Paul krugman obama is wrong
In a recent column, Paul Krugman says:
The conventional wisdom seems to be that President Obama tried to do too much - in particular, that he should have put health care on one side and focused on the economy.
I disagree. The Obama administration's troubles are the result not of excessive ambition, but of policy and political misjudgments. The stimulus was too small; policy toward the banks wasn't tough enough; and Mr. Obama didn't do what Ronald Reagan, who also faced a poor economy early in his administration, did - namely, shelter himself from criticism with a narrative that placed the blame on previous administrations.
If you need a refresher on the opposing view - on why aiming to reform heathcare was a "colossal miscalculation" - see Charlie Cook.
The latest unemployment and housing numbers underscore the folly of their decision to pay so much attention to health care and climate change instead of focusing on the economy "like a laser beam," as President Clinton pledged to do during his 1992 campaign. Although no one can fairly accuse Obama and his party's leaders of ignoring the economy, they certainly haven't focused on it like a laser beam.
Cook is wrong and Krugman is right. Healthcare reform was neither a fatal distraction nor an inessential that can wait. Far from being beside the point in current circumstances, it is especially timely. It confronts a crucial aspect of economic insecurity - the fear that losing your job will also cost you your health insurance. Its rightful place was front and center in the economic program. With shrewder marketing, the administration could have put it there.
What policies would a more laser-like focus on the economy have produced anyway? Name me one. It wasn't health reform that blocked a bigger stimulus. )
No question, Obama bungled healthcare reform - by turning the project over to Congress, which voters don't trust to do anything; by failing to make the case for a specific reform; and in general by seeming so passive about where this massive undertaking ended up. His mistake was not too much ambition, but too little engagement. More generally, I think the advocates of reform have failed their cause. They formed no consensus among themselves about what to do, and have spent more time arguing bitterly with each other than presenting a proposal to the public. Obama needed to lead the country on this. He chose not to.
I agree with Krugman about the stimulus. He is right that it should have been bigger. But the fact that it wasn't is partly the fault of Krugman and other liberals. At the time, they cared more about the mix of the stimulus - they wanted maximum spending increases and minimum tax cuts - than about its overall size. Using bigger tax cuts to enlarge the stimulus could have been politically feasible. It would have brought some Republicans on side. The option was not seriously explored. Too many Democrats were aghast at the idea of co-operating with Republicans to cut taxes.
Whether policy towards the banks was tough enough is debatable. In some ways, again I agree with Krugman. Certainly, a lot of work needs to be done to lessen the risk of another crisis, and the banks will oppose most of it. But so far as stabilizing the economy in the short term goes, the policy has worked after a fashion. When Krugman expressed despair over the Geithner plan last March, saying it was almost certain to fail, he was wrong.
Krugman's other point - why doesn't Obama learn from Reagan and Carter, and blame everything on Bush? - I find simply bewildering. Obama is blaming Bush, for heaven's sake, and no doubt rightly. But how much more could he do it? This is a case not of missed opportunity, but of diminishing returns.