An entire column could be devoted to analyzing the New York Times editorial page. The problem is that it's too much work. There are usually so many philosophical holes that in order to address even a basic point of fact, you'd first need to identify and explain the erroneous premise which led to the fact being mentioned in the first place.
Paul Krugman writes today (9/16/05) in his op-ed entitled Not the New Deal:
"...even conservatives admit that deregulation, tax cuts and privatization won't be enough. Recovery will require a lot of federal spending."
Can we think about the logic of this statement? Recovery will require a lot of federal spending. He's saying that human beings, in order to build up an area, populate it, and become productive citizens, require government handouts. Somebody forgot to mention that fact to the settlers in the American West. Or the American East.
What's sad is that in our culture, I actually need to specify that tax deductions and suspending environmental regulations do not constitute "handouts". If the federal government reduces regulations in the Gulf Coast, great. But whether or not people like Al Gore ask the question, "How are we going to pay for it?", it's still not an expense. A lack of tax is not an expense. It's money that never existed as far as government is concerned. If our idiot politicians have to scramble to find planned expenses that they now need to cut, then let the bastards scramble. It's the planned expenses that need paying for, not the lack of taxes.
The real problem that Krugman sees is: "how can discretionary government spending take place on that scale without creating equally large-scale corruption?" So, as long as Bush talks the talk of a socialist, Krugman agrees with him in theory. The question for Krugman, as I saw in interviews immediately after Bush's speech from New Orleans last night, is how do we achieve the socialist goals in practice? The Democrats I heard interviewed (a Democratic Congressman from Maryland and the Lt. Governor of Mississippi or Louisiana - it's a lt. governor, does anyone really care which state?) thought that Bush was just, golly gee, gosh-darn swell. Their point, like Krugman's, was basically: the devil is in the details.
To me, when these guys talk about putting socialism into practice, they sound like they're talking about Satan giving birth. Whether or not you ask one of Satan's minions to volunteer to be a wet nurse might be an important detail, but how about we first talk about the baby with the fucking tail? I'm not even sure this makes any fucking sense, and yet these Democrats are making me think of this stuff.
Here's another Krugman gem:
"It's possible to spend large sums honestly, as Franklin D. Roosevelt demonstrated in the 1930's."
He should have tried writing a complete statement, starting with:
"It's possible to take large sums of someone's money without their consent and spend it honestly..."
Let's see him talk his way out of that logical mess. Sure, once a gangster has the money, they can buy flowers for Krugman. And although Krugman might feel all warm and fuzzy about his beautiful new daisies, the gangsters' victims sure as hell don't.
Krugman thinks it's possible to spend money "honestly", he just has doubts as to whether Bush is the one to do it. Why?
"President Bush subscribes to a political philosophy that opposes government activism - that's why he has tried to downsize and privatize programs wherever he can....
"That's why Mr. Bush's promise last night that he will have "a team of inspectors general reviewing all expenditures" rings hollow..."
I'll say one thing for Krugman. I can see why he has his doubts about someone portrayed as a "conservative" having the ability to properly turn the United States into a socialist dictatorship. You would think that an unapologetic socialist Democrat would be able to do the job much more efficiently. Which is why Krugman goes on to say:
"Is there any way Mr. Bush could ensure an honest recovery program? Yes - he could insulate decisions about reconstruction spending from politics by placing them in the hands of an autonomous agency headed by a political independent, or, if no such person can be found, a Democrat (as a sign of good faith)."
Bush may or may not nominate a Democrat for this position, but one thing is clear. As long as the two major political parties are in complete agreement as to the goals of government, in the long run it will be the more consistent, or the more "practical", who will triumph.
