Joe "Let Me Endorse Some Phony Republican Numbers" Lieberman

Paul Krugman notes that not only is he Joe "I voted for the bankruptcy bill before I voted against it" Lieberman, he's Joe "Let Me Endorse Some Phony Republican Numbers" Lieberman as well:

The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: The $600 Billion Man: The trustees never said that waiting a year to 'fix' Social Security costs $600 billion. Mr. Bush was grossly misrepresenting the meaning of a technical discussion of accounting issues (it's on Page 58 of the 2004 trustees' report).... The same type of 'infinite horizon' calculation applied to the Bush tax cuts says that their costs rise by $1 trillion a year. That's not a useful measure of the cost of not repealing those cuts immediately. So anyone who repeats the $600 billion line is helping to spread a lie....

But in his latest radio address, Mr. Bush - correctly, this time - attributed the $600 billion figure to a 'Democrat leader.' He was referring to Senator Joseph Lieberman, who, for some reason, repeated the party line - the Republican party line - the previous Sunday. My guess is that Mr. Lieberman thought he was being centrist and bipartisan, reaching out to Republicans by showing that he shares their concerns. At a time when the Democrats can say, without exaggeration, that their opponents are making a dishonest case for policies that will increase the risks facing families, Mr. Lieberman gave the administration cover by endorsing its fake numbers....

Mr. Lieberman stated clearly what was wrong with the bankruptcy bill: 'It failed to close troubling loopholes that protect wealthy debtors, and yet it deals harshly with average Americans facing unforeseen medical expenses or a sudden military deployment,' making it unfair to 'working Americans who find themselves in dire financial straits through no fault of their own.' A stand against the bill would have merged populism with patriotism, highlighting Democrats' differences with Republicans' vision of America.... [M]any Democrats chose not to take that stand. And Mr. Lieberman was among them: his vote against the bill was an empty gesture. On the only vote that opponents of the bill had a chance of winning - a motion to cut off further discussion - he sided with the credit card companies. To be fair, so did 13 other Democrats. But none of the others tried to have it both ways.

Some of the others did try to have it both ways, in a more constructive fashion. They voted against closing debate, and then voted for the bill on final passage. That's a much more real form of opposition that Lieberman's.

Comments

[Unstable Isotope]

Lieberman: useful idiot.

Lieberman knows better than to give cover to the Republicans. Where has he been the last 4 yrs.?

Boy, Krugman really took Lieberman to the woodshed. Good for him.

[a different chris]

>I was baffled by Krugman's argument

You don't say.

[ecoast]

Lancelot - Can you name one single thing that Leiberman did, on his own, in the last 4 years that was good for the party, or for America?

He moved away from the Dem party - oh maybe since he went to Mississippi freedom rights, when he was in college.

Did you know he went to Florida, on Kerry's dime - yes, Kerry campaign sent him - during the last presidential campaign and praised Bush - yes, actually praised Bush - for his Middle East policy? How could anyone trust a person like that? You never answered the two points Krugman raised in his column.

As for Krugman, he knows what he is doing. His academic career may have suffered a bit now, but in the long run, it will all even out. I remember he said in an interview the worst call he ever took was the one from NYT editorial page editor (Howell Raines, at the time, I think) offering him the column. People do have purposes in their lives, you know. He could quit anytime he wants to. So don't feel sorry for him; answer his questions, if you can.

[Alan]

> (It's strangely revealing that before he
> became a partisan hack at the New York Times
> he was maybe the most lucid economist in
> print. Somehow, that makes his intellectual
> self-destruction even sadder.)

Mr. Finn, could you enlighten the rest of us wretched fools where Krugman's numbers are wrong? I get it that you don't like that Krugman isn't supporting a position you would like, but you fail to say what he has written which is actually wrong.

Unlike the rest of the punditorcracy -- and unlike you -- he cites numbers that hold up when you get back to the source. Please tell us where his numbers don't add up.

[kharris]

I am baffled by Lancelot's bafflement.

