Sunday, April 1, 2012

Paul Krugman, "Pink Slime Economics": Sliming the Supreme Court

As Obama's chances of reelection grow increasingly uncertain, the leftist op-ed page of the New York Times grows increasingly uncivil. Today, in "Pink Slime Economics" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/02/opinion/krugman-pink-slime-economics.html?_r=2&smid=tw-NytimesKrugman&seid=auto), Paul Krugman begins by sliming the Supreme Court:

"The big bad event of last week was, of course, the Supreme Court hearing on health reform. In the course of that hearing it became clear that several of the justices, and possibly a majority, are political creatures pure and simple, willing to embrace any argument, no matter how absurd, that serves the interests of Team Republican."

Krugman's arrogance obviously knows no bounds. There are several Supreme Court justices with whose opinions I vehemently disagree, but I do not doubt their good faith. And yes, it is possible to engage in civil debate over matters being discussed by the Supreme Court without throwing a temper tantrum.

Krugman continues:

"But we should not allow events in the court to completely overshadow another, almost equally disturbing spectacle. For on Thursday Republicans in the House of Representatives passed what was surely the most fraudulent budget in American history.

And when I say fraudulent, I mean just that."

So, Krugman would also slime Congressman Paul Ryan and have us know that he is a charlatan.

However, there was no mention by Krugman of Obama's $3.6 trillion budget for next year, which was rejected last week 414-0 by the House (see: http://news.yahoo.com/gop-run-house-easily-rejects-obama-budget-013519895.html). How would Paul describe Obama's budget proposal, which was even opposed by the Democrats? Visionary or halucinatory?

Can the US government begin to slash the budget deficit? Although Krugman uses the words "fraud," "fraudulent" and "fraudulence" five times during the course of his short essay, he never once mentions Medicare fraud, which totals some $60 billion per year (see: http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-18560_162-5414390.html). Yes, $60 billion would make a big dent in the deficit, and there are ways to go about putting an end to this crime, but any solution begins with rational discourse and not mud slinging.

No comments:

Post a Comment