Krugman: Deficit problems “already, to a large degree, solved”

posted at 8:31 am on January 18, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

Alfred E. Newman, meet Paul Krugman.  Less than a week after the Treasury reported that the US was on its way to a fifth straight trillion-dollar annual budget deficit, the New York Times columnist and Nobel Prize winner says we’re worried about nothing.  The deficit problem, Krugman assures us, has been “already, to a large degree, solved.”

Did I miss the space invaders?

This is, however, a case in which what everyone knows just ain’t so. The budget deficit isn’t our biggest problem, by a long shot. Furthermore, it’s a problem that is already, to a large degree, solved. The medium-term budget outlook isn’t great, but it’s not terrible either — and the long-term outlook gets much more attention than it should.

It’s true that right now we have a large federal budget deficit. But that deficit is mainly the result of a depressed economy — and you’re actually supposed to run deficits in a depressed economy to help support overall demand. The deficit will come down as the economy recovers: Revenue will rise while some categories of spending, such as unemployment benefits, will fall. Indeed, that’s already happening. (And similar things are happening at the state and local levels — for example, California appears to be back in budget surplus.)

Er, yeah.  California has spent the last several budget years appearing to be back in surplus, thanks to tax hikes and fee assessments, only to discover ten-figure deficits when the theoretical meets reality.  Krugman is right, though, that this largely mirrors what happens on the federal level, such as when the President insists that he has cut spending by more than $1.4 trillion while federal spending has increased by almost 10% during his tenure.

But what about those future budget projections that Krugman insists are overhyped?

Now, projections that run further into the future do suggest trouble, as an aging population and rising health care costs continue to push federal spending higher. But here’s a question you almost never see seriously addressed: Why, exactly, should we believe that it’s necessary, or even possible, to decide right now how we will eventually address the budget issues of the 2030s?

Consider, for example, the case of Social Security. There was a case for paying down debt before the baby boomers began to retire, making it easier to pay full benefits later. But George W. Bush squandered the Clinton surplus on tax cuts and wars, and that window has closed. At this point, “reform” proposals are all about things like raising the retirement age or changing the inflation adjustment, moves that would gradually reduce benefits relative to current law. What problem is this supposed to solve?

How about the current problem of the SSA paying out more than it receives?  That’s not a future-projection issue; that’s a problem that has been going on for almost three years.  Krugman’s own newspaper managed to report that; did he miss it?  Furthermore, the acceleration of people climbing onto the disability program in Social Security has made the problem get worse at a faster rate than projected at that time, too.

That’s also the larger reason we want to reform the entitlement programs now rather than in the 2030s.  They’re producing big deficits now, and it will get worse as we expand those programs through ObamaCare.  We are rapidly increasing our national debt to fund benefits we can’t afford not just in the future but in the present, which is a big reason why we’re about to have our fifth straight trillion-dollar annual budget deficit.

Bloomberg’s Caroline Baum wants to file this away for later amusement:

Meanwhile, add this to Damon Linker’s lament at The Week about reckless liberal pundits:

The White House likes to portray the president as the adult in the room — especially when the room is being used to negotiate with House Republicans over the federal budget. The good news for Obama and the Democrats is that the GOP, repeatedly driven toward reckless brinksmanship by the ideological fervor of the party’s base, appears determined to confirm the impression. But that doesn’t mean that progressives have earned the right to boast of their own fiscal sobriety and good sense. On the contrary, leading liberals have recently begun to defend positions that seem designed to prove that Democrats can be even more fiscally irresponsible than their Republican counterparts.

Consider the case of Paul Krugman — arguably the country’s most influential liberal pundit. In several New York Times columns over the past few years, and most recently this past Monday, Krugman has mocked the “Very Serious People” in Washington who express concern about the enormous deficits (in the range of $1 trillion a year) the federal government is currently running. Yes, the nation faces long-term budget challenges, Krugman concedes, but with interest rates at or near historic lows and unemployment still high, policymakers should ignore the fiscal Chicken Littles and keep right on spending.

He’s not talking about today’s column, by the way.

Everyone who looks at the issue honestly admits that addressing this deeper problem will require significant tax hikes as well as deep spending cuts. Yet Krugman continually tells his fellow liberals (and the president, whom he undoubtedly hopes is listening) that there’s no need at all to cut spending seriously. Quite the opposite. With governments currently able to finance debt at low and even negative interest rates — a development that amounts to them being offered “free money for the next 10 years” — we have no reason not to increase spending still further.

