Krugman's Confusion, Part 9,765
Well, of course I can't correct every mistake Paul Krugman makes -- I do have a job -- but his latest effort to politicize Hurricane Sandy is particularly cheap, even in Krugman's own debased currency.
Krugman's argument is that if Sandy had arrived under a Romney administration, the victims would have been left without any government assistance. And by "government," Krugman means the federal government because, of course, only the federal government can respond to emergencies. Got that? Vote for Obama, or you'll be homeless, cold, and hungry when Mother Nature strikes again. Amazing how "hope and change" has become fear and loathing.
After discussing evil Republican attempts to devolve disaster relief to the states, Krugman concludes, "If Mr. Romney had been president these past four years the federal response to disasters of all kinds would have been far weaker than it was." And to prove the virtue of federal intervention, Krugman evokes "the scene in flooded Hoboken, with the National Guard moving in the day after the storm struck to deliver food and water and rescue stranded residents."
Pssst, Professor Krugman: the National Guard is a unit of state, not federal government. Indeed, it is the successor to the state militias. Krugman might have taken a moment to consult the Pentagon's own website discussing post-Sandy relief: "The National Guard takes its missions from the governor, and they’re supporting the first responders," reports the DoD.
Governor Christie called up the New Jersey Guard; Governor Cuomo, the New York Guard. It appears that FEMA played a role in getting other states to contribute guardsmen to the relief effort, but it is preposterous to think that such cooperation would not have occurred without Uncle Sam.
The Constitution empowers the president to summon the state militias "to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions." But none of those conditions apply at present and (to my knowledge) President Obama has not asserted the power to call up the National Guard for post-Sandy relief. But when there are cheap political points to be scored, Krugman is not one to be distracted by the Constitution -- or the facts.
- Comment (14)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments:
May '11
Re: Krugman's Confusion, Part 9,765
Why does anyone read him at all? He is never right about anything.
May '10
Re: Krugman's Confusion, Part 9,765
Adam -- I have a strong impulse to respond to your posts, but I find they are frequently so complete and airtight I am left with nothing to add. Today being no exception.
Re: Krugman's Confusion, Part 9,765
Thank you, sir.
Re: Krugman's Confusion, Part 9,765
On the merits, you are right, of course. But Krugman embraces every faulty left wing premise without nuance; thus, he provides a window into unvarnished liberalism.
Nov '11
Re: Krugman's Confusion, Part 9,765
In his op-ed pieces, Paul Krugman implies (well, flat out states) that anyone who disagrees with him is either ignorant, stupid, or evil. I don't know whether he really believe that or it's just a pose - throwing a little red meat to his audience to boost readership.
Either way, to the extent that his readers adopt his attitude, they close their minds to reasonable debate. Why discuss anything with someone who is incapable of understanding facts or logic? What is the point of debating with someone who is evil? They already know that their ideas will hurt people - that's what they want; after all they're evil.
Unfortunately, Krugman's Nobel Prize gives his thoughts credibility. Sad that such a prestigious award should be used to repress discussion and the search for truth rather than to promote them.
Nov '11
Re: Krugman's Confusion, Part 9,765
More sad, I suppose, that an academic would dedicate his time (which, after all, is the stuff of life) to suppressing the search for truth.
Jun '10
Re: Krugman's Confusion, Part 9,765
I would rather be a bitter-clinger than a bitter-ender.
Dec '10
Re: Krugman's Confusion, Part 9,765
Adam,
This is more significant than one would at first presume. Once one realizes that the constitution puts the "boots on the ground" responsibility with the states not the feds, Katrina becomes a very different story.
First, the city's local peace keepers deserted. Next, the Governer failed to take back control of the city by sending in her National Guard. Fema, which is only a check book, made an attempt to hire enough buses to bus the people out of the dome in New Orleans and to the dome in Texas. After one successful day of this the buses dissappeared. I have always suspected that the drivers refused to return on the second day because there was no protection for them in the city.
It was after this that George Bush invaded New Orleans to save it from itself with the 82nd Airborne. This was the division at his command for emergency situations around the world. It was constitutionally forbidden to use these troops inside the U.S. He did it anyway because of the situation. A situation that I have always thought was caused by the incompetence of the Mayor and the Governer.
Regards,
Jim
Re: Krugman's Confusion, Part 9,765
A localized, state-run emergency management department might actually know the location of low-lying areas likely to be flooded in a hurricane. Emergency responders who actually live and work in an affected might even know how to stock potable water where it might be useful before disaster strikes.
All FEMA does is put out an RFP after the event, which is exactly useless in slaking thirst.
Edited on November 5, 2012 at 10:05pmOct '10
Re: Krugman's Confusion, Part 9,765
Paul Krugman reminds me of the description of John Maynard Keynes by his biographer Roy Harrod, quoted in Thomas Sowell's Intellectuals and Society:
Jul '10
Re: Krugman's Confusion, Part 9,765
Adam! Adam! I don't get the argument.
?Is Krugman actually attempting to say that what IS happening is GOOD. ?That the governmental response was excellent. ?Really.
All I see is devastation and a lot of local people trying to fix things, and "volunteers" coming from elsewhere to help. This isn't government - this is people, and to the degree the government has been there to "help" it hasn't seemed to do much.
No serious planning. No serious preparation. No serious organization of effort. Just a lot of people mostly milling around, with some actually doing constructive things.
Lots of photo ops, though. And Geraldo hugging.
Jun '12
Re: Krugman's Confusion, Part 9,765
Adam Freedman
On the merits, you are right, of course. But Krugman embraces every faulty left wing premise without nuance; thus, he provides a window into unvarnished liberalism. · 2 hours ago
Apologies to the honored contributor, but what Krugman provides is a window into unvarnished insanity.
Re: Krugman's Confusion, Part 9,765
Devereaux: Adam! Adam! I don't get the argument.
?Is Krugman actually attempting to say that what IS happening is GOOD. ?That the governmental response was excellent. ?Really.
All I see is devastation and a lot of local people trying to fix things, and "volunteers" coming from elsewhere to help. This isn't government - this ispeople, and to the degree the government has been there to "help" it hasn't seemed to do much.
No serious planning. No serious preparation. No serious organization of effort. Just a lot of people mostly milling around, with some actually doing constructive things.
Lots of photo ops, though. And Geraldo hugging. · 5 hours ago
Yes, Krugman argues that Sandy is a role model for successful government intervention. Must be those White House M&Ms that Obama handed out to the kiddies in New Jersey.
Re: Krugman's Confusion, Part 9,765
ConservativeWanderer
Adam Freedman
On the merits, you are right, of course. But Krugman embraces every faulty left wing premise without nuance; thus, he provides a window into unvarnished liberalism. · 2 hours ago
Apologies to the honored contributor, but what Krugman provides is a window into unvarnished insanity. · 5 hours ago
No apologies needed. Perhaps my comment was unfair to unvarnished liberals.