The Problem Today is Republican Extremism

[Star Man]

Op-Ed Columnist

The Centrist Cop-Out

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: July 28, 2011

The facts of the crisis over the debt ceiling aren’t complicated. Republicans have, in effect, taken America hostage, threatening to undermine the economy and disrupt the essential business of government unless they get policy concessions they would never have been able to enact through legislation. And Democrats — who would have been justified in rejecting this extortion altogether — have, in fact, gone a long way toward meeting those Republican demands.





As I said, it’s not complicated. Yet many people in the news media apparently can’t bring themselves to acknowledge this simple reality. News reports portray the parties as equally intransigent; pundits fantasize about some kind of “centrist” uprising, as if the problem was too much partisanship on both sides.



Some of us have long complained about the cult of “balance,” the insistence on portraying both parties as equally wrong and equally at fault on any issue, never mind the facts. I joked long ago that if one party declared that the earth was flat, the headlines would read “Views Differ on Shape of Planet.” But would that cult still rule in a situation as stark as the one we now face, in which one party is clearly engaged in blackmail and the other is dickering over the size of the ransom?



The answer, it turns out, is yes. And this is no laughing matter: The cult of balance has played an important role in bringing us to the edge of disaster. For when reporting on political disputes always implies that both sides are to blame, there is no penalty for extremism. Voters won’t punish you for outrageous behavior if all they ever hear is that both sides are at fault.



Let me give you an example of what I’m talking about. As you may know, President Obama initially tried to strike a “Grand Bargain” with Republicans over taxes and spending. To do so, he not only chose not to make an issue of G.O.P. extortion, he offered extraordinary concessions on Democratic priorities: an increase in the age of Medicare eligibility, sharp spending cuts and only small revenue increases. As The Times’s Nate Silver pointed out, Mr. Obama effectively staked out a position that was not only far to the right of the average voter’s preferences, it was if anything a bit to the right of the average Republican voter’s preferences.



But Republicans rejected the deal. So what was the headline on an Associated Press analysis of that breakdown in negotiations? “Obama, Republicans Trapped by Inflexible Rhetoric.” A Democratic president who bends over backward to accommodate the other side — or, if you prefer, who leans so far to the right that he’s in danger of falling over — is treated as being just the same as his utterly intransigent opponents. Balance!



Which brings me to those “centrist” fantasies.



Many pundits view taking a position in the middle of the political spectrum as a virtue in itself. I don’t. Wisdom doesn’t necessarily reside in the middle of the road, and I want leaders who do the right thing, not the centrist thing.
But for those who insist that the center is always the place to be, I have an important piece of information: We already have a centrist president. Indeed, Bruce Bartlett, who served as a policy analyst in the Reagan administration, argues that Mr. Obama is in practice a moderate conservative.



Mr. Bartlett has a point. The president, as we’ve seen, was willing, even eager, to strike a budget deal that strongly favored conservative priorities. His health reform was very similar to the reform Mitt Romney installed in Massachusetts. Romneycare, in turn, closely followed the outlines of a plan originally proposed by the right-wing Heritage Foundation. And returning tax rates on high-income Americans to their level during the Roaring Nineties is hardly a socialist proposal.



True, Republicans insist that Mr. Obama is a leftist seeking a government takeover of the economy, but they would, wouldn’t they? The facts, should anyone choose to report them, say otherwise.



So what’s with the buzz about a centrist uprising? As I see it, it’s coming from people who recognize the dysfunctional nature of modern American politics, but refuse, for whatever reason, to acknowledge the one-sided role of Republican extremists in making our system dysfunctional. And it’s not hard to guess at their motivation. After all, pointing out the obvious truth gets you labeled as a shrill partisan, not just from the right, but from the ranks of self-proclaimed centrists.



But making nebulous calls for centrism, like writing news reports that always place equal blame on both parties, is a big cop-out — a cop-out that only encourages more bad behavior. The problem with American politics right now is Republican extremism, and if you’re not willing to say that, you’re helping make that problem worse.

__________________________________________________________________________


Here's my non-centrist position: Any attempt to weaken Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid is wrong. Increasing taxes on the wealthy and corporations is right. Aggression in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and Libya is wrong. Reducing the defense budget is right. Fixing America's infrastructure is right. Reducing carbon emissions is right. Regulating Big Pharm, Big Ag, Big Finance is right. The Tea Party is wrong. Boehner and Cantor are wrong. Fox News is wrong.



I want a candidate who expresses these views. I want Obama to do the right thing and, like Lyndon Johnson, decline to run for reelection. Here's my candidate pool: Bernie Sanders, Dennis Kucinich, Al Franken, Ralph Nader.



Star Man

[anathstryx]

Here's my non-centrist position: Any attempt to weaken Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid is wrong. Increasing taxes on the wealthy and corporations is right. Aggression in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and Libya is wrong. Reducing the defense budget is right. Fixing America's infrastructure is right. Reducing carbon emissions is right. Regulating Big Pharm, Big Ag, Big Finance is right. The Tea Party is wrong. Boehner and Cantor are wrong. Fox News is wrong.

