Paul Krugman: "Obama is not as progressive as his rivals on domestic policy."

Very interesting Op-Ed by one of my favorite writers, Paul Krugman, of the NY Times. He analyzed all of the candidates on their recession policies, using their - horror of horrors! - own policy statements and plans. As expected, the Republicans are totally useless - none of them will be able to handle this, including new frontrunner McCain, who said recently:

"Take, for example, John McCain’s admission that economics isn’t his thing. "The issue of economics is not something I’ve understood as well as I should," he says. "I’ve got Greenspan’s book."

But as a recent convert to Obama from Edwards from fear of polls and results in Iowa and NH, I was surprised to see what I have said often here:

On the Democratic side, John Edwards, although never the front-runner, has been driving his party’s policy agenda.

He also said the Obama is the least progressive on domestic issues, which I will highlight below.

http://www.nytimes.com/...

Krugman analyzes the economic plans of the top three Dems and has this to say about Edwards:

On the Democratic side, John Edwards, although never the front-runner, has been driving his party’s policy agenda. He’s done it again on economic stimulus: last month, before the economic consensus turned as negative as it now has, he proposed a stimulus package including aid to unemployed workers, aid to cash-strapped state and local governments, public investment in alternative energy, and other measures.

Krugman has been a trustworthy voice for me, so I trust his take on all of this. He says that Clinton's plan is progressive, also:

Last week Hillary Clinton offered a broadly similar but somewhat larger proposal. (It also includes aid to families having trouble paying heating bills, which seems like a clever way to put cash in the hands of people likely to spend it.) The Edwards and Clinton proposals both contain provisions for bigger stimulus if the economy worsens.

And his take on Obama:

As was the case with his health care plan, which fell short of universal coverage, his stimulus proposal is similar to those of the other Democratic candidates, but tilted to the right."

And lastly, there is this:

I know that Mr. Obama’s supporters hate to hear this, but he really is less progressive than his rivals on matters of domestic policy.

I love Krugman, and I like Obama, but I trust Krugman. I am going to give some serious thought to the points he made in this editorial today.

•  Hate to post this diary and run

  but I did it at lunch. I will be back later on this afternoon.

  Thanks for reading it!

  by adigal on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 09:16:17 AM PDT

  •  Krugman is soooo going to get flamed

    I have said from the beginning I love Obama on foreign policy as far as domestic policy, eh not so much.

    by cwaltz on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 09:18:47 AM PDT

•  Yawn

  Yet another link to a hit piece that's already clearly discredited.

  by dgil on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 09:17:40 AM PDT

  •  Would you show me where it was discredited?

    I looked at today's diaries, and didn't see anything on the ones that were listed.

    You think Krugman is making stuff up?

    You see, that is what kills me about politics, even the Democrats.  Once you pick your "team," you refuse to hear anything bad about the team, and you call names and discredit anyone who has anything to say bad about your "team."  Your comments sound like something a Bush supporter would say.

    by adigal on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 09:19:39 AM PDT

    •  Here

      http://www.dailykos.com/...

      BTW, I hope you don't take any personal flack from Obama supporters for posting this.  Our beef is (or should be) with Krugman alone.

      Krugman is an important figure, and what he says usually matters -- but he's kind of gone off his rocker on Obama.

      by Pegasus on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 09:21:43 AM PDT

      •  Thanks for the link n/t

        by adigal on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 09:30:26 AM PDT

    •  Krugman is not making stuff up

      he's merely parroting what he's been told.  Even the newest of journalists would have bothered to check and see if what he was regurgitating about Obama was actually factual, which in his latest hit piece is not.

      by dgil on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 09:29:02 AM PDT

  •  of course

    any criticism of The One is a hit piece. Ger a new line ok?

    Some Obama supporters are getting more and more insufferable by the minute.

    by michael1104 on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 09:20:23 AM PDT

    •  Go to Obama's web site

      read his position papers, and learn some facts.  Krugman has been writing factless hit pieces on Obama and relies on no one calling him on it.

