In one of his most powerful pieces in quite awhile, Paul Krugman speaks truth to power in his op-ed column in this Monday's New York Times: "
Hey, Small Spender."
He tells us "....the administration has had a messaging problem on economic policy ever since its first months in office..." (I'll get back to this in a moment.)
But, one need look no farther than David Axelrod's statements, this weekend, as he echoed none other than House Minority Whip
Eric Cantor's sentiments on the foreclosure crisis on Fox News, on Sunday, in his rebuttal of Florida Democratic Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz's commentary, where she said,
"...it's absolutely imperative that we keep people in their homes."
Eric Cantor Comes Out Against Foreclosure Moratorium
Posted by georgezornick on @ 2:58 pm
Article printed from speakeasy: http://blogs.alternet.org/...
URL to article: http://blogs.alternet.org/...
...On Fox News Sunday, Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-FL) called for a nationwide moratorium on foreclosures, saying "it's absolutely imperative that we keep people in their homes." House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) disagreed strongly, however, saying he was "just perplexed" at Wasserman Schultz's answer, and that "people have to take responsibility for themselves."
CANTOR: I'm just perplexed to that answer, Bret... what we're seeing if you do that, if you impose a moratorium on foreclosures what you are telling people and institutions that lend money is they do not have the protection to take the risk they need to, to extend credit for people will get a mortgage. You'll shut down the housing industry if that is the case[...]
What we're talking about, Debbie, you have 10 percent, if that, of the population who are now in a foreclosure situation or in a mortgage that they have been unable to meet the obligations... Now, come on, people have to take responsibility for themselves. We need to get the housing industry going again. We don't need government intervening in every step of every aspect of this economy...
From Axelrod, via CNN:
Axelrod signals White House opposition to foreclosure moratorium
By Tom Cohen, CNN
October 10, 2010 3:10 p.m. EDT
Washington (CNN) -- The Obama administration opposes a moratorium on home foreclosures, but wants problems involving improper paperwork resolved as quickly as possible, senior adviser David Axelrod said Sunday.
"I'm not sure about a national moratorium," Axelrod said on the CBS program "Face the Nation." He said valid foreclosures with proper paperwork should go forward, and that questionable foreclosures need to be addressed right away.
"Our hope is that this moves rapidly and that this gets unwound very, very quickly," Axelrod said...
Meanwhile, as "Attorneys General In 40 States Said To Join On Foreclosures," (I believe the latest update on this story is 36 AG's and growing) and as we are just learning that even the President, himself, was affected by these institutionalized mortgage snafus, personally, scores of Democratic congressmen have already spoken up in favor of the moratorium, too.
But, we've seen this all before, haven't we? (Do I need to provide a list?) It's Political Public Relations 101: Continuity of theme! (Take a position and stand by it. Stick to the talking points. Implement strategy.)
But, I digress.
Back to Krugman's powerful truths, from early this morning: "Hey, Small Spender."
Hey, Small Spender
By PAUL KRUGMAN
New York Times
October 11, 2010
Here's the narrative you hear everywhere: President Obama has presided over a huge expansion of government, but unemployment has remained high. And this proves that government spending can't create jobs.
Here's what you need to know: The whole story is a myth. There never was a big expansion of government spending. In fact, that has been the key problem with economic policy in the Obama years: we never had the kind of fiscal expansion that might have created the millions of jobs we need...
Krugman tells us to ask ourselves: "What major new federal programs have started up since Mr. Obama took office?" He notes that health care reform really "...hasn't kicked in yet." There are no giant infrastructure projects. No "...huge new benefits for low-income workers or the poor? No. Where's all that spending we keep hearing about? It never happened."
But, he does note, "to be fair,"...that federal safety net programs have been massively supported by the federal government during President Obama's first 21 months in office.
Krugman states...
...But when people denounce big government, they usually have in mind the creation of big bureaucracies and major new programs. And that just hasn't taken place...
Krugman points out that the U.S. government employee headcount has been falling, not rising under Obama's stewardship. He tells us that a "...small increase in federal employment was swamped by sharp declines at the state and local level..." And, total government (federal, state, municipal, etc.) payrolls have dropped by 350,000 since the President took office.
The big government expansion that the MSM and teapartiers rant about, in fact, "never happened." And, he supports this statement by pointing out that more than 40% of the $600 billion expended in 2009 and 2010 via the Recovery Act was, in fact, tax cuts; and, much of the balance was comprised of direct aid to states and municipalities.
He also tells us: "...there's a widespread perception that government spending has surged, when it hasn't... And, that's because of a baseless, rightwing disinformation campaign, which is nothing more than "cooked numbers."
Krugman concludes by telling us the administration screwed the pooch on their messaging of the matter, from the get-go, because the stimulus wasn't substantial enough "...given the size of the economy's troubles." (A position that he, any many others--including yours truly--took at the time. So, IMHO, this is not Monday morning quarterbacking.)
Then Krugman gets to the heart of the matter by preempting the inevitable criticism of his own perspective on this with a very basic concept: The argument that's been made, in terms of the White House getting all the cash they could out of Capitol Hill, at the time, (which Krugman points out as being "questionable") "...was better than none at all (which it was)."
...But that's not an argument the administration ever made. Instead, it has insisted throughout that its original plan was just right, a position that has become increasingly awkward as the recovery stalls.
And a side consequence of this awkward positioning is that officials can't easily offer the obvious rebuttal to claims that big spending failed to fix the economy -- namely, that thanks to the inadequate scale of the Recovery Act, big spending never happened in the first place.
But if they won't say it, I will: if job-creating government spending has failed to bring down unemployment in the Obama era, it's not because it doesn't work; it's because it wasn't tried.
# # #
Very simply, IMHO, Krugman's spot-on. And, it's one of the saddest of truths for Democrats in this election cycle.