect, Reagan spent his first few years in office continuing to run against Jimmy Carter."

Well, Obama may not have been personally blaming Bush every time he opened his mouth in the last 12 months, but many of his supporters have permitted few opportunities to blame the previous administration get away. Most of the time, they can't wait to indulge in some finger pointing.

Why hasn't Obama been more vocal in his criticism of the Bush administration? "Maybe he still dreams of bridging the partisan divide," Krugman suggests, "maybe he fears the ire of pundits who consider blaming your predecessor for current problems uncouth — if you're a Democrat. (It's O.K. if you're a Republican.)"

Seems to me that last bit about Democrats and Republicans very conveniently ignores the fact that, depending on which party was in power, both Democrats and Republicans have played that game, and both have been criticized for it. It's like the argument some Democrats (and some publications, too, like the New York Times) have been making about how anti–democratic the filibuster is. They were both singing a different song when Democrats were in the minority.

To use a line that the adults seemed to be fond of repeating when I was growing up, it all depends on whose ox is being gored.

Well, the argument over whether it was wise to devote so much time and energy to health care reform may be moot in another 36 hours, when we know who Massachusetts' voters have elected as Ted Kennedy's successor in the Senate. Currently, the momentum appears to be with the Republican candidate, and, if he wins, the Democrats will no longer have 60 votes to block Republican filibusters.

That would leave Obama without the signature legislation he sought — and with an unemployment rate that could remain in double digits indefinitely. It would seem to be much better for Obama and the Democrats — from a purely political perspective — if they could enact health care legislation before a Republican can take Kennedy's seat — if the Republican is going to win. That, of course, remains hypothetical until such time as it becomes a reality.

"Passing such a bill won't be [Democrats'] political salvation," says Krugman, "but not passing a bill would surely be their political doom."

If the Democrat wins in Massachusetts tomorrow, that may buy some time for Obama and the Democrats. But they still need to act quickly if that legislation is going to be of any benefit to embattled Democrats seeking re–election. Most observers agree that Democrats will lose seats in Congress this year, and the loss of only one Senate seat will mean they can no longer block Republican filibusters.

If that is ultimately going to be the Democrats' fate, obviously they would prefer to wait until the end of the year before facing it instead of having to do so right now. But they may not have that luxury.

It's complicated.

If It's Inevitable ...

Twenty years ago, there was a Republican candidate for governor here in Texas who was widely expected to be elected, but he had a penchant for saying and doing inappropriate things that ultimately cost him the office he sought. His name was Clayton Williams.

Of course, it didn't help him that his opponent was Ann Richards, one of the last nationally prominent Texas Democrats. But that wasn't what doomed his candidacy.

No, Williams sank his own ship, in no small part by making insensitive comments, like the one he made early in 1990 comparing bad weather to rape. "If it's inevitable," he said, supposedly as a joke, "just relax and enjoy it."

That episode popped into my mind today as I was reading a column by Bob Herbert in the New York Times.

Herbert often seems to me to be the last real advocate for those who are hurting. He has the passion — and the insight — others do not have.

"We're not smart as a nation," he writes. "We don't learn from the past, and we don't plan for the future. We've spent a year turning ourselves inside out with arguments of every sort over health care reform only to come up with a bloated, Rube Goldberg legislative mess that protects the insurance and drug industries and does not rein in runaway health care costs."

Herbert's colleague, Paul Krugman, warned, in a column yesterday, against repeating the mistake of 1937 "when the Fed and the Roosevelt administration decided that the Great Depression was over, that it was time for the economy to throw away its crutches. Spending was cut back, monetary policy was tightened — and the economy promptly plunged back into the depths."

Krugman is an economist, and he seems to have more faith in what government can do to improve conditions than Herbert does, but both warn of bad times to come if the government isn't more aggressive in its approach. The government doesn't seem capable of that.

Barack Obama doesn't have the "feel your pain" empathy that Bill Clinton had. And his defenders are more concerned about whether racism plays a role in his rising disapproval numbers and whether the jobless and/or homeless are blaming Obama or George W. Bush for the bad economy.

And Obama's foes prefer to play politics instead of offering constructive suggestions, even though their constituents are suffering — and many will slip irretrievably through the cracks before this year is out. When that happens, I think many people will just give up. I get the sense that this is only going to matter to politicians of both stripes when someone calculates how many votes they have lost as a result.

The political bean counters will always be with us, it seems to me, like the roaches that supposedly will survive a nuclear war.

Face it. Our elected leaders are not paying attention to the suffering that I believe many Americans will conclude is intolerable. They may not be making insensitive jokes, like Clayton Williams did in 1990, but that is mostly because the majority of them are professional politicians (unlike Williams, who was a businessman) and know better than alienate blocs of voters.

It seems inevitable that the dismal economic conditions will be with us for quite awhile, but few will be relaxing and enjoying it.