      Facts are facts.  What's getting insufferable is people's inability to learn for themselves.

      by dgil on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 09:26:53 AM PDT

      •  by calling him out

        you mean how the Obama campaign put out a deliberately misleading out of context quote to show an inconsistency in Krugman that wasn't there?

        Oh yeah the same way they quoted Bill Clinton completely out of context to claim he's a racist.

        Right.

        by michael1104 on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 09:31:39 AM PDT

        •  WTH does BC have to do

          with Krugman being a shill for HC's wife?

          Oh, yeah: in the face of facts, change the subject...

          by dgil on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 09:54:39 AM PDT

      •  Nah, he's right

        Take the foreclosure stuff: Clinton's plan is more far-reaching.  

        HRC: Freezes on foreclosures and ARM rates; $5b direct assistance; additional direct assistance for energy bills

        Obama: a big fund to help people refinance.  No rate freezes, so the negotiations are on the lendor's terms.

        That's what Krug is getting at: they both have broadly similar plans, but Obama's veers to the right of Clinton.

        by burrow owl on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 09:49:07 AM PDT

  •  this is all a bit bizarre

    I knew of and admired Paul Krugman long before I ever heard of Obama; I read Peddling Prosperity like 15 years ago. I've only become an Obama supporter in the past 3 months. I have reason to give Krugman, not Obama, the benefit of the doubt.

    But now I can't believe the drivel I am reading from Krugman. What really opened my eyes was his column the other week where he started out talking about China ...then meandered over to lauding Edwards and disparaging Obama on the weird basis that what this country needs is a fighter--a FIGHER I tell you--to take on China.  The reasoning was flimsy at best, and even absurd.  What can be causing such aberrant thought processes.

    My own wild theory (and oh man I might be flamed for this) is that Krugman.... may actually have some kind of envy about Obama.  This situation reminds me slightly, in a way, of what happened with Laura Tyson, which is the other well-known time that Krugman kind of went a little unhinged.  I suspect that maybe--MAYBE--Krugman has some kind of issue with perceived competition at intersections of intellect and policy, or intellect and power

    Ok it's a bizarre theory (but that's what the radio in my head is telling me!), but I can't think of anything better to explain what seems like uninformed yadda yadda from one of my intellectual heroes

    I think Krugman among other things is one of the greatest essayists/polemicists of the past 20~30 years

    by TomY on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 09:42:33 AM PDT

•  I agree, and it's why I'm voting BO.

  Since our primary is coming up soon, I've been doing my due diligence on policy and came to the same conclusion.  Obama has a raft of tax cuts, supports pay-go, has a more moderate health care plan, and will almost certainly be Clintonian on free trade (moreso than HRC could politically afford to be; while HRC would probably be status quo, Obama is even pushing for expansion of free trade into intellectual property.)

  by burrow owl on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 09:18:46 AM PDT

  •  It sounds like you are looking for a republican

    and Obama fits the bill? I don't think he is as far right-leaning as you imply. But I could be wrong.

    by adigal on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 09:21:38 AM PDT

    •  Looking for a Clintonian

      Fiscal responsibility + social libertarianism + civil libertarian.  Obama best fits the bill, and will be most effective in carrying the flag of Clintonism.

      by burrow owl on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 09:30:45 AM PDT

      •  (correction: s/b social liberalism,

        not social libertarianism)

        by burrow owl on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 09:31:33 AM PDT

•  Krugman is the new Sirota. eom

  by Geekesque on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 09:18:51 AM PDT

•  I wonder what Krugman means when he says

  "progressive."  Does he mean liberal orthodoxy?  Sheer left-ness?  Because other than on health care, he doesn't have a factual leg to stand on with his "really is less progressive" stuff, IMHO.

  by Pegasus on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 09:19:07 AM PDT

  •  Given that every union that's taken a position

    opposes mandates in their policy papers (that I've heard about), is his healthcare plan really less progressive?

    If so, why are unions spouting right-wing crap.

    by DemocraticLuntz on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 09:20:32 AM PDT

    •  You're a braver man than I

      to go there.  FWIW, I agree entirely re: mandates, but it's a thorny argument to have in these parts.

      by Pegasus on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 09:22:56 AM PDT

    •  Unions don't want to lose power.

      Unions are more desirable than working on your own, in part, because they negotiate for good health benefits.  If every worker has mandatory benefits, then the union is less important.  Simple political-economics.

      by DaveV on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 09:26:29 AM PDT

    •  Are you saying we do not already have mandates?

      To me we have mandates. Get sick, go to a hospital, and get treated .... at my expense as both a taxpayer and as a person paying for my healthcare coverage. Everyone is already covered. Some of those covered are basically covered at others' expense.

      Also where does this differ from auto insurance? Is the Obama position that a person should be able to forego auto insurance and that states cannot mandate drivers have coverage? How is costly medical insurance any different than costly auto insurance? The "No Mandate" position makes no sense to me.

      Then we get into my secondary problem with Obama. He does not cover some number (say the 15 Mil as Hillary pointed out) and then will negotiate and compromise with the Republicans who are pretty happy with things as they stand and say 40 Mil uncovered. Where does Obama end up .... somewhere close to 30 Mil uncovered declaring victory? My guess is a lot of folks with insurance are going to look at the 15 Mil and growing and then say, "Sorry, I'm better off today as is" or just as bad support Republicans and help a few more people at less cost and be better off financially - marginal change.

      by Savid on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 09:37:33 AM PDT

      •  Obama's plan can work,

        but, like private insurance, they have to charge a steep fee for pre-existing conditions in order to ameliorate the free rider problem.  

        by burrow owl on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 09:41:34 AM PDT

      •  auto insurance

        When states started mandating auto insurance (it wasn't so long ago - we got on for a while without it) part of the argument was that rates would go down.

        That didn't happen.

        Now they're telling us the same is true for mandatory health insurance.

        Mandates will not make it more affordable.

        by slaney black on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 09:52:26 AM PDT

        •  lack of mandate

          drive up costs.

          It is insurance. You need a large pool of people to keep the costs low.

          by Civil Defense on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 10:11:29 AM PDT

          •  a large pool is...

            a necessary but not sufficient condition for keeping costs low.

            Whereas creating monopoly-like conditions by instituting a mandate is a sufficient condition for driving costs up.

            by slaney black on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 10:13:48 AM PDT

            •  huh?

              That is nonsense when the subject is health insurance.

              A simple example. Under Obama's plan you're a healthy young man so you  don't pay the $300 dollars per month you can afford for health insurance  and instead use it for trips to Vegas. But you get into an accident and now need emergency room care. It is provided to you, at the cost of everyone else who is paying for health care. But now their costs have to go up because you are incurring costs but not paying your share.

              Others, seeing the wisdom of having health care without paying for it,  join you and drop out to the insurance pool and this drives costs up even more.

              His plan is simply no good.  

              by Civil Defense on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 10:41:38 AM PDT

            •  One of the plans

              doesn't include a monopoly-like condition.

              Edwards offers an alternative to for-profit insurance by opening up the federal health care plans etc to ordinary citizens.

              So basically the for-profit industry has to compete against at least one entity that isn't in it to make money.  Good luck with that.

              by sima on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 02:27:44 PM PDT

•  Given that...

  Washington is one of those wonderful towns where you cannot successfully mandate breathing, much less anything else, I am immediately skeptical of any health care plan that claims to mandate coverage...  First off, it will not pass through Congress into law, secondly, it may not be Constitutional (you have the right to be uninsured?), and finally, I do not think it will work...