Krugman said that Lieberman didn't oppose a bad bill when it would have mattered, then did oppose the bill when it wouldn't matter. He did it in such a way that he could claim, to those who do not understand the Senate's legislative process, that he took a stand against a bad bill. In fact, he made an empty gesture.

We all ought to make an effort to understand what Krugman said, because inability to understand what he said means an inability to understand the legislative process that governs our lives. It means an inability to base our votes on the real record of Senate candidates.

[peBird]

"I was baffled by Krugman's argument so I won't comment on that."

"Bush and Lieberman are trying to convey complex facts to the voters."

The trolls are getting better.

[They are?]

[praktike]

Wow. I hadn't picked up on Lieberman's use of that figure. I am really starting to despise Jonertia. Where do I donate to his primary challenger?

[Garth Sullivan]

The only silver lining to this incredibly MEAN bankruptcy bill is that by making bankruptcy more difficult to file Bush and the Republicans are going to drastically accelerate the disatisfaction of the American populace with the state of the economy and Bush's domestic policies.

I mean they did not even try to address some of the most glaring injustices in the bill, such as the unlimited homestead exemption available in some states (Yes, Texas & Florida are the two most notorious offenders offering this rich man's get away) or the fact that some states, namely Red States, have opted out of the federal scheme of exemptions and substituted their own mean hearted levels.

This may turn into an excellent campaign issue in the future. This bill stinks and it HURTS people.

[sglover]

"This may turn into an excellent campaign issue in the future. This bill stinks and it HURTS people."

An excellent issue for whom? Not Dems. (Nor Republicans, but everyone expects them to carry the finance industry's water. It's a wash for the GOP.)

I don't think I'm the only (former, now) Dem to feel extraordinarily betrayed by the way Lieberman, Ried, et al sold out on bankruptcy 'reform'. I mean, bad enough they should sell out on what should be an issue of bedrock principle -- it's gotta be one of the most boneheaded, short-sighted political maneuvers of the last five years! They won't learn, and they won't grow balls. Fuck 'em.

I gave something like $1000 last year to a variety of Democratic campaigns. I remember how irritated I got when Naderites would tell me that the two parties are indistinguishable. Now I see I was playing the fool for a bunch of unprincipled, spineless hacks. Never again.

[alan]

Hm. It has been a couple of hours and Lancelot Finn hasn't answered my post. Amazing how shy he has suddenly become. All I asked is for him to tell me where Krugman's numbers were wrong, since he seemed to be so sure that they were.

[Richard Teves]

Republican voters and supporters deserve an explanation of any "no" vote on this bankruptcy bill.

Democrats and liberals deserve explanations of every single vote that supported this.

None of the votes passed by a single vote, but how did it happen that this bankruptcy had any form of support from any Democrat?

We shouldn't have to be making explanations up. We deserve real explanations from the people who voted.

I hope it wasn't just credit card company money - but that's what it looks like. And that is extremely sad for the Democratic Party and the liberal cause.

Very very bad.

[pgl]

Didn't Dr. Krugman debate Cato's Mike Tanner last night - with Josh Marshall to fact check Tanner? Any news on how that went?

[Brian]

Am I reading those comments wrong? How is voting against the closing of the debate and then voting to pass the bill trying to have it both ways?

[Lancelot Finn]

alan writes:

"Hm. It has been a couple of hours and Lancelot Finn hasn't answered my post. Amazing how shy he has suddenly become. All I asked is for him to tell me where Krugman's numbers were wrong, since he seemed to be so sure that they were."

Well, sorry, I've been declared a troll. I don't know what that means, but I guess it means I'm not welcome to comment here anymore? I'll try to put something on my blog later. (lancelotfinn.blogspot.com) Trolls are welcome there!

[Sam Williamson]

Three weeks ago, I posted this to the Socsec list and have not received any critical reply. The use of the $600 billion a year cost needs to be challenged and the press has not said a word.
Why are the press asking how can not dealing with the "crisis" have a $600 billion annual real economic impact? This is saying that it is costing us about 30% of our annual gross investment.