Denial Ain't Just a River in Egypt

There is plenty of bad news in the latest Pew Research findings.

Most of it appears to be bad news for Democrats, since they hold the White House and majorities in both houses of Congress. But there is some for the loyal opposition, even though the Republicans wield little, if any, power these days.

"The mood of America is glum," Pew reports. "Two–thirds of the public is dissatisfied with the way things are going in the country. Fully nine in 10 say that national economic conditions are only fair or poor, and nearly two–thirds describe their own finances that way — the most since the summer of 1992."

That's bad news for the party in power. The Democrats have held majorities in both houses of Congress since the midterm elections of 2006. They've held the White House for nearly a year. In the public's mind, they own the economy. Not George W. Bush. Not the Republicans.

And it isn't just domestic issues that contribute to this negative mood. "An increasing proportion of Americans say that the war in Afghanistan is not going well," Pew reports. To make matters worse for the Democrats, "a plurality continues to oppose the health care reform proposals in Congress."

Pew observes that Barack Obama's approval ratings haven't changed since July — but those ratings are far from the glittering numbers he enjoyed in the early days of his administration. "[O]pinions about congressional incumbents are another matter," Pew says — and that should concern congressional Democrats because, unlike 2008, they will not have Obama at the top of the ballot to attract the largely supportive but traditionally non–participatory demographic groups that propelled Democrats last year.

It has been my feeling for quite some time that Democrats would run into trouble in 2010. For one thing, a political party seldom enjoys three consecutive successful elections. For another, history says that midterm elections almost always go against the party in power.

And, if that wasn't enough, Obama and the Democrats have made no effort to encourage job creation in this country. I don't have to hear many words being spoken by Obama or someone in his administration — or one of his diehard supporters — that lead me to the conclusion that the speaker (whoever he or she may be) truly understands what it is like to lose a job in this economy.

Or that they comprehend the price they will pay at the ballot box next year.

I've heard all the excuses. And I've studied my history. And, on the rare occasions when I hear Democrats speak about unemployment, the same word pops into my head.

"Denial."

Yesterday there was a report that Obama has decided that joblessness — which, according to the latest reports, is at 10.2% — is serious enough to warrant a White House jobs summit — next month.

"[W]e have an obligation to consider every additional, responsible step that we can to encourage and accelerate job creation in this country," Obama said.

At the very least, this should have been done 10 or 11 months ago — if not in the first few weeks after last year's election.

Ian Swanson and Jordan Fabian write in The Hill that this is the latest evidence that Obama and the Democrats are getting nervous about next year's elections.

Actually, Swanson and Fabian sort of offer Democrats a new excuse when they write, "Unemployment wasn't expected to hit double digits that soon, and many economists now warn they do not expect the jobless rate to drop until at least next summer; in the most recent recessions, unemployment has not stopped rising until a year after the recession's end."

(I can accept that as an explanation, but not as an excuse for inaction. Not when the better part of this year has been squandered on a banal debate over health care.)

"That could doom dozens of incumbent lawmakers in the House and Senate, jeopardizing the large majorities Democrats enjoy in both chambers," Swanson and Fabian say. "That, in turn, could make it impossible for Obama to move his agenda forward in the latter half of his first term."

It seems to me that the very act of calling for a "summit" is a denial of reality. It suggests that joblessness is something new — a conclusion that has only recently been reached because conditions have suddenly worsened.

The conditions were in place before Obama was elected. He and Joe Biden can protest that they "misread" the economy, but that excuse doesn't hold much water. Their statements on the campaign trail last year clearly implied that they knew how devastating the situation was.

But, even if they didn't, wasn't it Obama who, as president–elect, spoke of assembling a team of experts who would be prepared to deal with every crisis? Where have these guys been all year?

The stimulus package that Congress passed and Obama signed back in February was promoted for its alleged potential to put Americans back to work. But, to those who were unemployed then and remain unemployed today, that sounds like nothing but lip service — just like the talk coming from the White House and Congress about how many jobs have been "saved."

The reality that the unemployed see is the billions being spent to bail out banks and big corporations while the little guys — who did nothing to bring on this economic calamity — are scolded for needing extensions of unemployment benefits because no one is hiring.

Some people do see the urgency. Paul Krugman writes, in the New York Times, that "these aren't normal times. Right now, workers who lose their jobs aren't moving to the jobs of the future; they're entering the ranks of the unemployed and staying there. Long–term unemployment is already at its highest levels since the 1930s, and it's still on the rise."

Krugman observes that long–term unemployment "inflicts long–term damage ... so it's time to try something different." Krugman has been saying, for months, that the stimulus package was not big enough. Now, he says, we must discuss "cheaper alternatives that address the job problem directly."

He concludes that "we need to start doing something more than, and different from, what we're already doing."