Krugman is not the only liberal to stake out such a fanciful position. Slate economics blogger Matthew Yglesias has even gone so far as to make the outlandish suggestion that the government stop collecting taxes altogether and finance its spending entirely through debt. Reading Krugman and Yglesias on the topic, you’d never guess that the principal on a loan (even one taken at zero or negative interest) eventually has to be repaid.

They must know this, right? Given that both authors recently endorsed the manifestly absurd idea that the president could pay down a chunk of the nation’s debt by instructing the Treasury Department to mint a trillion-dollar platinum coin, I’m not so sure. The suggestion is so ludicrous, it’s astonishing anyone — let alone two leading liberal pundits, one of whom is a Nobel laureate in economics — would advocate it. Yet advocate it they did.

Maybe we’ll just wait for the aliens to land.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

How much are the Chinese paying him to produce this garbage?

tom daschle concerned on January 18, 2013 at 8:35 AM

C’mon, Ed — where’s the Chip Diller video?

Mr. D on January 18, 2013 at 8:36 AM

Nobel Putz winner.

fogw on January 18, 2013 at 8:36 AM

Under the Obumbler’s new gun restrictions this Mentally Ill fella won’t be able to purchase a gun…

Tbone McGraw on January 18, 2013 at 8:37 AM

It seems that for some odd reason known as smoke and mirrors to Demonrats that they forget the fact that we are already $16 trillion in debt. And they want to keep spending more. Maybe they should all be shipped to outer space to their own planet where they can live lavishly at their own expense instead of ours.

It is amazing they can’t see the fiscal crash that is coming when rating agencies look at D.C. and bascially tell them that they didn’t do enough on spending so there goes your credit rating. The Demonrats are truly morons.

rsherwd65 on January 18, 2013 at 8:39 AM

Please tell me this fellow doesn’t have any guns.

Bmore on January 18, 2013 at 8:40 AM

And as always, a dig at Bush.
It’s like the printer won’t print unless one is in there.

Jabberwock on January 18, 2013 at 8:42 AM

Is he OK?

Good Lt on January 18, 2013 at 8:43 AM

Sure Paul, and the problem with Solyndra was that the government gave them a paltry half billion instead of ten billion.

radjah shelduck on January 18, 2013 at 8:43 AM

Can we ask the martians for $16 trillion? As friendly neighbours and allies, they’re sure to bail us out. While we’re at it, we can jointly build the Death Star. But I doubt that Krugman would get a martian visa. They seem to have a discriminatory policy regarding issuing visas to raving lunatics.

tommy71 on January 18, 2013 at 8:44 AM

His doctor should call the police.

Electrongod on January 18, 2013 at 8:47 AM

I’m expecting that, once the CBO readjusts the budget projections for Le Petite Compromise and Superpork Sandy (set for release on 2/4, the same day that the White House is supposed to have their FY2014 budget in to Congress but won’t), they’ll have the FY2013 deficit somewhere in the $950,000,000,000 range. Krugman will scream, “PROGRESS!”

A couple of tidbits from last year’s Social Security Trustees Report that sort of got lost in the shuffle:

- Just to get the combined “trust funds” (currently nothing more than a fiction) to their 2033 exhaustion point, the Treasury will have to come up with just under $5 trillion.
- By the mid-2020s, the Social Security Administration will be spending more on SocSecurity than what the government will be spending on all discretionary programs this year, adjusted for inflation.

Oh yeah – my preliminary analysis of the 2012 SocSecurity program is that once again the intermediate scenario was too rosy, though less so than in previous years.

Steve Eggleston on January 18, 2013 at 8:48 AM

Totally delusional. But then again, nobody really pays him for his economic acumen. They pay him to use his credentials as a Sooper-S-M-R-T Economist to tell liberals what they want to hear.

Sekhmet on January 18, 2013 at 8:49 AM

Not just wrong; evil, and certifiably insane. Ever more convinced I’ve woken up in an alternate universe when down is up, black is white, etc.

Midas on January 18, 2013 at 8:51 AM

Bush Spent NOTHING. Congress spends the money.

The 2006-2007 budget ( GOP + Bush ) had only 170 billion dollar deficit.

The Dems took over the next year.

By 2009 ( under Obama + Dems )the deficit was 10 TIMES higher: 1.7 Trillion.

DavidM on January 18, 2013 at 8:51 AM

This guy is a freaking nut of the nth power.

rplat on January 18, 2013 at 8:52 AM

Bedwetter

jake-the-goose on January 18, 2013 at 8:52 AM

Under the Obumbler’s new gun restrictions this Mentally Ill fella won’t be able to purchase a gun…

Tbone McGraw on January 18, 2013 at 8:37 AM

He fires blanks anyways.

Jabberwock on January 18, 2013 at 8:52 AM

Maybe we’ll just wait for the aliens to land.

Why? Obama will just bail them out too…

Gatsu on January 18, 2013 at 8:53 AM

Is he talking about Canada’s deficit problem? Because, then I’d agree with him. They solved their deficit problem. Oh. He’s talking about ours? Must be the US of A in a parallel universe then.

totherightofthem on January 18, 2013 at 8:53 AM

I want what’s he is smoking!

BigGator5 on January 18, 2013 at 8:53 AM

He’s right. Our biggest problem is the idiot in the Whitehouse.

ctmom on January 18, 2013 at 8:53 AM

From this point forward, I will refer to Krugman as Drugman because you have to be high on something to churn out obviously stupid garbage like this and continue to expect to be taken seriously.

Bitter Clinger on January 18, 2013 at 8:55 AM

I’m thinking the Norwegian Nobel Committee has been trying to warn us for years about incompetent and evil people in our midst and we have mistakenly taken their prize recipients as winners instead of warnings. Something must get lost in translation. It’s probably the monetary award that throws us.

Fallon on January 18, 2013 at 8:57 AM

TEATERMERICA…….needs an economist.

I think we found one.

PappyD61 on January 18, 2013 at 8:58 AM

I want what’s he is smoking!

BigGator5 on January 18, 2013 at 8:53 AM

No Way !
He took the brown square.

Jabberwock on January 18, 2013 at 8:58 AM

I used to think that Krugman is a super idiot communist… Now I am convinced that he is really insane and needs psychiatric help… Look at his face and his eyes… those are the looks of an insane person…

mnjg on January 18, 2013 at 8:59 AM

Invasion of the Body Snatchers has met Invasion of the Brain Suckers. This is what we get when a guy marries a rich woman and he never has to worry about where the money is coming from or if it will run out. Sorta like dear leader who got elected/reelected and sees nothing but money coming in from all his peeps. Alfred E on steroids.

Kissmygrits on January 18, 2013 at 9:01 AM

Related, from the other side of the Salem Media Empire – Social Security Cliff in Sight.

Steve Eggleston on January 18, 2013 at 9:03 AM

It’s true that right now we have a large federal budget deficit. But that deficit is mainly the result of a depressed economy — and you’re actually supposed to run deficits in a depressed economy to help support overall demand. The deficit will come down as the economy recovers: Revenue will rise while some categories of spending, such as unemployment benefits, will fall. Indeed, that’s already happening. (And similar things are happening at the state and local levels — for example, California appears to be back in budget surplus.)

The deficit will come down as the economy recovers? When exactly? We’re 3 1/2 years into the so-called recovery, yet the deficit seems to be stuck at over a trillion dollars annually. He’s right that revenues are rising at the state and local levels, but that’s happening primarily in red states with fiscally conservative governors and legislatures. And how are they doing it? By lowering taxes, reforming public pensions, and reducing spending. The exact opposite of what’s happening at the federal level.

Doughboy on January 18, 2013 at 9:04 AM

No worries. I just whittled a bazzillion dollar nickel that I am donating to the fed. EZ Peezy.

ronsfi on January 18, 2013 at 9:06 AM

Krugman is delusional. Can we stop paying attention to him now?

rbj on January 18, 2013 at 9:10 AM

Whine all you want…this guy gets paid big bucks for making foolish statements that go unchallenged.

He could are less what we think of him, only what the liberals think of him, and they love him, and pay him well.

We all want his job…say anything you want, and your friends and cronies swoon at your every word, and than pay you and honor you…yeah, your enemies hate you, but that makes your “friends” love you even more…it’s a great gig.