I want a candidate who expresses these views. I want Obama to do the right thing and, like Lyndon Johnson, decline to run for reelection. Here's my candidate pool: Bernie Sanders, Dennis Kucinich, Al Franken, Ralph Nader.

Star Man

I'm with you on three out of the four, Star Man.

Anathstryx

[Speak2Truth]

It's not the Republicans proposing massive new taxation and spending programs even as our nation goes bankrupt. Obamacare, high speed rail...

Democrats threaten to financially crash this nation one way or the other. If we let them increase the debt limit, and debt, it brings us closer to the edge of insolvency and gives them leeway to create even more programs to exacerbate the problem. (Hint, that's what they're trying to do).

If Repblicans successfully halt the acceleration of our nation's bankruptcy, well, Obama said it best. He threatened to cut off Social Security checks to CREATE A PROBLEM, so he could blame the resulting turmoil on Republicans. (Hint - if we don't raise the debt limit, Social Security, Medicare, the military and other vital programs continue to be fundable - unless Democrats CHOOSE to create more trouble).

Obama did not offer any significant spending cuts. All he is doing is trying to get the debt limit raised so the agenda of bankrupting this nation can proceed.

People who care about our nation's survival will do what it takes to LOWER THE DEBT, not raise it.

Kudos to the Republicans for trying.

[phooph]

I pop in every few months to see what is being discussed and noticed one of my favorite topics, that being our economy, which is what the budget argument is about.

First, a little known fact about our economy is that our currency is all issued as debt. You don't have to take my word for that. Just do an internet search on debt backed currency to find zillions of hits that will explain this strange creature to you. This was invented in the early 1600s and has become the method of choice for managing currencies in the global economy. A "money is debt" search will also pull a link to a movie by that name which explains how our banking and currency system work.

One of the oddities of debt backed currencies is that the interest to pay back that debt is never issued, so in order for most to repay their loans, some of the principle must be scavenged out of the economy to pay back a debt and its interest leaving the economy perpetually short on currency. Of course this means that there will not be enough money for everyone to pay off their debts so loan default is built into the system. It's kind of like a hot potato or musical chairs game, the person left out being the defaulter.

To keep the currency in circulation from contracting, creating a recession, depression, or total financial collapse, currency must be issued in ever growing amounts through expanding lending (debt). This means that interest owed will also expand and that means even more debt must be created to keep the ball in the air. The inevitable conclusion is that both debt and the interest owed become ever larger and larger, eventually exceeding the gdp of a country and eventually the world, becoming unpayable.

The US government is the borrower of both first and last resort in the US. The lead-up to the 2008 financial collapse was preceded by record borrowing, both private and public. As the private debt holders began to default the government was leaned on to maintain currency in the system. Thus the bailouts. Unfortunately the money went to the wrong sector of the economy and did not stimulate the spending by consumers required to boost the economy.

The Great Debate over the enormous interest burden and the debt ceiling is about who will crash the economy, how, and when. No politician wants it to happen on their watch so finding ways to kick the can down the road is a favored ploy. If the government stops borrowing and spending that money into the economy, the economy will crash. If it cannot raise the debt ceiling it cannot continue to borrow and spend. Austerity measures by the government will result in a shrinkage of currency circulating in the economy. So either way, austerity or debt ceiling cap, will result in the same end.

The only way to avoid a currency collapse is to increase the debt ceiling so the government can continue to maintain a functional currency level in the greater economy. Think of it as a transfusion to keep blood in the body. Cutting government spending will not work at this point, and will only make the economy worse. So what about the skyrocketing interest and growing inflation, you ask. Well that is the great dilemma. We are caught between two hungry dragons. Now you see why our government is taking so long to figure out what to do. There is no "better" option. Either one will eventually devour us.

Capping the debt ceiling and cutting spending seems to make so much sense if you don't know the consequences. It's why the Republicans are so quick to promote it since most people don't understand the connection between borrowing and currency creation. They hope that when the economy crashes afterward, the people will blame the Democrats and Obama for the bad economy. But I don't think they will take it that far. They are worried that a crashing economy will take some of them with it, so after a very public battle they will "compromise" simply because it is easier to let the disaster land in someone else's lap, some day down the road, but not now.

It's not the Republicans proposing massive new taxation and spending programs even as our nation goes bankrupt. Obamacare, high speed rail...

Democrats threaten to financially crash this nation one way or the other. If we let them increase the debt limit, and debt, it brings us closer to the edge of insolvency and gives them leeway to create even more programs to exacerbate the problem. (Hint, that's what they're trying to do).

If Repblicans successfully halt the acceleration of our nation's bankruptcy, well, Obama said it best. He threatened to cut off Social Security checks to CREATE A PROBLEM, so he could blame the resulting turmoil on Republicans. (Hint - if we don't raise the debt limit, Social Security, Medicare, the military and other vital programs continue to be fundable - unless Democrats CHOOSE to create more trouble).

Obama did not offer any significant spending cuts. All he is doing is trying to get the debt limit raised so the agenda of bankrupting this nation can proceed.

People who care about our nation's survival will do what it takes to LOWER THE DEBT, not raise it.

Kudos to the Republicans for trying.