But, if you're a Democrat who prefers to live in that cozy cocoon of denial, Peter Fenn has a one–word response in Politico.com to those who wonder if it is possible for Democrats to get through next year's midterm elections unscathed. "Absolutely."

Denial.

The Dead and the Dying

The last couple of days have presented us with ample reminders that those who are not already dead are busy dying.

The most obvious example of the former comes to us from my neck of the woods — yesterday's mass shootings at Fort Hood, Texas. The Killeen Daily Herald today provides eyewitness accounts of the carnage that claimed — by current counts — 13 lives.

Granted, Fort Hood is about a two–hour drive from Dallas, but that's like a stroll in the park, by Texas standards.

A resolution appears to be on the verge of passing the House that will honor those who were killed. Hopefully, the death toll will not rise, but 30 other people were injured and all but two had to be hospitalized. The victims who remain hospitalized today are listed in stable condition so there is reason to believe no one else will die, but complications have been known to occur.

Well, if anything good can be said about those 13 deaths, it would be that they were quick. For the long–term jobless in America, a quick demise would be preferable to the slow agony they are experiencing.

And the agony continues. The Labor Department reported today that unemployment has exceeded 10% in America.

Perhaps in anticipation of that development, perhaps in reaction to Tuesday's elections, Congress approved an extension of unemployment benefits that Barack Obama was scheduled to sign into law today.

I have to admit that the timing seems suspect to me. Hundreds of thousands of Americans have been losing their benefits in the last several months, while the Democrats have been obsessing over health care reform. Then Democrats lose two governorships — and a couple of days later, the Democrats in Congress approve a benefits extension.

Paul Krugman writes, in the New York Times, that "economic policy is starting to look like [Obama's] Anzio" because he was too cautious in his approach.

This benefit extension may seem like a bold move to some. And, as one of the long–term unemployed, I appreciate these crumbs that Obama and the Democrats in Congress are tossing to us. But I feel that they are treating a symptom when it is a disease that is killing us.

Takin' It To the Bank

Paul Krugman has an interesting column in today's New York Times about the state of America's banks.

Without a doubt, the economy is complicated. And there were several factors involved in the meltdown in 2008.

To a certain extent, I guess, everyone was culpable. But some played a greater role than others.

And I don't think there can be any doubt that the banks played a huge role in what happened. Whether one is an economist or an innocent bystander, I think that much is clear.

Given the fact that the financial institutions received so much bailout money from America's taxpayers — a down payment, as it were, on the expectation that banks would, in turn, make loans available that would keep businesses afloat and help create jobs — the news that they have been rewarding their top dogs with massive bonuses (or, in the case of Citigroup, proceeding with plans to purchase a brand–new corporate jet) while, as Krugman puts it, "the rest of America, the victim of a slump made on Wall Street, continues to bleed jobs" has provoked anger and resentment.

Clearly, the nation's financial future depends upon the solvency of the banks. It would have been reckless and irresponsible to allow them to go under.

But it seems that the banks have forgotten to whom they owe their continued existence.

---

Ask the people at Goldman, and they'll tell you that it's nobody's business but their own how much they earn. But as one critic recently put it: "There is no financial institution that exists today that is not the direct or indirect beneficiary of trillions of dollars of taxpayer support for the financial system." Indeed: Goldman has made a lot of money in its trading operations, but it was only able to stay in that game thanks to policies that put vast amounts of public money at risk, from the bailout of A.I.G. to the guarantees extended to many of Goldman’s bonds.

Paul Krugman

---

It's a complicated matter, this sour economy. There are no easy answers. But Krugman's New York Times colleague, Frank Rich, lent a little perspective to things in a recent column, in which he reminded readers that John D. Rockefeller's Standard Oil was known as "the Octopus" early in the 20th century.

"Goldman is this century's octopus," he wrote, although there are differences, most notably that Goldman Sachs was not a monopoly.

But he proceeds to observe that "the tone–deaf Treasury secretary, Timothy Geithner, never ceases to amaze. His daily calendars reveal that most of his contacts with the financial sector in the first seven months of 2009 were limited to the trinity of Goldman Sachs, Citigroup and JPMorgan. ... It's hard to see how any public official can challenge a culture that he is marinating in, night and day."

It's a complicated mess, all right. And Krugman's column should be read in its entirety, but his conclusion is worth jumping to.

"The main thing for the time being is probably to do as much as possible to support job growth. With luck, this will produce a virtuous circle in which an improving economy strengthens the banks, which then become more willing to lend.

"Beyond that, we desperately need to pass effective financial reform. For if we don't, bankers will soon be taking even bigger risks than they did in the run–up to this crisis."

Someone — if not the president, who appears to possess principles but has not clearly demonstrated his commitment to most of them, then someone like a Treasury secretary, although it is far from clear that this Treasury secretary has the cojones for the task — must insist that the financial institutions understand that things are different now.

