Sunday, October 31, 2004
Go Kerry
I just came back from a little haunted house put up by my friendly neighbors. I also got done today reading Paul Krugman's The Great Unraveling, a collection of his columns from the New York Times. The book was scarier.
Rather than presenting the columns in chronological order, Krugman has presented them with some categorization. Read each category and you see how Krugman's nagging suspicions (cronyism in the Bush government, the tax cuts, saving Social Security) get progressively confirmed - doubt gives way to dismay. Many people think that Krugman is biased, but there is no questioning that the points he raises are quite fundamental and quite valid.
Take, for instance, Bush Campaign 2000's plan to save Social Security. Remember the controversy generated during Bush's 2000 campaign about fuzzy math? The Bush campaign in 2000 were saying that the key to reforming Social Security was privatization. If Social Security funds were put in investment accounts, they would get higher returns.
June 2000 : what Bush and the Republicans claimed about the privatization model appears to have basic, fundamental flaws. Krugman first points out an issue in June 2000 before Bush is elected. July 2001 : after a Bush-sponsored commission on the reform of Social Security comes out with its report, Krugman points out the exact same error. July 2002 : following a report from the Center on Budget and Policy priorities by Peter Diamond and Peter Orszag, Krugman is still pointing out the exact same error. The result today : the surplus is gone, and nobody knows how Social Security is going to be fixed.
As with so many other issues, it seems like once the Bush government has made up its mind and got things rolling, no force of logic is going to shift the plans. There is, of course, the classical case of the war in Iraq. Many people pointed out that the number of troops on the ground was not sufficient, but they went ahead with the occupation anyway. What has been shifting is the rationale, as Krugman points out. First, the rationale for the war was the Saddam-Al Qaeda link. Then, it was Saddam's nuclear program (nuclear weapons were an important aspect of the "weapons of mass destruction" claim). Then, it was democracy in the region, and a possibility of invading Syria and Iran.
What is amazing is the intrasigence of the adminstration. The policies don't seem to change, only the rationale. There may be only one way to change the policies. Go Kerry!
Rather than presenting the columns in chronological order, Krugman has presented them with some categorization. Read each category and you see how Krugman's nagging suspicions (cronyism in the Bush government, the tax cuts, saving Social Security) get progressively confirmed - doubt gives way to dismay. Many people think that Krugman is biased, but there is no questioning that the points he raises are quite fundamental and quite valid.
Take, for instance, Bush Campaign 2000's plan to save Social Security. Remember the controversy generated during Bush's 2000 campaign about fuzzy math? The Bush campaign in 2000 were saying that the key to reforming Social Security was privatization. If Social Security funds were put in investment accounts, they would get higher returns.
June 2000 : what Bush and the Republicans claimed about the privatization model appears to have basic, fundamental flaws. Krugman first points out an issue in June 2000 before Bush is elected. July 2001 : after a Bush-sponsored commission on the reform of Social Security comes out with its report, Krugman points out the exact same error. July 2002 : following a report from the Center on Budget and Policy priorities by Peter Diamond and Peter Orszag, Krugman is still pointing out the exact same error. The result today : the surplus is gone, and nobody knows how Social Security is going to be fixed.
As with so many other issues, it seems like once the Bush government has made up its mind and got things rolling, no force of logic is going to shift the plans. There is, of course, the classical case of the war in Iraq. Many people pointed out that the number of troops on the ground was not sufficient, but they went ahead with the occupation anyway. What has been shifting is the rationale, as Krugman points out. First, the rationale for the war was the Saddam-Al Qaeda link. Then, it was Saddam's nuclear program (nuclear weapons were an important aspect of the "weapons of mass destruction" claim). Then, it was democracy in the region, and a possibility of invading Syria and Iran.
What is amazing is the intrasigence of the adminstration. The policies don't seem to change, only the rationale. There may be only one way to change the policies. Go Kerry!