In liberal life, you reach a certain status and you can say or do anything, and it’s acceptable…killing women, doing drugs, doing hookers, shooting gay lovers, running a gay brothel, not paying taxes, having affairs, anything except taking money from other liberals, that’s not tolerated.

right2bright on January 18, 2013 at 9:10 AM

C’mon, Ed — where’s the Chip Diller video?

Mr. D on January 18, 2013 at 8:36 AM

I believe the insult from “Billy Madison” is more appropriate for Krugman.

Steve Eggleston on January 18, 2013 at 9:10 AM

How a former Enron crony like Krugman can become such a liberal darling is just another example of the retarded nature of modern-day liberalism.

sentinelrules on January 18, 2013 at 9:12 AM

It’s okay. joana, self-described Romney “conservative”, told me Krugman is a genius because he’s a Nobel Prize winner who writes for very important media publications. At the same time Mark Levin is a gnat is the scholarship department when compared to Krugman. I kid you not. The man is a lying pr!ck, constantly peeing on my head and telling me it’s raining. Not to mention, stupid if he really believes the crap he spews.

totherightofthem on January 18, 2013 at 9:14 AM

Krugman is delusional. Can we stop paying attention to him now?

rbj on January 18, 2013 at 9:10 AM

No.

Paul Krugman — arguably the country’s most influential liberal pundit.

^This is true. Nutjobs like Krugman need to be kept front and center. They are the Cultural and Spiritual leaders of the modern Dem party and people need to be reminded of that, constantly. A reminder of how far gone the modern Dem party actually is: completely unhinged.

visions on January 18, 2013 at 9:16 AM

Krugman is a piece of work. To the extent that the budget has improved (deficits down from 40% to 25%) it has been because of policies he bitterly opposed. The CBPP outlook includes tax hikes and budgets cuts he opposes and calls for $1.4 trillion more in deficit reduction, something he would surely describe as Draconian.

It’s also clear he looked at their graph and didn’t bother to read the text because they talk about this over and over again: how the long-term prospects are grim; how we need to address entitlements now before they blow up in our face; how Congress needs to follow through on their promises . Ack!

This column is likely something written by a man who’s fallen halfway down a skyscraper. Hey, it’s not so bad! Whatever intern he’s paying to write his column had a bad week.

Hal_10000 on January 18, 2013 at 9:16 AM

And he claims this occurred without using his idiotic ideas. Go figure.

Flange on January 18, 2013 at 9:18 AM

Actual comment from a Krugman groupie (recommended multiple times):

Amazing how fabricated issues like the debt ceiling and entitlement reform are put ahead of the real, serious and immediate threat of climate change.

Quisp on January 18, 2013 at 9:20 AM

The deficit will be fixed when we pass the Galactic Stimulus to build the Death Star. That will provide full employment AND the infrastructure we so badly need to extort money out of alien cultures.

/Paul Drugman

CorporatePiggy on January 18, 2013 at 9:21 AM

As I wrote on another thread, Dr. Austan Goolsbee is the administration’s top economist.

Why isn’t he roasted on a spit?

IlikedAUH2O on January 18, 2013 at 9:25 AM

the libs have the creepy cat guy Krugs

we have Friedman. How the hell did we lose?

Slade73 on January 18, 2013 at 9:28 AM

His doctor should call the police.

Electrongod on January 18, 2013 at 8:47 AM

Made my morning. ;)

plutorocks on January 18, 2013 at 9:30 AM

BTW, there was an interesting article which blamed our current economic problems on Bill Clinton. And the media has made him a wise old uncle from a golden reign while I thought Hillary would have been better…wait…

Wow.

I see how the flimsy mortgages might be related but the rest of the article was questionable.

The author also agrees with my trepidation about trade deficits. I know almost nobody agrees with me about that. Toyotas are love too much.

If you are interested, the article was entitled Bill Clinton’s balanced budget destroyed the economy 2012 and is on the web.

IlikedAUH2O on January 18, 2013 at 9:30 AM

I have made the argument before, andI will again. The Federal government will always spend more than they take in. No matter what. Why not drop taxes to zero then? At least people will get out and spur the economy.

antisense on January 18, 2013 at 9:33 AM

Bush Spent NOTHING. Congress spends the money.

DavidM on January 18, 2013 at 8:51 AM

That’s what Obama claimed just last week…it isn’t his problem…Congress needs to pay for what it spent.

