Paul Krugman, writing in today’s New York Times notes that President Elect Obama is receiving a lot of advice to think small, but Krugman is urging Obama to be bold and think big. He says, “Barack Obama shouldn’t listen to the people trying to scare him into being a do-nothing president. He has the political mandate; he has good economics on his side.”
“Right now, many commentators are urging Mr. Obama to think small,” Krugman writes, “Some make the case on political grounds: America, they say, is still a conservative country, and voters will punish Democrats if they move to the left. Others say that the financial and economic crisis leaves no room for action on, say, health care reform. Let’s hope that Mr. Obama has the good sense to ignore this advice.”
Krugman says if Obama follows through with his mandate — guaranteed health care, tax breaks for the middle class, paid for with higher taxes on the affluent — that, on top of rescuing the financial system, the federal deficit could top one trillion dollars. Regardless, Krugman urges Obama to push forward, and not back down from his promises.
Krugman writes, “Helping the neediest in a time of crisis, through expanded health and unemployment benefits, is the morally right thing to do; it’s also a far more effective form of economic stimulus than cutting the capital gains tax. Providing aid to beleaguered state and local governments, so that they can sustain essential public services, is important for those who depend on those services; it’s also a way to avoid job losses and limit the depth of the economy’s slump. So a serious progressive agenda — call it a new New Deal — isn’t just economically possible, it’s exactly what the economy needs.”
Mike, I hope you, Krugman, and the “rich” Hollywood elites have enough money to finance this ridiculous “mandate”. I just re-read the constitution of the United States particularly the amendments that give equal protection under the law, interstate commerce, right to bear arms, probable cause for search and seizure. You get my drift. I just could not find it anywhere, you know, the part Krugman and other “elite” minded individuals always allude to, the part about it is a “right” for health care. The “rich” need to pay more than there fair share of taxes so the government of Obama can fund his grandiose give away programs, just to let you know I make less than 60,000 a year and that’s if I still have a job by the end of the year. I am not one of these rich guys complaining about having to pay more taxes under president O. Krugman is way out there on the left, he has always promoted the idea of redistributive wealth. I just cannot find it is a “right” in the constitution for the government to take away from those who work hard and give to those who refuse. Help me understand.
Plus, it is absolutely immoral to keep increasing the debt and stealing from our children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren.