The White House’s next moves to address the deep economic downturn are, if anything, more heart-breaking than predicted. Here’s Krugman’s take:
. . . economic debate within the White House shows a fierce argument between those who want to do very little on jobs and those who want to do nothing at all.
If the report is at all correct, this Grand Debate [/sarcasm] isn’t just about political strategy:
A series of departures has left few economists among Mr. Obama’s senior advisers. Several of his political advisers are skeptical about the merits of stimulus spending, and they are certain about the politics: voters do not like it.
Mr. Plouffe and Mr. Daley share the view that a focus on deficit reduction is an economic and political imperative, according to people who have spoken with them. Voters believe that paying down the debt will help the economy, and the White House agrees, although it wants to avoid cutting too much spending while the economy remains weak. . . .
And as for the political side, I guess I’m puzzled: you have an obstructionist GOP, and rather than point out that obstruction, you restrict yourself to calling for measures that this obstructionist opposition might actually accept. Doesn’t this mean that voters learn nothing about the extent to which the GOP is in fact blocking job creation?
Yes it would seem to mean exactly that. Am I the only one who sometimes thinks that the politicians with the courage of their convictions all work for the other party?