And if, as Krugman writes, they feel it is no one else's business what their earnings are, they need to be reminded, in no uncertain terms, why they are still in business.

Words I Never Thought I'd Hear -- or Read

There's a lot of rhetoric — on both sides — in the health care reform debate.

And I know that economist/columnist Paul Krugman has tended to support Barack Obama's actions since taking office. Sometimes, he hasn't thought those actions went far enough, but he supported them, anyway.

Well, today I was mildly shocked when I read the headline on his column in the New York Times — "Missing Richard Nixon."

Now, Nixon spent the last 20 years of his life trying to rehabilitate his image. Initially, he was about as grudging as Pete Rose, determined not to admit that he had made a mistake. But he came to the conclusion rather quickly that he had to offer his mea culpa before he would be forgiven.

There are times, as Krugman has discovered, when Nixon doesn't look so bad in hindsight.

One such time is the current health care reform debate. Most of us remember when Bill Clinton and the Democrats tried to reform health care in the 1990s, but not as many Americans remember when reforming health care was on the agenda in the early 1970s.

"Many of the retrospectives on Ted Kennedy's life mention his regret that he didn't accept Richard Nixon's offer of a bipartisan health care deal," Krugman writes. I couldn't have been very old when that happened. I have no memory of it so I'll have to take Krugman's word for it.

But Krugman writes that "[t]he moral some commentators take from that regret is that today's health care reformers should do what Mr. Kennedy balked at doing back then, and reach out to the other side."

I've heard that from others. But Krugman doesn't buy it — "surveying current politics, I find myself missing Richard Nixon."

Wait a minute. Hold the phone. I can remember Nixon's landslide victory in 1972, and I can remember when he resigned two years later. Nixon was never popular with my parents and their friends, but when he left office, it literally seemed to me that he was universally despised.

It's been 35 years since he left office, and it's been 15 years since he died. Individual attitudes toward Richard Nixon the man may have softened, but I never expected to hear or read anyone say they missed having him in the White House.

Fortunately, Krugman was quick to elaborate.

"No, I haven't lost my mind. Nixon was surely the worst person other than Dick Cheney ever to control the executive branch. But the Nixon era was a time in which leading figures in both parties were capable of speaking rationally about policy, and in which policy decisions weren't as warped by corporate cash as they are now."

Well, that makes sense. Especially when he goes on to suggest that the influence of corporate cash has rendered the nation ungovernable. But it isn't that tidy.

"Nixon's proposal for health care reform looks a lot like Democratic proposals today," Krugman writes. "In fact, in some ways it was stronger. Right now, Republicans are balking at the idea of requiring that large employers offer health insurance to their workers; Nixon proposed requiring that all employers, not just large companies, offer insurance."

What happened? The right wing took over the Republican Party, Krugman says. "Moderate Republicans ... have either been driven out of the party or intimidated into silence."

But that's too simplistic as well. "We tend to think of the way things are now ... as the way it always was," Krugman writes. "But our corporate–cash–dominated system is a relatively recent creation, dating mainly from the late 1970s. And now that this system exists, reform of any kind has become extremely difficult. That's especially true for health care, where growing spending has made the vested interests far more powerful than they were in Nixon's day."

It is enough to spark memories of Deep Throat's admonition to Woodward and Bernstein — just follow the money.

"Given the combination of G.O.P. extremism and corporate power," Krugman writes, "it's now doubtful whether health reform, even if we get it — which is by no means certain — will be anywhere near as good as Nixon's proposal, even though Democrats control the White House and have a large Congressional majority."

As he wrapped up his column, Krugman appears to have thought that he was coming off as too pessimistic. "I'm not saying that reformers should give up," he writes. "They do, however, have to realize what they're up against."

That, too, seems to be a rational answer, and that leads us to what may be an insurmountable problem. Krugman manages to touch on it at the end.

Many of those who voted for Obama, it seems to me, have invested a lot of their emotional well–being into the belief that the election of Obama last year was a transformational moment for the nation. I have thought all along that it was a step that had to be taken at some point, but it did not ultimately resolve anything.

Thinking that it did is nothing more than denial.

"[T]rue transformation, it turns out, requires a lot more than electing one telegenic leader," Krugman says. "Actually turning this country around is going to take years of siege warfare against deeply entrenched interests, defending a deeply dysfunctional political system."

Emphasizing job creation seems a little more logical now, doesn't it? Putting people to work is something everyone can agree on, right?

Shock and Awe in Obama's America

I have mentioned before how much I admire Nobel Prize–winning economist Paul Krugman. He is intelligent and he provides great insight in his columns for the New York Times.

Today's column is a good example. Here is how it begins:

---

"According to news reports, the Obama administration — which seemed, over the weekend, to be backing away from the 'public option' for health insurance — is shocked and surprised at the furious reaction from progressives.

"Well, I'm shocked and surprised at their shock and surprise.

