This is only a Preview!

You must Publish this diary to make this visible to the public,
or click 'Edit Diary' to make further changes first.

Posting a Diary Entry

Daily Kos welcomes blog articles from readers, known as diaries. The Intro section to a diary should be about three paragraphs long, and is required. The body section is optional, as is the poll, which can have 1 to 15 choices. Descriptive tags are also required to help others find your diary by subject; please don't use "cute" tags.

When you're ready, scroll down below the tags and click Save & Preview. You can edit your diary after it's published by clicking Edit Diary. Polls cannot be edited once they are published.

If this is your first time creating a Diary since the Ajax upgrade, before you enter any text below, please press Ctrl-F5 and then hold down the Shift Key and press your browser's Reload button to refresh its cache with the new script files.


  1. One diary daily maximum.
  2. Substantive diaries only. If you don't have at least three solid, original paragraphs, you should probably post a comment in an Open Thread.
  3. No repetitive diaries. Take a moment to ensure your topic hasn't been blogged (you can search for Stories and Diaries that already cover this topic), though fresh original analysis is always welcome.
  4. Use the "Body" textbox if your diary entry is longer than three paragraphs.
  5. Any images in your posts must be hosted by an approved image hosting service (one of: imageshack.us, photobucket.com, flickr.com, smugmug.com, allyoucanupload.com, picturetrail.com, mac.com, webshots.com, editgrid.com).
  6. Copying and pasting entire copyrighted works is prohibited. If you do quote something, keep it brief, always provide a link to the original source, and use the <blockquote> tags to clearly identify the quoted material. Violating this rule is grounds for immediate banning.
  7. Be civil. Do not "call out" other users by name in diary titles. Do not use profanity in diary titles. Don't write diaries whose main purpose is to deliberately inflame.
For the complete list of DailyKos diary guidelines, please click here.

Please begin with an informative title:

and no, in The Real Referendum, his Monday column for The New York Times, the Nobel Laureate is not raising a question of the election being stolen.  He operates from an assumption that the election is not, as the Republicans had expected, a referendum on the President where he would be found wanting.  Instead he sees it like this:  

Voters are, in effect, being asked to deliver a verdict on the legacy of the New Deal and the Great Society, on Social Security, Medicare and, yes, Obamacare, which represents an extension of that legacy.
 Krugman, assuming the President would win such a referendum against Romney/Ryan, then offers this:  
If the polls are any indication, the result of that referendum will be a clear reassertion of support for the safety net, and a clear rejection of politicians who want to return us to the Gilded Age. But here’s the question: Will that election result be honored?
If you think that is a reference to the President still supporting the Simpson-Bowles framework in the search for the so-called "Grand Bargain" in the lame duck session, you would be correct.

Please keep reading.


You must enter an Intro for your Diary Entry between 300 and 1150 characters long (that's approximately 50-175 words without any html or formatting markup).

If the direction of the conventional wisdom is for Obama to pursue such a path, Krugman argues that there are three reasons for Obama to say no.

1.  Contrary to much of the political rhetoric, we are NOT facing any kind of fiscal crisis, rather

U.S. borrowing costs are at historic lows, with investors actually willing to pay the government for the privilege of owning inflation-protected bonds.
 Instead of worrying about deficits Krugman argues government policy should be focused on things like last year's proposal for a jobs act.

2.  We do not have an entitlements problem, but rather a health-care problem, which have at least partly addressed with Obama's signature achievement, the Affordable Care Act that the Republicans so want to repeal.  

It’s true that there’s also, even aside from health care, a gap between the services we’re promising and the taxes we’re collecting — but to call that gap an “entitlements” issue is already to accept the very right-wing frame that voters appear to be in the process of rejecting.
3.  Simpson Bowles is a bad plan.  Among the aspects with which Krugman disagrees is the proposal to raise the Social Security retirement age, ostensibly because American longevity has increased.  But
This is an idea Washington loves — but it’s also totally at odds with the reality of an America in which rising inequality is reflected not just in the quality of life but in its duration. For while average life expectancy has indeed risen, that increase is confined to the relatively well-off and well-educated — the very people who need Social Security least. Meanwhile, life expectancy is actually falling for a substantial part of the nation.
You get a sense of the cogency of the column, which given Krugman's track record should surprise no one.

Krugman argues that an Obama win would be a mandate for continuing the current social safety net.  Yet he worries - as do many here - of what might still happen in a lame-duck session.

So he concludes with a clear warning for the President in pursuing a 'GRAND BARGAIN" withint the framework of Simpson-Bowles:  

It would be a terrible mistake, both politically and for the nation’s future, for him to let himself be talked into snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
Read the Krugman.

Pass it on -

-  to any Member of the current House or of the United States Senate that you know.

Let them know you will be watching.

That in voting for Obama and for as many Democrats as we can get into the forthcoming Congress, we are not validating the "Grand Bargain" and we do not accept Simpson-Bowles.

How tragic it would be to get functional control of the Senate (assuming Reid modifies the filibuster) and actual control of the House only to have that be meaningless because the administration and the current Congress have given away the candy store before the new Congress is sworn in.

Extended (Optional)

Your Email has been sent.