  That said...  given that, we, on the left side of the road, tend to believe that everyone views things the same way we do... sadly, it is just not the case.  A purely leftist agenda is not going to get very far...  We need compromise to bring about success...  and we are long-overdue for successes in domestic policy in this country.

  by Jen K in FLA on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 09:25:59 AM PDT

•  I agree

  Can't stand Obama's health plan...

  But this is old news already to anyone paying attention.

  by GregNYC on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 09:26:03 AM PDT

•  Obama has a more progressive record

  This link covers some aspects.

  Anyone can staple up a bunch a plans to try and paint themselves as being progressive. It's like putting on a new suit (and hiding the old dirty ones).

  Why doesn't Krugman factor in record in making his grading pronouncements? He has not been objective in his anti-Obama crusade this cycle.

  No person out there makes the "perfect" candidate. But of all the ones we have, I trust Obama the most to deliver on progressive goals, which I arrive at by looking at record, rhetoric, plans and modus operandi.

  Add to that Obama's unique capacity inspire the nation and maybe even the world into doing good things. It's time for Paul to line up his support behind Obama!

  by NeuvoLiberal on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 09:35:54 AM PDT

  •  Will he vote "Present" on healthcare?

    Will he again pledge to take the talk to audiences where it is not popular and then not mention his support for nuclear energy as he did in the same speech at the NH 100 Dinner? That was the same guy in the same speech.

    by Savid on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 09:40:27 AM PDT

    •  enough of this BS spinning of

      his "present" votes. Obama's fack check on that nonsense.

      Obama only supports nuclear power as a transient step towards a fully renewable energy infrastructure. Even Gore supports limited use of nuclear power while we enhance renewable energy technology.

      by NeuvoLiberal on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 09:47:54 AM PDT

•  Krugman is wrong

  Let's take the health care thing first.

  When the government makes you pay money, it's a tax.
  When the government makes people who can least afford it pay money, it's a regressive tax.

  The health insurance mandate is a regressive tax.
  That's the opposite of a progressive tax, for those of you keeping score.

  Whereas, for example, when you make high earners keep paying social security tax on additional earnings like Obama wants to, that's a progressive tax.

  On economic policy, Obama's plan is a broad tax and social security credit.  Hillary's are narrowly targeted proposals.  There is a good progressive reason for Obama's stance.  Statistics show that the people who need gov't programs the most are the least likely to fill out application forms.  So a targeted heating oil program like Hill proposes is great in theory, but in practice a lot of people won't submit the form and will miss out.  Whereas cutting a check for $250 to working people who pay taxes and get social security hits a lot more people automatically.

  That "automatically" part is a centerpiece of Obama's approach - see his opt-out savings plan.

  Targetting social programs more broadly would be, I think, more progressive.

  Krugman is a corporate shill.

  by slaney black on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 09:48:32 AM PDT

  •  no

    Without a mandate the cost for everyone else goes up. As the cost goes up, more people chose not to buy insurance. As fewer people buy insurance the cost goes up again. That is a large part of the problem we have today.

    But what is worse is that Obama's plan is to require insurance companies to sell insurance to anyone who wants it. Couple that to the no-mandate position, and every healthy  person in America will immediately drop their insurance coverage on the Obama promise they can buy a policy when they get sick.

    The Obama plan is pretty dumb and shows that he is not ready for the big leagues yet.  

    by Civil Defense on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 10:00:17 AM PDT

    •  irrelevant

      We can argue whether it's a good idea elsewhere.

      The question was, is it less progressive.

      And the answer is no.

      Whether they are better plans or not, the Clinton and Edwards plans are the very definition of regressive.

      by slaney black on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 10:03:52 AM PDT

      •  A bad Idea is never progressive

        Obama's health care plan is a totally lousy idea. Lousy ideas are not progressive.

        by Civil Defense on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 10:09:20 AM PDT

        •  Keep saying it...

          repeating insurance industry propaganda over and over again will surely make it true.

          by slaney black on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 10:11:17 AM PDT

          •  it's simple math

            The real world is objective and no matter how much you would like to wish things are different the math of actuarial science says Obama's plan is a loser.

