I have now concluded that one of the worst of the quislings turns out to be Paul Krugman, who for reasons that I can not fathom, (maybe he sought an appointment from the Administration and didn’t get it) has tried to destroy the Obama Presidency almost from its inception. What makes him so dangerous is that he projects an image of liberalism, while undermining the cause he pretends to support. I have only recently focused on this, but an examination of his columns bears this out.
For example, one year after the President was inaugurated, on January 17, 2010 Krugman blasted the President. What does he attack him for? He criticizes Obama for not attacking Bush enough. Obviously, someone who wants to support the President, and who feels that the blame lies with Bush, would simply point that out and criticize Bush. But that is not Krugman’s way. His attack is not on Bush. It is on Obama for not doing enough of what the punditry needs to do for him. Krugman writes:
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.
For Krugman’s article see here.
Not only is this a strange way to help a Democratic liberal Administration, but it doesn’t even have truth on its side. Renew America, a Right wing blog points out:
Washington Post reporter Scott Wilson wrote a piece that noted that, "Obama has reminded the public at every turn that he is facing problems "inherited" from the Bush administration... In June, even the New York Times was reporting that the main tactic that the Obama administration was using to avoid blame was in "blaming the guy who came before." and the article gives other examples.
Krugman in this column, as in so many others, also criticizes the President for his policies, but I point to this aspect, because it is so egregious and so unfair. Since then Krugman has rarely had a good thing to say about the President, some of it a matter of opinion, and some of it just plain false.
In fairness to Krugman, he sometimes talks sense. In a column published on July 28th he writes:
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.
Amen! But does he take his own advice. NO! Three days later, on July 31 his column is headed “The President Surrenders." Krugman blasts Obama for working out a deal that avoids the first American default in American history. He seems to already have forgotten his earlier column that we should blame the hostage takers. Now he goes after the one who in the interests of the American economy, indeed the world economy, has paid a ransom. But worse of all he ignores that the President negotiated about as good a deal as was possible under the circumstances, and worst of all to support his attack he lies.
I know my readers are busy. Some have to spend their time earning a living. Others prefer TV, golf, or tennis, or reading fiction. But if you want to be informed, this time, above all other times, you must read the references by double clicking on the links. Above I give you a link to the “President Surrenders” in its original form. If you will go here you will find that article set forth again, with my comments on it in red. Please take the time to read it. Without doing so you can’t get the flavor of the deception.
The media has done a very poor job of reporting what was in the compromise, and Krugman and the left have done an incredible job of demagogic it. For a pretty good summary of what was in it see: CNN Money's “Debt Ceiling: What the deal will do.”
CNN Money reports:
Exempt from this round of cuts, however, will be programs that aid low-income Americans… These include Social Security, Medicaid, veterans' benefits and pensions, food stamps and Supplemental Security Income.
While Medicare would not be exempt, the framework would restrict cuts to no more than 2% of the program's cost. And the cuts that occur would not affect Medicare benefits nor would they increase seniors' costs, …
I wish that Krugman were alone in this demagoguery from the left, but here are some of the e-mails I have received, e.g. from Campaign for America’s Future I received this:
A new undemocratic "Super Committee" is charged with finding $1.5 trillion in savings – from cuts in Social Security, Medicare and other entitlements and/or in increased revenues. If a majority agrees, the proposals will be “fast tracked” to passage in Congress—without our elected representatives able to amend their plans.
They forgot to mention that half the cuts must come from the Defense Department and as to the rest, see CNN above.
Or from the Progressive Change Campaign Committee:
Congress voted for a deal that will cut trillions from important programs like Head Start, asks nothing of the rich, and makes likely future cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.
But what about facts?
The Wall Street Journal wrote in April 2011:
The deal included enough money for Head Start, the preschool program for low-income children, to keep enrollment from dropping, and for Pell Grants to maintain the current $5,500 annual maximum award to low-income college students. Republicans had wanted to cut Head Start and proposed freezing the Pell program, which would have cut the maximum grant size.
What is going on? Are these organizations just misinformed or do they think they can energize their base with lies and get more contributions. Not from me!!!!
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment