Krugman: you can’t be honest…without sounding partisan
Bookmark this PBS profile of Paul Krugman, and keep it at the ready if you ever need a big does of sanity.
PAUL KRUGMAN: You can’t get too cynical. By and large, the people who are ranting about debt and deficits are the same people who thought it was perfectly fine for George W. Bush to cut taxes without any offsetting spending cuts.
They thought it was perfectly OK to have two unfunded wars. So deficits didn’t matter when their guy was in the White House. Now it matters because somebody else is in the White House. And, rest assured, if Mitt Romney is elected, they will suddenly find reasons why cutting taxes, even if it increases the deficit, is no problem.
PAUL SOLMAN: But that is a highly partisan remark and exactly the kind of thing that even people on your side of the spectrum say you’re too strident by constantly, constantly repeating.
PAUL KRUGMAN: Except it’s true, right? And people like me have been right so far. And that doesn’t mean we will always be right. But if you have got to choose who you’re going to believe, you might want to at least seriously consider the people who have called it right on how the economy was going to evolve these past three years or so.
It is funny to think of Krugman as “partisan” when so many Democrats have bought into the GOP’s debt crisis nonsense. So, perhaps partisan isn’t the correct word.
Definitions aside, I think Krugman has to just keep being right long enough for Democratic policy makers to start listening to him.
As if to punctuate Krugman’s remarks, Sen. Katz introduces a bill to repeal Delaware corporate income tax. I can’t wait to see the fiscal note on that.
I’m open-minded about the possibility that it might attract more business and jobs. After all, I’m usually in favor of tax incentives for individual companies who create jobs in Delaware. But show me the numbers first and show me what we would have to cut.
I’m actually in favor of repealing federal corporate income tax, as long as it is replaced with a revenue-neutral increase in the top marginal rate for personal income tax. I don’t think that would work at the state level though, since people could just move out of the state far more easily.
By the way, redistricting puts me in Katz’s new district (I lost Sokola). What to do, what to do?
FYI, it appears Katz hasn’t filed yet, and Sokola is so far unopposed, if I am reading it correctly.
Is Katz a fucking idiot?
Katz (assuming he files) has just maybe out-crazied Lavelle, who has filed for District 4. I guess Katz figures the bill will die, but he’ll pick up some Republican votes without losing Democratic votes. Maybe crazy like a fox.
Puck for State Senate!
“I can’t wait to see the fiscal note on that.” If Katz employs battle tested Republican economic theory – the net effect will be an explosion in revenue based on magical unicorns descending from heaven.
Katz has gone zombie on us. It’s what happens when you let ghastly undead economic voodoo eat your brains.
Ah, here’s the commentary on SB100. Don’t think we’ll see any of the magical unicorns, eh, Jason? puck, you don’t think it’s problematic for the governor’s office or even the state legislature to carve out special tax exemptions for their favorite companies to “create jobs in Delaware” ala Fisker?
This seems like a much better way of doing it, though in the interests of easing the transition, and if Katz were actually serious about passing it, I’d think that we’d do a graduated phase out rather than an outright repeal. The increase in revenues from more employees paying income taxes on their earnings from an untaxed corporate employer isn’t QUITE a magical unicorn, but we could test this empirically with a phased out tax that could be quickly, easily, and painlessly reversed if our unicorns failed to manifest themselves.
Good point, Will. How come tax cut bills that are supposed to increase jobs and revenue never include a sunset provision in case the unicorns don’t show up?
Let’s go, Puck.
Add the corporate income tax repeal to the growing list of foolish ideas spouting from the mind (?) of Sen. Katz. I supported him two years ago, and was pleased to finally have a D representing me.
Katz, however, has been a disappointment. And, quite frankly, whenever my wife or I have had occasion to call one of our legislators, we have found Greg Lavelle to be far more responsive.
Politically, I seldom agree with Lavelle, so I’m not likely to vote for him. As for Katz, if there’s a long line at the polls, I won’t be able to hold my nose long enough to mark the X next to his name.
I am willing to write off Katz’s DOA bill as a harmless act of political inoculation. He’s got a tough race in a tough district for a Democrat. If you need a reason to vote for him, try “control of the Senate.”
Will, the magical tax cut unicorn system has been tested repeatedly and failed repeatedly.
Reagan, Bush I & Bush II
I’ll grant that tax cuts for the rich can be beneficial when they are too high for prevailing economic conditions. But they haven’t been too high for decades now.
Those magical unicorns have tended to be more selective, and much more fanciful. This one is a pretty painfully simple, “ditch it entirely” kind of deal. All of the examples you mentioned did a lot of tinkering with the tax code to go along with the cuts that basically made it a handout to the 1% rather than a broad based tax cut for everyone.
Cutting the corporate tax in a gradual and meaningful way, I think, might work a bit better. I suppose we can agree to disagree about that, and since this bill is DOA it’s hardly worth fighting over. I think a gradual phase out giving the GA plenty of opportunities to reverse themselves if the economy and revenues crash would be a valuable experiment.
“you don’t think it’s problematic for the governor’s office or even the state legislature to carve out special tax exemptions for their favorite companies to “create jobs in Delaware” ala Fisker?”
What is the state supposed to do when confronted with 49 competitors who do offer such carve-outs? Unilaterally surrender?
No business is going to pass on a special deal in favor of a low corporate tax rate.
And if your complaint is the two separate levels of taxation, congratulations. You can join those of us who think the Balkanization … er, the “federal system” … has long outlived its usefulness. Its only use now is in giving corporations a weapon against the people.
When libertarians start complaining about corporate power, I’ll start listening to their nostrums…er, “solutions.”
I do complain about corporate power. I spent 2-3 months camped out on Legislative Mall complaining about it. Perhaps I’m wrong, but I would venture to say that a level playing field open to individuals wanting to start a new small business could more than make up for a few corrupt companies who are going to close up shop because they can’t get a handie from the state government.
Note to Katz:
Trying to curry favor with women voters by applying lipstick, a wig, and shaving your armpits and legs, then strutting down the runway in stilettos, usually invites ridicule ….. from everyone.
The same theory holds for Republicans. For every vote you try to gain with your masquerade, you probably will lose one and a half…..