            It will only make things worse for everyone.

            by Civil Defense on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 10:14:21 AM PDT

    •  There is no requirement

      that it be sold at the same price.

      An old person can buy into Medicare Part D during any enrollment period, but the price is higher for hold-outs.

      by SingleVoter on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 11:17:44 AM PDT

•  I'm curious

  I'm curiuos as to why Krugman examines policy proposals as oppose to actual voting records.

  Does he actually believe everything he hears. The premise of this article is that politicians should be believed and everything they say should be taken at face value.

  by quantum on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 09:51:36 AM PDT

  •  Well, yes, that's the premise in examining

    candidate's proposals on crucial issues.

    You prefer to just be swayed by rhetoric?!

    by Cream City on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 09:54:02 AM PDT

•  It's the economy, stupid

  In November the voters are going to chose between a Democrat and a Republican based on economic issues. Every thing else, including Iraq, will be of secondary importance.

  So with that in mind we have to decide who to put on the ticket who will be the most convincing to the public regarding economic issues.

  On this there can be no doubt. Hillary Clinton is the best candidate we have to address people economic uncertainty, to reassure the markets, to implement a stimulas package and to restore confidence in the system.

  I think most Americans would agree with me on this. That as nice as it would be to have an African American in the white house I am not willing to roll the dice on him while I am at risk of losing my home.

  by Civil Defense on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 09:55:13 AM PDT

  •  don't you kind of show your true colors when...

    you characterize Obama's campaign as: "...as nice as it would be to have an African American in the white house...".  Funny how you think of his presidential bid first and foremost in those terms.  But, no, I'm not calling you out or anything.

    by TomY on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 10:13:28 AM PDT

    •  Rhetoric vs Realty

      You know, keeping my home is a pretty big issue for me. And it is more important to me that putting an African American in the white house. I would bet that most Americans feel the same way

      Obama's camaign doesn't have much going for him other than his lofty rhetoric and the historic opportunity to have a black president. His health plan is simply foolish and he is lacking an economic plan that adequately addresses the problems we face.

      But I know, anytime someone points out where Obama doesn't make the cut, it is because of racism.  

      Obama has based his campaign on his ability to give a good speech that unifies people cause it makes them feel nice about themselves. That's nice. And if it wasn't for the problems we face I would consider him a credible candidate.

      In November voters will pick between a Democrat and Republican and I want our strongest candidate on the ticket in order to win that election. That would be Hillary Clinton.

      by Civil Defense on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 10:27:00 AM PDT

      •  you are beyond laughable.

        you are basically just full of shit.  You discredit your own candidate.  And you're too stupid to realize that.

        by TomY on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 10:32:17 AM PDT

        •  have you seen

          What is happening in the economy these days?

          People are losing jobs, homes, saving, and their economic security. You think that is laughable?

          If you want to win the election in November you will realize that the economy will be the issue that decides the matter.

          by Civil Defense on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 10:46:14 AM PDT

•  As I have explained before, and at length

  Paul Krugman is wrong when he claims Edwards and Clinton are more progressive than Obama, at least on health care.

  There is nothing whatsoever progressive, at all, in any way shape or form, about mandating insurance. Nothing. The only person in this campaign with a progressive health care proposal is Dennis Kucinich.

  As to trust, we should have learned a LONG time ago that the only people we trust in politics are ourselves. Krugman has been and continues to be one of our most important allies. But that doesn't make him perfect, and it doesn't make him always right. Don't check your critical thinking skills at the door when you read Krugman.

  by eugene on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 09:57:51 AM PDT

  •  Obama is wrong

    Obama just does not understand insurance and the concept of moral hazard.

    Couple his promise to force insurance companies to sell a policy to anyone who wants one and his no-mandate position and we have a total disaster in the making.

    Millions of healthy Americans will drop out of the insurance pool thereby driving the cost of insurance to everyone left because of current health needs. As cost go up even more people will drop out of the pool and costs will climb again even higher.

    This is not a good plan by Obama.

    by Civil Defense on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 10:06:03 AM PDT

    •  One could require contributions

      to an IRA-coupled Health Saving Account in lieu of insurance purchase.

      So instead of $3,000 a year of insurance, $3,000 a year goes into a HSA/IRA.

      by SingleVoter on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 11:11:38 AM PDT

      •  Allow

        as a substitute, not require.

        by SingleVoter on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 11:15:12 AM PDT

      •  For example, after 8 years

        $24,000 will be in the HSA.

        That is enough to cover about two typical hospitalizations at Medicare (government plan) rates.

        by SingleVoter on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 11:41:41 AM PDT

    •  This is because

      Relying on insurance to pay for our health care needs is a failing model. There is NO way that here in America, given the conditions we face as a nation, that we can deliver universal health care through insurance.

      The cost of insurance IS rising in Massachusetts, where they DO have a mandate plan. Unfortunately, proponents of mandates and of candidates that have proposed mandates pretend MA doesn't exist when we discuss these plans.

      Clinton and Edwards are proposing an insurance reform and slapping a label on it - "universal health care" - that is false advertising.

      Obama's plan is very weak, won't do much good in the crisis we face, but at least it isn't as reckless as insurance mandates, which WILL bankrupt people and fail to meet their stated goals.

      Unfortunately Kossacks will not be willing to accept that until Edwards bows out of the race.

      by eugene on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 11:20:06 AM PDT

  •  Krugman also wrong on green energy

    Obama's already proposing big investments in that.

    Anyway, I am generally unimpressed by laundry-list candidates.  A bunch of proposals that won't get passed isn't a substitute for a party identity, no matter how much people wish it.  We need candidates who will run as liberals and seem comfortable with that, rather than straining to make some technical argument about why they are right.

    by theran on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 10:25:23 AM PDT

  •  thanks for your fine analysis & clarifications

    I have just finished reading your diary, which I missed back then. It pains me to see that in your view Obama's own proposal is somewhat spineless--as he is My Candidate--, but I learned quite a bit from your insightful diary. Thank you,

    by TomY on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 10:26:00 AM PDT

    •  I plan to vote for Obama

      Not because I think he's a great candidate, but because CA is a February 5 state, and if Hillary is to be stopped, Obama has to beat her.

      Obama's plans could use great improvement, but Krugman's attack on them is off base.

      by eugene on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 11:17:13 AM PDT

•  Barack Obama's economic adviser is a man named

  Austan Goolsbee...he is brilliant by all accounts..he is a professor at the University of Chicago which might be problematic given the history of that university and Economist Milton Friedman who used the country of Chile as an economic laboratory after the coup in which Salvador Allende was assassinated in the early 1970's..I suggest that people read what Obama's adviser has to say and make up their own minds..

  I haven't found anything that shocking that would make me not support Obama...

  by RubyGal on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 10:04:14 AM PDT

  •  Goolsbee...

    got his PhD at MIT, so he wasn't trained in the Milton Friedman school.

    He's close to a school of thought called Behavioral Economics.  Which is pretty far from the Chicago Boyz that ran Chile.

    by slaney black on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 10:10:14 AM PDT

    •  I think Krugman is off base

      It was Roosevelt who put money into people's hands .. the WPA..I think Kucinich is calling for a Roosevelt type of economic rescue plan..and this economy may be headed for a real downturn..

      by RubyGal on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 10:41:13 AM PDT

  •  Goolsbee is big on choice

    That probably says why Obama's plan focuses on putting cash in the hands of those who need it, as oppose to Clinton's policy of subsidizing utility bills etc.  I tend to agree with Obama's approach because it offers choice to the people who need the money, rather than dictating what it will be spent on.

    by dmfox on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 10:22:50 AM PDT

•  Krugman column is interesting

  Particularly, whether it is more effective to give struggling families cash (Obama), or target it to specific problems (Clinton).  I tend to side with Obama on that one, but it's an interesting policy argument.  However, the alternative energy bit was misleading.  Obama's energy plan is the most comprehensive of the three and includes boatloads of investment in alternative energy.  He just didn't put it in his stimulus package.

  by dmfox on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 10:18:21 AM PDT

•  Krugman has abandoned all pretense ...

  of objectivity.  As but one example of this, today's column contains the following statement:

  For example, the Obama plan appears to contain none of the alternative energy initiatives that are in both the Edwards and Clinton proposals ....

  That statement may literally be true, in that alternative energy incentives may not be part of Obama's economic stimulus plan intended to head off or mitigate an approaching recession, but it's also grotesquely misleading.  And since Krugman isn't stupid, I'm left with the inescapable conclusion that it's DELIBERATELy misleading.

  The reason is that Obama has already introduced an energy plan that contains numerous alternative energy incentives -- a plan that would view the need to develop alternative energy sources as an important, on-going problem that deserves to be addressed in its own right, not simply as part of a stimulus package to head off a recession.  The following is from Obama's energy policy, which is available on his website for anyone (even New York Times columnists) to see:

  Invest in a Clean Energy Future

  Invest $150 Billion over 10 Years in Clean Energy: Obama will invest $150 billion over 10 years to advance the next generation of biofuels and fuel infrastructure, accelerate the commercialization of plug-in hybrids, promote development of commercial-scale renewable energy, invest in low-emissions coal plants, and begin the transition to a new digital electricity grid. A principal focus of this fund will be devoted to ensuring that technologies that are developed in the U.S. are rapidly commercialized in the U.S. and deployed around the globe.

  Double Energy Research and Development Funding: Obama will double science and research funding for clean energy projects including those that make use of our biomass, solar and wind resources.

  Invest in a Skilled Clean Technologies Workforce: Obama will use proceeds from the cap-and-trade auction program to invest in job training and transition programs to help workers and industries adapt to clean technology development and production. Obama will also create an energy-focused Green Jobs Corps to connect disconnected and disadvantaged youth with job skills for a high-growth industry.

  Convert our Manufacturing Centers into Clean Technology Leaders: Obama will establish a federal investment program to help manufacturing centers modernize and Americans learn the new skills they need to produce green products.

  Clean Technologies Deployment Venture Capital Fund: Obama will create a Clean Technologies Venture Capital Fund to fill a critical gap in U.S. technology development. Obama will invest $10 billion per year into this fund for five years. The fund will partner with existing investment funds and our National Laboratories to ensure that promising technologies move beyond the lab and are commercialized in the U.S

  Require 25 Percent of Renewable Electricity by 2025: Obama will establish a 25 percent federal Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) to require that 25 percent of electricity consumed in the U.S. is derived from clean, sustainable energy sources, like solar, wind and geothermal by 2025.

  Develop and Deploy Clean Coal Technology: Obama will significantly increase the resources devoted to the commercialization and deployment of low-carbon coal technologies. Obama will consider whatever policy tools are necessary, including standards that ban new traditional coal facilities, to ensure that we move quickly to commercialize and deploy low carbon coal technology.

  The fact that Krugman chose to totally ignore all this and make the blatantly misleading charge that Obama doesn't have a plan to invest in alternative energy sources says volumes about where Krugman is coming from as this campaign plays out, and what his motivations actually are.

  by leevank on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 10:26:04 AM PDT

•  Obama the centrist

  Krugman doesn't do a deep analysis in this column, but the aspects of Obama's plan that he highlights are pretty damning. Clinton has deep connections to the DLC, but she also has deep connections (as in helped found) more liberal/progressive organizations like the Center for American Progress. Obama's domestic advisors are largely from the right side of the Democratic party.

  Clinton takes advice from people across the Democratic spectrum and has produced what Krugman describes as  similar to Edwards's progressive proposal but broader.

  by souvarine on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 12:59:36 PM PDT