Krugman Takes the Low Road.

The former Nobel Prize economics winner is writing from -- what, is it Paris* this month? -- about how Republican candidate Romney is in it for himself, while Krugman continues to boast the the Democrats are better at writing checks that their mouths can't cash.

In tight times,
with increased borrowing to sustain America's growing needs, Krugman astonishingly calls for more social spending. Nevermind that what we're doing now doesn't seem very promising to anyone with good long-term eyesight.

Now, the truth is that the safety net does need repair. It provides a lot of help to the poor, but not enough.

Similarly, food aid programs help a lot, but one in six Americans living below the poverty line suffers from “low food security.” This is officially defined as involving situations in which “food intake was reduced at times during the year because [households] had insufficient money or other resources for food” — in other words, hunger.

So we do need to strengthen our safety net. Mr. Romney, however, wants to make the safety net weaker instead.

I wonder, really, how many Americans Krugman has spoken to, or rubbed elbows with, in the last fiscal quarter. No really. No press "set ups" -- with specially chosen folks to "tell their story" to sympathetic elite like Krugman, when he's in town.

It's easy to imagine the "horrors" of all those Americans being on food stamps from your Paris hotel room, sympathetic to all those who don't have croissants of their own to put in their children's mouths...

I mean really. Did you know: there's really no "asset" test for food stamps in many places, it's solely income based. So if you are out of work, even if that means you're simply drawing off savings or maintaining your current standard of living, you qualify.

I know people -- it's not like they don't need the benefit. But via a divorce, "broken" families whose other incomes aren't taken into account, and an "off' work period ... the kid can qualify for free lunch, and a monthly food stamp allowance too. This offsets other items in the budget -- frees up money for the occasional movie, or MP3 download, or whatever else it is kids can spend pocket money on today...

My point is: let's not be overly dramatic. Let's not be so sympathetic, and overreaching in making our emotional pleas from above Mr. Krugman, that we don't understand ... true hunger. I'm sure some families honestly have rumbling tummies at bedtime, or would without the food allowance. So many children are trapped in "families" where poor choices are made, no "upward struggle" is present but the government-funded status quo is simply accepted, and MORE CHILDREN are born into povery daily. To me, that's the great crime.

Don't tell me how many poor children need government food and healthcare until you tell me your plans to curtail growing this population. Why do we continue to subsidize the growth of lower income families, at the cost of middle-income families who want to use their own scarce resources to invest in their own? Why should we pick the pockets of Peter's family, say, to pay for Paul's? Particularly if Paul has no plans, ever, to provide for his own, absent his government-benefit entitlements?

It's silly to keep growing, when you're doing it on borrowed money -- and time.

I just can't believe Krugman the economist is calling on yet MORE help for the lower classes via government programs. Prizes aside, has he learned nothing politically or economically in the past few years?

He writes: "At this rate, we may soon have politicians who admit what has been obvious all along: that they don’t care about the middle class either, that they aren’t concerned about the lives of ordinary Americans, and never were."

This might be a profound statement -- if the party he were pushing were making progress, had a plan, and showed us something promising, that was working. But... it's not.

All the pretty words in the world -- Krugman feels your pain from Paris, poor people, really and truly he does! -- are worth zip when they are fiscally undisciplined and don't produce. That's where we're at -- no spin, and I wish it weren't true.

The pundits, economic pundits even, know are qualified to judge a man's soul. They spin his words -- in the whole column, Krugman did not have the guts to write out Romney's full statement -- and think they can sink the man, and those who believe he'll be a better economic leader than those advising the current president.

But that doesn't put a warm healthy breakfast on the table at home. That doesn't create a dinner table where ideas are shared, days are discussed, and healthy nutrients are consumed.

Now, Krugman's counsel appears to be in checkwriting. Write more checks, to poor people who have demonstrated they have trouble planning ahead, and let them have the right to their choices ... without having to pay the costs. It's a bit like thinking that if you can take away the natural "hunger", then you teach uplift in another way. We're still waiting out here, Mr. Krugman. You know, for your "team" to teach the uplifting, and put in the time, and the work on the ground, to make effective, long-lasting structural change.

It's easy to write a check, and jump on a plane, and advise from above. And whine when you side doesn't much listen to you, instead of opening your eyes and figuring out a way to get the work done.

Even if it means, letting another person have a shot at making effective change for the good of all, not just this sympathetic group or that. Believe me, if there were a way to provide true opportunities via a freely functioning economy and a disciplined workforce, I betcha 80 percent of the people on food stamps would trade a big bag of Doritos for that chance.

I don't see the Democrats even bothering to promise that anymore. Instead, they just want to pay off poor people to accept the bare minimums, and if that doesn't work, dangle another pittance or two.

That's not how you get ahead, nor achieve personal independence.
I wonder why, over in Paris, Krugman the elite would want to discourage that here at home? I sure hope people aren't dumb enough to keep falling for it though. The empty promises of hope and change that don't materialize in substance, vs. programs targeted at making America more healthy, competitive, honest, and free.

Don't stop thinking about tomorrow, indeed.

----------------------

* Actually for Paul, we're not in Paris anymore.

January 30, 2012, 4:17 pm
Eurozone Problems
I’m giving a talk in Paris tomorrow. Here are some slides; they won’t come as a shock to regular readers, but it may be useful to see them all in one place.

February 2, 2012, 12:33 pm
From Russia, With Exhaustion
I’m in Moscow, and utterly wiped by the combination of cold, jet lag, and too many interminable panel sessions. Normal blogging should resume this weekend.

He's moved on Russia ... "utterly exhausted" from sitting in an airplane seat, too tired to type and think any further, presumably. Heh. And this guy pretends to be a concerned, genuine friend to the working man. With all the answers, but somehow, none of the committment to the task, to stay home and see his work through to actual results...

Remember what happened to Krugman's Army, kids. I think he was AWOL in Canada when that protest movement failed, no? Oh well, there's always a bag of Doritos to keep you happy until the lecturing leader returns...

(Give me Mitt Romney's cold record of results over that, anyday.)