"A backlash in the progressive base — which pushed President Obama over the top in the Democratic primary and played a major role in his general election victory — has been building for months. The fight over the public option involves real policy substance, but it's also a proxy for broader questions about the president's priorities and overall approach."

---

Krugman writes in the context of the health care reform debate, but that pretty well describes the last seven months in general.

In all candor, Krugman does a better job than I have of explaining what was at the heart of my own misgivings over Obama last year and why, in the end, even though I am a Democrat, I chose to vote for Ralph Nader. People asked me why, and all I could say was that I wasn't comfortable with Obama.

I wanted to be comfortable with him. I really did. I knew I wasn't comfortable with the McCain–Palin ticket, but, try as I might, I just couldn't trust Obama enough to give him my vote.

At the time, I think I was bothered by the fact that I didn't feel he had been adequately tested by the nominating process.

In modern times, the presidential primary season has served as a trial by fire for wannabe leaders. Most of them — even the eventual nominees — get bloodied along the way, but the ones who prevail are the ones who pass the test. I guess it isn't desirable for politicians who want to be universally loved, but it tends to be reassuring for the rest of us. It tells us that the candidate in question can — in the words of the old Timex commercials — take a lickin' and keep on tickin'.

In spite of what some people seem to think, that is more important than knowing that a president is savvy when it comes to the latest technology.

But Obama has never really been tested that way. He was practically handed his Senate seat in 2004. Obama won the 2008 nomination over Hillary Clinton, who was promptly slapped down by progressive Democrats when she tried to challenge the myths that progressives perpetuated about him. When President Clinton tried to do the same thing, he was practically booed off the national stage.

Then, in the general election campaign, John McCain's rebukes were so mild one had to wonder if he harbored some irrational belief that he might yet win some black votes if he wasn't too critical of "The One." He was just critical enough to avoid charges of pandering to black voters — perhaps because he was sensitive to such charges after choosing a woman running mate in what was widely seen as a move to appeal to disenchanted Hillary Clinton supporters.

So an inexperienced and untested Barack Obama was elected president. And, right away, he began seeking bipartisan consensus with bitter and ideologically rigid Republicans, making concession after concession while the minority party made none — and gave his stimulus package almost no congressional support.

Obama didn't learn from that experience. He continues to yield ground to foes who have shown no willingness to work with him.

"It's hard to avoid the sense that Mr. Obama has wasted months trying to appease people who can't be appeased, and who take every concession as a sign that he can be rolled," Krugman writes.

Another problem, which Krugman doesn't really address in his column, is the fact that, for all the praise he has received for his oratorical skills and political instincts, Obama has frequently seemed to be tone deaf — making almost casual statements that bring down public wrath unnecessarily and force the White House to backpedal at times when it needs to be leading the charge.

"So progressives are now in revolt," Krugman concludes. "Mr. Obama took their trust for granted, and in the process lost it. And now he needs to win it back."

Is there enough time?

In Praise of Big Government

---

---

I am an admirer of economist Paul Krugman.

Not only is he a Nobel Prize winner, but he is also a good writer capable of making complex theories comprehensible for ordinary folks. His latest column for the New York Times is a good example.

His premise in the column is that big government prevented the recession, as bad as it is, from becoming a depression.

He doesn't pull any punches. He admits, as Peter Finch said in his "I'm as mad as hell" speech in the movie "Network," that "we know things are bad — worse than bad."

---

Just to be clear: the economic situation remains terrible, indeed worse than almost anyone thought possible not long ago. The nation has lost 6.7 million jobs since the recession began. Once you take into account the need to find employment for a growing working–age population, we're probably around nine million jobs short of where we should be.

---

As one of the unemployed, I can attest to the roller coaster ride out–of–work people go through on a daily basis. You get up in the morning, feeling the hope that comes with the dawn of a new day, but you get gradually beaten down as the day progresses. By the time night arrives, you crawl into bed with your tail between your legs and hope to get the rest you need to muster more enthusiasm for the next day, which is also likely to be a downer.

That is, if fear and anxiety don't invade your dreams and keep you from getting the rest you crave.

It was hard to share in the optimism of some Democrats last week, when word came out that the unemployment rate had fallen by 0.1% in July.

But Krugman wasn't drinking the Kool–Aid. Well, not entirely.

---

And the job market still hasn't turned around — that slight dip in the measured unemployment rate last month was probably a statistical fluke. We haven't yet reached the point at which things are actually improving; for now, all we have to celebrate are indications that things are getting worse more slowly.

---

I have written, in recent days, of my frustration with Barack Obama for breaking his campaign promise to offer tax credits to companies that hired Americans this year and next year. I believed, before he took office, that the emphasis needed to be on job creation, but I have seen precious little of that, in spite of some big talk from lawmakers when the stimulus package was passed and then signed.

