Paul Krugman: The Great Snake Oil Slump (Why Trump's Tax Cuts are a Political Fizzle)

New York Times ^ | 04/20/2018 | Paul Krugman

[SeekAndFind]

Stop me if you’ve heard this before. A G.O.P. presidential candidate loses the popular vote, but somehow ends up in the White House anyway. Despite his dubious legitimacy, his allies in Congress take advantage of his election to ram through a huge tax cut that blows up the budget deficit while disproportionately benefiting the wealthy. While the big bucks go to the big incomes, however, the tax bill does throw some crumbs at the middle class, and Republicans try to sell the bill as a boon to working families.

So far this account applies equally to George W. Bush and Donald Trump. But then the story takes a turn. The Bush sales job was effective: While the 2001 tax cut wasn’t overwhelmingly popular, more people approved than disapproved, and it provided the G.O.P. with at least a modest political boost. But the Trump tax cut was unpopular from the start — in fact, less popular than past tax hikes.

And this tax cut doesn’t seem to be winning more support over time. Most Americans say they don’t see any positive effect on their paychecks. Public approval of the tax cut seems, if anything, to be falling rather than rising. And Republicans have pretty much stopped even mentioning the bill on the campaign trail.

Which raises the question: Why doesn’t snake oil sell like it used to?

In the past, deficit hypocrisy was an important weapon in the G.O.P. political arsenal. Both parties talked about fiscal responsibility, but only Democrats practiced it, actually paying for policy initiatives like Obamacare. Yet Democrats were punished for doing the right thing — remember “they’re taking $500 billion from Medicare”? — while Republicans seemingly paid no price for their cynicism. Voters focused on the extra money in their pockets,

[factoryrat]

Because the democrats idea of taxing the living shit out of the peons has worked oh so well in the past.

These harcore leftists are STILL pissed off over the fact that the deplorables would choose a businessman and builder over her socialist thighness.

I’ll just bang back and let the rabid hate of these socialist-democrats burn themselves up.

The more desperate they get, the more mistakes they make.

[outpostinmass2]

For his analysis of trade patterns and location of economic activity.

[outpostinmass2]

https://www.forbes.com/2008/10/13/krugman-nobel-economics-oped-cx_pb_1013boettke.html#164d200770a8

“Krugman is far more politically partisan than any of the recent award winners. Joe Stiglitz became more ideological and partisan after he won the prize, Ned Phelps used the platform of the prize to think “big” thoughts about the capitalist system, but Krugman became ideological and partisan more than a decade prior to the announcement of his prize. And he has not really written serious academic papers or books in economics during that time span. Krugman more or less abandoned scientific economics when he decided to start writing for a broader audience in the 1990s.”

[Company Man]

This guy stated the economic impact of the Internet would be roughly equal to that of the fax machine!