Me, anyway.
You can't accuse Krugman of burying the lede. In the post now on top of his blog, he begins with this:
On the straight economics, the tax deal is worth doing. But
And he proceeds to engage a lot of politically-based fretting, fuming, worrying, laying out reasons why the deal might be problematic even though he thinks it is good economics. Fine; I read it, read it a couple of times, chewed on the points, but in the end my eye kept going back to the very first line:
On the straight economics, the tax deal is worth doing.
Have I been asleep? I've very certainly been reading and paying attention; am I the only one caught off guard by Krugman's conclusion that the economics of the deal are sound and worthwhile?
The economics aren't everything, of course; the political context matters; but I must say this surprises me, coming from someone whose judgement we trust.
Is that the way you understand this situation, this deal? Good economics, but problematic politics? I confess I have been pretty steeped in the "this-is-economically-disastrous" mindset, but maybe I have missed something.