Krugman himself has argued that the stimulus package was too small. But he, like many of his colleagues at the Times, has been an enthusiastic cheerleader for the Obama administration. And today, he praises what government did to put the brakes to the freefall.

---

A few months ago the possibility of falling into the abyss seemed all too real. The financial panic of late 2008 was as severe, in some ways, as the banking panic of the early 1930s, and for a while key economic indicators — world trade, world industrial production, even stock prices — were falling as fast as or faster than they did in 1929–30.

But in the 1930s the trend lines just kept heading down. This time, the plunge appears to be ending after just one terrible year.

So what saved us from a full replay of the Great Depression? The answer, almost surely, lies in the very different role played by government.

---

He praises the " 'automatic' stabilizing effect" federal spending has had, along with government's efforts to "rescue the financial sector."

---

You can argue (and I would) that the bailouts of financial firms could and should have been handled better, that taxpayers have paid too much and received too little. Yet it's possible to be dissatisfied, even angry, about the way the financial bailouts have worked while acknowledging that without these bailouts things would have been much worse.

The point is that this time, unlike in the 1930s, the government didn't take a hands–off attitude while much of the banking system collapsed. And that's another reason we're not living through Great Depression II.

---

And he praises the government's efforts to pump up the economy.

---

All in all, then, the government has played a crucial stabilizing role in this economic crisis. Ronald Reagan was wrong: sometimes the private sector is the problem, and government is the solution.

And aren't you glad that right now the government is being run by people who don't hate government?

---

Yes, frankly, I am.

And I am glad, as I usually am, that Krugman is there to remind me that things are getting better. Incrementally, perhaps. And that light at the end of the tunnel may be merely a speck in the distance right now. But at least it is there. And it seems to be on track to get larger.

But there are still problems. Unemployment benefits are going to run out for many people before long. I understand why Obama urges people to be patient. Will their patience last longer than their money does?

---

I'm still very worried about the economy. There's still, I fear, a substantial chance that unemployment will remain high for a very long time. But we appear to have averted the worst: utter catastrophe no longer seems likely.

And Big Government, run by people who understand its virtues, is the reason why.

---

I'll try to keep that in mind while I try to keep the night terrors at bay.

The 'Jobless' Recovery

The news today wasn't good for the unemployed.

After job losses in May were less than expected, sparking hopes that things were turning around in the jobs market, unemployment went up for the ninth consecutive month in June. More than 450,000 jobs were lost, compared to 322,000 in May.

And, as CNN points out, job losses were much worse than had been predicted.

The light that some people were seeing at the end of the tunnel seems to be moving farther away.

In recent days, Paul Krugman, the Nobel Prize–winning economist and columnist for the New York Times, has been urging a second round of stimulus money.

He observed, in an interview with ABC News, that the nation faces a "prolonged jobless" recovery unless more stimulus money is pumped into the economy.

Earlier this year, when Barack Obama and the Democrats were congratulating themselves on getting the original stimulus package passed, Krugman was one of the leading critics, claiming that it was inadequate.

With the concessions the Democrats made in the misguided effort for bipartisanship, it has, indeed, proven to be inadequate.

In the months that have passed, the Democrats have gained a fillibuster–proof majority in the Senate. Their Republican colleagues will complain, but they have complained about everything the Democrats have done.

Now, their cooperation is no longer necessary.

Bipartisanship would be nice — in a perfect world. But this world is far from perfect.

And the unemployment situation is exactly the kind of thing I was talking about earlier this week when I said that the Democrats need to be clear about why they must do certain things.

Sometimes I feel like Hawkeye in the "M*A*S*H" TV series. Frustrated with the tepid pace of the peace talks, he burst into one of the sessions and told the diplomats, "You know what to do. Why can't you just do it? People are dying out there. You've got to stop it."

Winning is not the only thing. What is more important is doing the right things with legislative power.

And not being paralyzed by the fear of criticism from your political opponents.

Reagan's Role

Former first lady Nancy Reagan was in Washington today for the unveiling of a statue of her late husband in National Statuary Hall in the U.S. Capitol.

The last time Mrs. Reagan was in the Capitol Rotunda was for the memorial for her husband five years ago this month.

Each state is permitted to contribute statues of two of its prominent citizens to the Statuary Hall collection. Sometimes a statue is replaced. Today, Reagan's statue replaced the statue of Thomas Starr King, a Unitarian minister who was an influential figure in California politics during the Civil War. The other Californian in Statuary Hall is Father Junípero Serra, who was beatified by Pope John Paul II a few months before Reagan left the White House.

I'm sure the timing was not coincidental, but Paul Krugman wrote in the New York Times a few days ago that, if you want to pinpoint the origin of the current financial crisis, the blame can be put at the feet of Ronald Reagan and the Garn–St. Germain Depository Institutions Act he signed into law in 1982.

