Peddling the "Same Old, Same Old"
March 18, 2004
When liberals lie, they call themselves "progressives". What, may I ask, is so "progressive" about doing the same old thing over and over again? And...this is the marrow of political history’s greatest misnomer. Clarity would be better served by thinking of liberals as anything except "progressive". Perhaps the monikers of boring, insecure, insincere or slothful are a better fit for the "progressives" whose only solution to a problem in more of the Same Old, Same Old.
Case in point...Paul Krugman (about whom Kin Hubbard could have said, "When some fellers decide to retire nobody knows the difference"). In his latest op-whine, Krugman lambastes President Bush for trying "the same thing, over and over again" to solve both real and imagined economic woes. Of course, Rocket-Science Boy Krugman, in an attempt to "to try something different", progressively reverts back to the old liberal understudies...raise taxes, quote partisan think tanks, raise taxes, rely on big government, raise taxes, trust the "establishment" more than "individuals", raise taxes, give money away and...oh yeah, raise taxes.
In an Oz-like Dorothy trance, Krugman and his liberal devotees have been brainwashed by their own propaganda. From day one of the Bush Presidency, the liberals have been trying to hype a bad economy...despite any truth to the contrary. When the unemployment rate refused to cooperate with dire liberal hopes, they just rewrote the book of "jobs". Priority one was to redefine employment expectations by using any spin of statistical sophistry.
In 1976, Milton Friedman won the Nobel Prize in economics for his theory explaining the "natural rate of unemployment" which most economists refer to as "NAIRU" (Non-Accelerating Inflation Rate of Unemployment).
In his 1994 book, "Peddling Prosperity", Krugman, himself an economist, confirmed that "economists estimate it (NAIRU) to be slightly less than 6 percent". Krugman explains that, "The best a nation can do is settle for the lowest level of unemployment that will not begin accelerating inflation." In his March 12, 2004 editorial "No More Excuses on Jobs", Krugman criticizes today’s 5.6% unemployment rate as "politically spinnable". All Ph.D.’s aside, Mr. Krugman...the 2 + 2’s peddling from your lips are not equaling 4.
Oh, that’s right, the economy is bad because it’s not about unemployment anymore...now it’s about job creation. You see, unemployment was not a good measure of this President’s economy because it was not confusing enough. Besides, during Republican administrations, liberals suddenly find low unemployment statistics unreliable. Krugman dismisses the credibility of today’s normal rate of unemployment as, "the result of people dropping out of the labor force". Which, to Krugman, is understandable because, "it probably has something to do with the fact that jobs are so hard to find".
Turning from the NYT’s editorial page to their Job Market section, one is greeted by the banner "Search Thousands (emphasis added) of jobs in the New York area and beyond!" And, to the amazement of all economically tormented liberals, the New York Times’ classifieds list 2,052 immediately available jobs. These jobs cover the broad spectrum from restaurant positions to pediatricians. It’s so confusing...one page of the NYT’s has Krugman telling you there are no jobs but, for a price, another page of the same paper is peddling 2,052 jobs. Is Jayson Blair ghostwriting for the classifieds?
Another old liberal refrain is Krugman’s "rebates for low- and middle-income workers" scheme. By definition, low- and middle-income workers do not pay any individual income taxes. In fact, they receive over $30 billion a year in Earned Income Credits (EIC’s). EIC’s are a simple, but again confusing, redistribution of wealth from those who pay taxes to those who don’t. That is why Krugman used the term "rebate" instead of "refund". Most liberals have no problem with the dishonesty of calling income redistribution a "refund".
And, of course, a "Same Old, Same Old" liberal like Krugman just has to deal le coup de maître of all panics...Bush tax cuts have jeopardized the most sacred liberal shrine, Social Security. If Krugman could scrub through his biased epidermis and cut to some subcutaneous honesty, he would admit that the Bush tax cuts have nothing to do with the antiquated mess called Social Security.
Social Security, by law, should be financed by the "Old-Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance Trust Fund (OASHDI)". OASHDI, in turn, is funded by your payroll taxes (FICA and SECA). President Bush reduced your individual income taxes, not your payroll taxes. In 1937 your payroll tax rate was 2%...today it is 12.4%. The facts prove that "Fully 71% of American workers pay more in payroll taxes than in income taxes." The Social Security Trust should be unaffected by the income tax cuts. You are still paying FICA and SECA taxes into a trust fund that, upon retirement, is obligated to start paying you back. So, what’s the problem?
Presidents and Congresses from all political parties have been borrowing from this "trust fund" for decades and always need current tax dollars to repay the debt. Think of it as somebody dipping into your privately funded annuity and then, upon maturity, charging you to repay their debt. The liberals love this one because it is so galactically confusing. And galactic confusion is the best camouflage for liberals to do what they do best...raise taxes.
Every time the President even lip-synchs the partial privatization of your retirement dollars ("try something different"), the liberal demagogues accuse him of defiling Mother Teresa. To remove Social Security from the playing board, removes one of the greatest (non)justifications the liberals have to...raise your taxes.
In February 2000, Krugman lamented that "...the simple truth...is too complicated to be heard over the shouting." His solution for complication was to "focus on the character issue instead". Well Paul...don’t wish for some things too hard. In one editorial, Krugman; partially invalidated Milton Friedman’s Nobel Prize, made a liar (yet again) out of the New York Times, contradicted his own words numerous times, faulted the President for not trying any new approaches to old problems because the President is trying new approaches and concocted several justifications for the liberal status quo...raise taxes. Same Old, Same Old.
RightPage