SO Libs, if they followed any logical protocol, would have to quit blaming Bush.

I know…they don’t follow any logical protocol…just emotional.

ProfShadow on January 18, 2013 at 9:33 AM

Krugman of the sweaty armpits!

Sherman1864 on January 18, 2013 at 9:34 AM

He’s living in, “If I want it to be true, it must be true” land.

The Rogue Tomato on January 18, 2013 at 9:38 AM

The medium-term budget outlook isn’t great, but it’s not terrible either — and the long-term outlook gets much more attention than it should.

Ignoring the deficit makes it go away. That’s Enron advisor Paul Krugman’s view anyway. Oddly enough, Democrats agree with him.

MTF on January 18, 2013 at 9:38 AM

In 2000, the tech/equity bubble burst.

In 2008, the housing bubble burst.

These were both asset bubbles, caused by the Fed’s excessive money printing.

After each, the Fed doubled down, to prevent the deflation that would naturally follow such a collapse.

We are now in the middle of another massive bubble: a Treasury/bond bubble. Treasury bond interest rates are at record low because demand for the bonds is so high. Demand is high because U.S. dollars are the world’s reserve currency, and Treasuries are the only place where dollar holders can realistically park all that excess cash.

This bubble, like every other, will eventually burst. When it does, 2008 will look like morning in America.

Keynesians, unlike Austrians, continually miss all this, because they only see inflation in terms of the Consumer Price Index, and not assets.

The Bretton Woods/dollar reserve system worked well for us as long as the gold window was kept open, to impose some discipline on our finances.

Nixon closed that in the early 70′s, and the mighty inflation began. By the late 70′s the U.S. was almost bust, until we started off-shoring our manufacturing and exporting inflation.

Because there was always another poverty stricken country to take up the monetary slack as the current manufacturing base grew wealthier and created internal markets, we were fine.

Is China our last stand? What will happen when they complete their transformation from a dollar/export economy, and don’t need us anymore. Where will we go for cheap manufacturing and no internal markets.

Africa? Not bloody likely.

Things have got to change, and change quickly.

Mr. Arkadin on January 18, 2013 at 9:48 AM

Krugman: Deficit problems “already, to a large degree, solved”

…he needs to be locked up before he hurts somebody!

KOOLAID2 on January 18, 2013 at 9:48 AM

Yglesias is an economics blogger?

The guy has a degree in PHILOSOPHY, for crying out loud. And one of his first posts that I saw (back when he was on Moveable Type) was a call to eliminated the payroll tax because it hit the poor the hardest.

I had to inform him – literally – in the comments that the payroll taxes funded social security & if those people weren’t paying in, then they wouldn’t have credits in their ‘accounts’ (for lack of a better term) in order to collect social security upon retirement. I like him, but it wasn’t a case of misreading or me trying to ‘one up’ the guy….he was clueless as to how the machinations of social security credits worked.

As most people with liberal arts freaking PHILOSOPHY degrees are. Good grief. The liberal inbreeding of undeserved accommodations continue….next thing you know the Washington Post will give some youngster from UCLA with a poly sci degree & no work history to speak of a cushy blogging gig simply because he creates a server list called something like, I dunno, journOlist, or something.

Oh, wait….

Cam Winston on January 18, 2013 at 9:56 AM

This is, however, a case in which what everyone knows just ain’t so.

The words of a true narracisst…
…..”I’m the smartest person in the room”…..Can’t believe I’m surrounded by so many idiots.

The budget deficit isn’t our biggest problem, by a long shot. Furthermore, it’s a problem that is already, to a large degree, solved. The medium-term budget outlook isn’t great, but it’s not terrible either — and the long-term outlook gets much more attention than it should.

….Krugman is not just scary stupid…
…………he is a full blown cultist to his liberal ideology and will deny any form of reality to protect the leaders of it.

Baxter Greene on January 18, 2013 at 10:01 AM

More proof that liberalism is a mental illness.

Hard Right on January 18, 2013 at 10:02 AM

You know, I think unlike the Nobel Peace Prize folks, the Nobel Prize folks in the scientific disciplines (of which Economics is one) actually care about making their awards to people with real brains and credentials and accomplishments. I have to think there are people involved with that who are beginning to wonder how they could make one of their awards to someone as blindingly stupid as Krugman.

mdavt on January 18, 2013 at 10:06 AM

Negative interest rates? I was unaware that there are entities out there paying us to take their money. Could one of these geniuses who wrote that please send me the contact information for those who are paying negative interest? I would like to borrow a great quantity of money from them. I’ll bank the principle for a couple of years and then return it; I plan to live off the negative interest they are going to pay me for taking their money on loan. Oh, and I’ll also get a little income from the principle as well, it will be less than one percent, but hey, money is money, especially if I’m being paid to borrow it.

AZfederalist on January 18, 2013 at 10:10 AM

Greg Mankiw

I often disagree with Paul Krugman, but I usually understand him. Lately, however, I have been puzzled about his view of the bond market. In a recent post, he takes President Obama to task for believing that the failure to deal with our long-term fiscal imbalance might cause a spike in interest rates:

America can’t run out of cash (except politically, if Congress refuses to raise the debt ceiling); it basically can’t experience an interest rate spike unless people see an increased chance of economic recovery and hence a rise in short-term rates. And the people who have been predicting an interest rate spike any day now for four years shouldn’t have any credibility at this point.

But back in 2003, when the fiscal imbalance was much smaller (It was $377.6 billion – RWM), he wrote:

With war looming, it’s time to be prepared. So last week I switched to a fixed-rate mortgage. It means higher monthly payments, but I’m terrified about what will happen to interest rates once financial markets wake up to the implications of skyrocketing budget deficits….

How will the train wreck play itself out? Maybe a future administration will use butterfly ballots to disenfranchise retirees, making it possible to slash Social Security and Medicare. Or maybe a repentant Rush Limbaugh will lead the drive to raise taxes on the rich. But my prediction is that politicians will eventually be tempted to resolve the crisis the way irresponsible governments usually do: by printing money, both to pay current bills and to inflate away debt.

And as that temptation becomes obvious, interest rates will soar. It won’t happen right away. With the economy stalling and the stock market plunging, short-term rates are probably headed down, not up, in the next few months, and mortgage rates may not have hit bottom yet. But unless we slide into Japanese-style deflation, there are much higher interest rates in our future.

I think that the main thing keeping long-term interest rates low right now is cognitive dissonance. Even though the business community is starting to get scared — the ultra-establishment Committee for Economic Development now warns that ”a fiscal crisis threatens our future standard of living” — investors still can’t believe that the leaders of the United States are acting like the rulers of a banana republic. But I’ve done the math, and reached my own conclusions — and I’ve locked in my rate.

I am having trouble reconciling these points of views. Has Paul changed his mind since 2003 about how the bond market works? Or are circumstances different now? If anything, I would have thought that the fiscal situation is more dire now and so the logic from 2003 would apply with more force. I am puzzled.

Professor Mankiw asks:

“Or are circumstances different now?”

Yes, “the one that we’ve been waiting for” is now in the White House…so, it’s all good!

Resist We Much on January 18, 2013 at 10:18 AM

Krugman: Deficit problem, moslty solved.

Michael Moore: Weight problem, mostly lost.

Manti Te’o: Girl friend, mostly real.

Lance Armstrong: Victory, mostly doping free.

apostic on January 18, 2013 at 10:37 AM

Did I miss the space invasion?

Subheading of the year right there. Bravo Ed, bravo.

Lost in Jersey on January 18, 2013 at 10:37 AM

and the long-term outlook gets much more attention than it should.

It disturbs me that Princeton allows children on to its faculty…

JohnGalt23 on January 18, 2013 at 10:42 AM

I have this morbid curiosity to see how he explains our situation when the economy finally just tanks. And it is sad because with people like this making decisions about our fiscal policy my curiosity is very very likely to be satisfied.

DaveDief on January 18, 2013 at 11:00 AM

Photoshopping the head in that picture onto a straight-jacket would be so perfect…

trigon on January 18, 2013 at 11:12 AM

Krugman is living proof that wormholes between alternate realities exist. I wish he would go back to his and quit stinking up ours. And this guy gets paid, to boot. Sheesh.

ghostwalker1 on January 18, 2013 at 11:16 AM

That’s the same learned advisement Krugman provided to the leadership of Enron.

