In his New York Times column today, Paul Krugman shows that his ability to wear two hats (Nobel-Prize-winning economist and intellectually dishonest partisan) is unimpaired.
First, he attributes the results of the Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act of 1982, and thus the S&L crisis of the late 1980′s, entirely to Ronald Reagan, as though Reagan was ruling by decree. It was Democrat Fernand St. Germain, Congressman from Rhode Island, who dropped into the bill in the middle of the night the provision that raised the government guarantee on bank deposits from $40,000 to $100,000 and assorted other goodies for the powerful S&L lobby. It passed both houses with veto-proof majorities.
Second he lies with statistics, especially the “savings rate,” which measures only family income versus outgo. Mortgage payments, for instance, which add to net worth, are not counted, nor are capital gains, unless realized. In the great boom of the 1982-2007 period, families saved more by increased housing and investment gains than by old-fashioned savings.
Third, he writes, “traditionally, the U.S. government ran significant budget deficits only in times of war or economic emergency. Federal debt as a percentage of G.D.P. fell steadily from the end of World War II until 1980. Translation: Reagan began running up the debt to unsustainable heights.
What he doesn’t say is that while the debt remained fairly steady in dollar terms in the late 40s, and in 50s and 60s (it increased by roughly a third in the 1960s though), it declined as a percentage of GDP thanks to strong economic growth. But in the 1970′s, with Congress firmly in the hands of Democrats and with weak Republican presidents Nixon (after Watergate broke) and Ford, the debt tripled in dollar terms. It declined slightly as a percentage of GDP only because of the roaring inflation of that decade.
Dan Okrent, the first Public Editor of the Times was right: Krugman has a problem with the truth.
Human nature being what it is, I doubt unions ever performed a more valuable service for workers than they do today. That, however does not mean that employers were ever right to engage in forcible union busting, or the state actively to connive at it (a few exceptions like Coolidge’s breaking of the police strike, Reagan of the air traffic controllers and so forth duly noted). The obligatory homage to the good old days when corrupt institutions were unsullied generally muddies the intellectual waters. Balancing management with unions is defensible in much the same way that balancing the branches of government serves a useful purpose. Competing authorities need not be morally pristine to accomplish the objective.
The Union of Union Representatives PAC will undoubtedly be flexing its own muscle too.
Hey JG
Now that the NRA has spoken, you might want to issue a correction to your 3/17 piece “Brass Facts.” You: “So, why would the Obama administration do this? The most commonsense explanation (even if a little conspiratorial) would be that this is yet another back-door effort toward gun control.”
The National Rifle Association: “[Defense Logistics Agency] also put to rest various theories and rumors that were circulated on the internet, concerning the reason for the suspension. As DLA explained to Senators Baucus and Tester, and to NRA-ILA, DoD officials responsible for the demilitarization of military property temporarily halted the release of the cartridge cases last week, pending review of a policy change issued last year by the Office of the Secretary of Defense, which, in the interest of national security, halted the sale of items within a broad category of government property including, but not limited to, surplus small arms cartridge cases.”
Note: DoD action based on changes made “last year,” when Bush was president
At least have the class to correct your baseless smears.
Here’s your link to the NRA:
http://www.opposingviews.com/articles/news-nra-praises-gov-t-reversal-of-ban-on-military-cartridge-cases
Another hypocrisy from the Left: remember how ACORN protested that Americans should be paid a “living wage”? Well, ACORN apparently believes that it shouldn’t apply to them as they tried to pay their employees minimum wage.
I guess the saying for the Left is: capitalism for me, but not for thee.
Seth, all well and true–but when was the last time a private company made efforts to bust a union? Even Reagan’s actions were four presidents ago. Given the union corruption that still exists–abetted by the Dept. of Labor lack of enforcement and oversight–it’s hardly comparable to the competing interests of tripartite government. But that’s just me.