"[T]he bill turned the modest–sized troubles of savings–and–loan institutions into an utter catastrophe," Krugman writes.

"Attacks on Reaganomics usually focus on rising inequality and fiscal irresponsibility," Krugman continues. "Indeed, Reagan ushered in an era in which a small minority grew vastly rich, while working families saw only meager gains. He also broke with longstanding rules of fiscal prudence."

When seen in that light, Dick Cheney's insistence several years ago that "Reagan proved deficits don't matter" would be laughably ludicrous — if millions of Americans weren't having to pay the price today.

Anyway ...

I was looking over the list of the statues in Statuary Hall today. I was curious, as someone who grew up in Arkansas, to know who represents my home state. I figure, at some point, a statue of Bill Clinton will be put up there. He had his shortcomings, but he left office with a budget surplus and he is the only Arkansan ever elected president. I'm sure he could replace either of the Arkansans currently in Statuary Hall with virtually no opposition.

The most likely prospect to give his spot to Clinton would be James Paul Clarke, a largely unsuccessful governor and a fairly modest senator. I studied Arkansas history as a part of my fifth–grade curriculum, and I remember very little about Clarke. To be honest, I'm not entirely certain why he was chosen to represent the state in Statuary Hall.

The other prospect is a statue of a fellow named Uriah Rose. I don't believe he ever held public office in Arkansas. He was a lawyer, and the law firm he joined in the 19th century bears his name — the Rose Law Firm. Its first female partner was Hillary Clinton.

Of course, lots of states have only one president — or two or three — and most of them aren't included in Statuary Hall.

You might think that former presidents occupy a large part of Statuary Hall, but that isn't the case. Some aren't there, presumably, because history judged them to be failures. But that isn't always the case, either.

Reagan is only the fifth ex–president whose statue has been placed there — and the presidents whose likenesses adorn Statuary Hall are not necessarily the ones you might expect. Abraham Lincoln, for example, is not there. Of course, he already has a monument in Washington.

But so does George Washington and his statue is one of the ones that represents Virginia. Thomas Jefferson, however, is not the other Virginian in the collection. That distinction belongs to Robert E. Lee.

Neither of the Roosevelts represent New York. John F. Kennedy doesn't represent Massachusetts. And Harry Truman doesn't represent Missouri.

The other three presidents in Statuary Hall are Dwight Eisenhower (representing the state in which he grew up, Kansas), James Garfield (representing Ohio) and Andrew Jackson (representing Tennessee).

Three former vice presidents (George Clinton, John C. Calhoun, Hannibal Hamlin) and several would–be presidents have statues in Statuary Hall, and the president of the Confederacy, Jefferson Davis, is one of those representing the state of Mississippi, but most came from other walks of life.

Considering that Statuary Hall is in the Old Hall of the House (the "People's" House), I guess that is appropriate.

No, We Can't?

My earlier confusion over Barack Obama's intention in his TV appearance tonight appears to be resolved — as I understand it, he will make a statement to the nation, then he will take questions from members of the press.

So it's going to be a floor wax and a dessert topping.

But I'm not expecting much.

For all of Obama's conciliatory efforts, how many Republicans in the Congress have said they will support the economic stimulus package — even when tax cuts (the real sacred cow for the GOP) are thrown into the mix? And in spite of clear evidence that something must be done?

And, unless I am misreading his column today, Paul Krugman, Nobel Prize-winning economist and columnist for the New York Times, isn't encouraged by the Senate compromise, of which Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson spoke in such glowing terms a few days ago.

"Even if the original Obama plan... had been enacted," Krugman writes, "it wouldn't have been enough to fill the looming hole in the U.S. economy, which the Congressional Budget Office estimates will amount to $2.9 trillion over the next three years."

And the cuts that were agreed to only make it "weaker and worse," Krugman says.

Here are a few excerpts from his column. You should read the whole thing:

• "One of the best features of the original plan was aid to cash-strapped state governments, which would have provided a quick boost to the economy while preserving essential services. But the centrists insisted on a $40 billion cut in that spending."


• "The original plan also included badly needed spending on school construction; $16 billion of that spending was cut."


• "It included aid to the unemployed, especially help in maintaining health care — cut. Food stamps — cut."

"All in all, more than $80 billion was cut from the plan," Krugman says, "with the great bulk of those cuts falling on precisely the measures that would do the most to reduce the depth and pain of this slump."

Meanwhile, Krugman writes, the compromise did nothing about "one of the worst provisions in the Senate bill, a tax credit for home buyers." This provision, he says, "will cost a lot of money while doing nothing to help the economy."

If tax cuts are the answer, as the Republicans always contend, why are millions of Americans losing their jobs? Why are millions losing their homes? Republicans held the White House for the last eight years. Tax cuts were enacted. Shouldn't we be seeing the benefits they promised?

For that matter, if deregulation is such a wonderful thing, why are we dealing with salmonella from peanut butter?