Stu Gotts on January 18, 2013 at 11:21 AM

Enron…next!

can_con on January 18, 2013 at 11:31 AM

The Nobel Prize used to be awarded to persons with significant contributions to humanity and have some meaning. Sadly, after seeing it go to the likes of Krugman, Gore, and Obama, I can’t help but wonder if blundering idiocy is not one of the foremost requirements for consideration!

rockncoal on January 18, 2013 at 11:31 AM

Toxoplasmosis

OxyCon on January 18, 2013 at 11:44 AM

From Breitbart about California’s success transition to a post-deficit budget:

California State Controller John Chiang has announced that total state revenue for the month of November 2012 fell $806.8 million, or 10.8%, below budget.

Democrats thought they could hammer “the rich” by convincing voters to pass Proposition 30 to create the highest state income tax in the nation. But it now appears that high income earners have already “voted with their feet” by moving themselves and their businesses out of state, resulting in over $1 billion shortfall in corporate and income taxes last month and the beginning of a new financial crisis.

Passage of Proposition 30 set off euphoria and expectations of higher spending for public employees. The California Teachers’ Association (CTA) trumpeted: “California students and working families won a clear victory today as voters clearly demonstrated their willingness to invest in our public schools and colleges and also rejected a deceptive ballot measure aimed at silencing educators, other workers and their unions.”

State bureaucrats immediately ramped up deficit spending far beyond the state’s $6 billion annual tax increase, with the Departments of Health Services and Developmental Services increasing this month’s spending by over $1 billion versus last year. The lower tax collection and higher spending drove the State’s deficit after the tax increase to $2.7 billion for the first 5 months of this fiscal year. State Controller John Chiang reported:

November’s disappointing revenues stand in stark contrast to recent news that California is leading the nation in job growth, has significantly improved its cash liquidity to pay bills, and even long-distressed home values are starting to inch upward… This serves as a sobering reminder that, while the economy is expanding, it is doing so at a slow and uneven pace that will require the State to exercise care and discipline in how its fiscal affairs are managed in the coming year.

The improved “cash liquidity” Chiang referred to turns out to be $24.9 billion of debt.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/12/07/CALIFORNIA-STATE-BUDGET-GOES-OFF-THE-CLIFF

Yep, our state’s budget problem is already to a large degree solved, so I can see how Krugman can extrapolate California’s success to the national level. Good call, Paul.

in_awe on January 18, 2013 at 12:41 PM

This idiot and Obumble are proof the Nobel Prize means nothing – the incompetent and politicized prize committee has ensured the Nobel is no longer a valid symbol of actual contribution to the human race.

dentarthurdent on January 18, 2013 at 12:48 PM

Krugman is right, though, that this largely mirrors what happens on the federal level, such as when the President insists that he has cut spending by more than $1.4 trillion while federal spending has increased by almost 10% during his tenure.

Ed,
What blog did you pluck this fraud of a statistic from?

How can I take your assessment of Clown Krugman seriously when you do not bother to verify your own careless statements?

Freddy on January 18, 2013 at 1:01 PM

print this column on Krugman’s tombstone to show his stupidity, and shameless desire to live in luxury as generations after him suffer from liberal failure

burserker on January 18, 2013 at 1:16 PM

In a sane world, this guy would be the town dunce. However, in this insane doubleplusbad world, he and his ilk win Nobel Prizes. Sigh.

No sane person should listen to him.

Theophile on January 18, 2013 at 2:44 PM

Deranged ewok. Perfect fit for the Gray Lady Slut.

novaculus on January 18, 2013 at 2:58 PM

Damn Krugman is starting to look like his Nobel Prize….

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iQ2GM50ud0

The one he won for sticking his thumbs in his ears and wiggling his fingers

roflmmfao

donabernathy on January 18, 2013 at 3:40 PM

Krugman is living proof that wormholes between alternate realities exist. I wish he would go back to his and quit stinking up ours. And this guy gets paid, to boot. Sheesh.

ghostwalker1 on January 18, 2013 at 11:16 AM

I guess you didn’t get this message:

Whine all you want…this guy gets paid big bucks for making foolish statements that go unchallenged.

We all want his job…say anything you want, and your friends and cronies swoon at your every word, and than pay you and honor you…yeah, your enemies hate you, but that makes your “friends” love you even more…it’s a great gig.

right2bright on January 18, 2013 at 9:10 AM

Anti-Control on January 18, 2013 at 4:07 PM

The true Nutty Professor….

Sherman1864 on January 19, 2013 at 7:13 AM