Samuel H. Williamson
Editor of SocSec

---------------
Date: February 22, 2005 11:13:29 AM EST
To: socsec@eh.net
Subject: [SocSec] The $600 billion annual cost of not dealing with the crisis in Social Security.
Reply-To: The Economic Issues of Social Security

In his weekly radio address last month, President Bush said that: "waiting just one year adds $600 billion to the cost of fixing Social Security." Budget director Joshua Bolten repeated the claim last Friday in New York. I do not think this number makes economic sense.

The claim comes from using a statement in the Social Security Actuaries 2004 Report on page 58: "In last year's report the unfunded obligation over the infinite horizon was reported as $10.5 trillion in present value as of January 1, 2003. The change to the later valuation date for this report, January 1, 2004, tends to increase the measured deficit, by about $0.6 trillion."

In other places, the number has been "replicated" by multiplying a nominal 6% interest times the unfunded liability of 10 trillion. The idea is that if we are a year closer to this future debt, then its present cost goes up.

This concept makes sense for an individual, however, for an entire economy it suffers from a fallacy of composition. The unfunded liability is "owed" to the current and future workers by themselves.

With an increase in future contributions (taxes) or reduction in future benefits the unfunded liability disappears. If that happens, then the "cost" of delay is now zero.

If Congress passes a change in the contribution and/or reduction in benefits one (two or three) year(s) from now instead of today, what will the real costs to the US economy?

The real impact on the current economy of these changes is the impact on the level of aggregate saving, the participation rate, and the work effort. Thus, the cost is found by calculating the impact of these three things.

One can speculate that Ricardian Equivalence would mean that workers would save more once they know their future benefits are going to be reduced. I think we all have trouble believing that the size of this change would be this large particularly if a majority of young workers already do not believe the system will be there when they retire.

As far as changes in the participation rate, there would be no direct impact on current retirement rates from changes in the contributions or benefit of future workers. If Congress were to accelerate the rate of increase in the age of when a worker qualifies for full benefits, then this may impact the participation rate. No one is suggesting this would be done for current or soon to retire workers, so again it is hard to see how this change would have much effect for several years.

Finally there could be an impact on work effort. It has been hypothesized that increases in payroll taxes will cause an increase in deadweight loss. If future taxes are increased to cover additional costs of the program, then that loss might be realized. There are no suggestions to change the current tax rates, so again it would seem that this possible impact would not change by a one or more year postponement of the announcement of a future change.

If I am missing something, I hope someone will post an explanation.
_______________________________________________
SocSec mailing list
SocSec@eh.net
http://eh.net/mailman/listinfo/socsec

[alan]

> Well, sorry, I've been declared a troll.

Well, sorry, but if you had been posting facts and figures rather than "Krugman is a whore" screeds without any backup perhaps Prof. De Long would be more interested in having your comments on his site.

So I'll visit your site to see if you have anything worthwhile there. Personally, I doubt it but I'll be perfectly happy to be proven wrong.

[dilbert dogbert]

Lieberman! Jebus! A few votes in Florida and this guy would be a heart beat away from the presidency! Yikes!

[al]

Even Brooks is sounding the death knell:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/15/opinion/15brooks.html

Blaming the Dems, of course, but even the WSJ (and Repubs) concede...

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/0,,SB111076175304678249,00.html

...that this was the direct result of "the intensity of the president's -- and his party's -- campaigning against Democrats who backed him on tax cuts, the Iraq war and other issues."

It's as if he's asking for the tit-for-tat game theory rules of political reality to be repealed, just this once, just make this one exception, appealing to enlightened self-interest, to carry the day... and then, carry on. IOW, he's bemoaning politics, while playing it. Naive and cynical. Pollyanna and Cassandra. Virgin and whore.

[SqueakyRat]

There's a site that's taking pledges (not actual contributions) for any Dem who decides to challenge Joe in 06. It had about $37, 000 last time I looked (a day or two ago) and seemed to be getting several K/day.

http://www.timetogojoe.com

[SqueakyRat]

There's a site that's taking pledges (not actual contributions) for any Dem who decides to challenge Joe in 06. It had about $37, 000 last time I looked (a day or two ago) and seemed to be getting several K/day.

http://www.timetogojoe.com