This compromise, says Krugman, has led to legislation that will result in "comforting the comfortable while afflicting the afflicted ... lead[ing] to substantially lower employment and substantially more suffering."

Maybe I was wrong, but I thought Obama was elected because people believed he would bring an end to the through-the-looking-glass approach to government that was a hallmark of the Bush years. I see less evidence of that as the days go by.

Krugman says Obama's "belief that he can transcend the partisan divide" is to blame. He says that belief has "warped his economic strategy."

Essentially, Krugman writes, Obama sold out those who expected "a really strong stimulus plan" in a misguided effort to achieve bipartisanship. Thus far, the president has gained not one Republican vote in exchange — not in the Senate, not in the House.

What's more, Krugman says, "[e]arly indications aren't good" that Obama has learned from the experience.

Obama has an opportunity tonight to re-establish himself and take a firm stance that reassures the people who have been hurt by the recession that he really is on their side. He can go over the heads of the Rush Limbaugh acolytes in the Senate, lay it on the line for the senators, urge the voters to contact their senators and insist that they pass an economic stimulus package that really helps.

We're wasting valuable time on this. Frankly, it is obscene for the same senators who gave the go-ahead to the unending war in Iraq — and its immense price tag — to complain about the high cost of repairing the American economy. I hope Obama will use the bully pulpit appropriately tonight, but I don't have a lot of confidence that he will.

So we the people may have to do it ourselves. Contact your senators. You can find e-mail addresses, Washington office addresses and phone numbers for your state's senators at this website. Contact them and tell them you demand action. Not just action — action that will do some real good for real people who are really hurting.

And tell them you will remember what they do when it is your turn to vote.

Crawling Along the Edge of a Knife

Paul Krugman writes in the New York Times that "what should have been a deadly serious debate about how to save an economy in desperate straits turned, instead, into hackneyed political theater."

I admit that the same feeling has occurred to me, and the more I read of Krugman's observations, the more I find myself nodding in agreement.

Particularly after today's jobs report. The economy didn't quite lose 600,000 jobs in January, but it came close. And the unemployment rate has risen to 7.6%. Job losses haven't been so severe since December 1974 — when Gerald Ford was president, "WIN" buttons were in the news, and I was 15 years old.

"Somehow," Krugman writes, "Washington has lost any sense of what's at stake — of the reality that we may well be falling into an economic abyss, and that if we do, it will be very hard to get out again."

I have frequently pointed out that I am not an economist. But Krugman is. He is a professor of economics and international affairs at Princeton, in addition to being a columnist for the Times. Last year, he won the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences.

So, when Krugman speaks, I listen.

These days, what he says seems so obvious to me that I am truly baffled that others, especially the obstructionists in Washington, can't — or won't — see it.

Are the ranks of the Republicans in Congress filled with Rush Limbaugh wannabes?

This isn't a game. This is deadly serious business. What the Congress does today is literally going to affect the lives of millions of people. Indeed, it will affect whether millions of people believe there is any point in continuing to live at all.

Yet the lawmakers in Washington persist in treating it as politics as usual. Their insistence on blocking the economic stimulus package is proof of that.

Krugman admits the package isn't perfect. "[A] number of economists, myself included, think the plan falls short and should be substantially bigger," he says. "But the Obama plan would certainly improve our odds. And that's why the efforts of Republicans to make the plan smaller and less effective — to turn it into little more than another round of Bush-style tax cuts — are so destructive."

Barack Obama has been president for a little more than two weeks, but Krugman is unflinching in his assessment of the new president's actions. "Count me among those who think that the president made a big mistake in his initial approach, that his attempts to transcend partisanship ended up empowering politicians who take their marching orders from Rush Limbaugh," he writes. "What matters now, however, is what he does next."

And what would that be?

Obama should "go on the offensive," he writes. "Above all, he must not shy away from pointing out that those who stand in the way of his plan, in the name of a discredited economic philosophy, are putting the nation's future at risk."

In Krugman's own words, the national economy "is on the edge of catastrophe, and much of the Republican Party is trying to push it over that edge."

That is the kind of thing that the American voters elected Obama to prevent. As the president, it is admirable that he has sought a bipartisan agreement to avoid a worse economic disaster. But the disaster is largely the doing of the Republicans who were at the helm of government for so many years.

And now they refuse to cooperate when Obama and the Democrats are trying to clean up the mess and prevent an even worse situation from occurring.

Obama must not abdicate the responsibility with which he has been entrusted. If the Republicans refuse to act for the common good, he must give up on the idea of bipartisanship — at least for the time being.

Maybe bipartisanship can be achieved on something else. But if the Republicans refuse to act in the nation's hour of need, Democrats must proceed alone.

This is what they were elected to do. And that is what they are expected to do.

Obama and the Democrats in Congress must show the courage the voters expect from them.