Krugman has been learning his craft from Dowd:
Today, Paul Krugman says President Bush said this:
here's President Bush on critics of his economic policies: "Some say, well, maybe the recession should have been deeper. It bothers me when people say that." Because he used the word "some," he didn't literally lie -- no doubt a careful search will find someone, somewhere, who says the recession should have been deeper. But he clearly intended to suggest that those who disagree with his policies don't care about helping the economy.
In his July 30, 2003 press conference President Bush said this:
The '01 tax cuts affected the recession this way, it was a shallow recession. That's positive, because I care about people being able to find a job. Someone said, well, maybe the recession should have been deeper in order for the rebound to be quicker. My attitude is, a deeper recession means more people would have been hurt. And I view the actions we've taken as a jobs program, job creation program.
And in an August 3 post, Self Made Pundit said this:
In Bush's fantasy world, he deserves credit -- not blame -- for the dismal state of the economy because he rejected nonexistent advice to let the economy get worse. When asked by a reporter at his press conference on Wednesday whether he should be rethinking his economic approach given the dismal results of this policies, Bush visited his fantasy world:
The '01 tax cuts affected the recession this way, it was a shallow recession. That's positive, because I care about people being able to find a job. Someone said, well, maybe the recession should have been deeper in order for the rebound to be quicker. My attitude is, a deeper recession means more people would have been hurt. And I view the actions we've taken as a jobs program, job creation program.
Bush, of course, never identified this phantom adviser that suggested the recession should have been deeper. Bush did, however, refer to this phantom adviser again on Friday in defending his administration economic record to reporters:
"Economic historians would say that the recession of 2001 was one of the more shallow recessions. Some would probably say, well, maybe you shouldn't have acted and let the recession go deeper, which would have made -- may have made -- for a more speedy recovery," Bush told reporters after meeting with his Cabinet.
Once again, Bush did not identify this phantom adviser with the Machiavellian bent who urged him to let the economy get worse so he could claim credit for a more impressive recovery. Perhaps Bush, like William Safire, is being haunted by the specter of an advice-dispensing Richard Nixon. Or perhaps Bush is reticent to identify this little Machiavelli because he is really a miniature Bush with horns who whispers into his ear when Karl Rove is otherwise occupied.
When reporters pressed White House Spokesman Scott McClellan as to whether Bush's pixie of economic doom actually exists, McClellan instinctively began to cover for Bush, but then in mid-sentence apparently realized he lacked Ari Fleischer's flair for obfuscation and gave up:
As to whether any particular individuals had actually urged Bush to deliberately let economic conditions worsen, McClellan said: "This goes back to conversations that people have said publicly and that -- I don't know the specific person, though. I couldn't tell you."
It is highly unlikely that Bush's phantom adviser exists. Bush himself seems unsure whether his demonic adviser is more than a figment of his imagination, wavering from Wednesday's claim that "someone said" such advice to Fridays's (sic) suggestion that "some would probably" offer such advice.
The strongest evidence that Bush's phantom adviser is just a figment of his imagination is the sheer stupidity of the advice. Other than Bush, it is unlikely that there is anyone in the White House ignorant enough to believe that the best way to ensure a speedy recovery is to make sure that a recession is as severe as possible. The deepest economic downturn in American history was the Great Depression. And we all remember how speedy that recovery was...
Okay, let's review. Paul Krugman appears to have (a) truncated and changed the meaning of the Bush quote, (b) cribbed his argument from an unattributed source who (c) lacks economic credibility.
On point (c): is it actually "sheer stupidity" to wonder whether a shorter, deeper recession might actually be preferable to a longer, more-shallow one?
Of course not. The welfare tradeoff between deepness and length of a recession is discussed all the time. Krugman is not only cribbing -- he's cribbing from somone who doesn't understand economics.
UPDATE: There's also this quote from Bush's September 1, 2003 Ohio Labor Day Speech:
They tell me it was a shallow recession. It was a shallow recession because of the tax relief. Some say, well, maybe the recession should have been deeper. That bothers me when people say that. You see, a deeper recession would have meant more families would have been out of work. I'm interested in solving problems quickly. I want more people working.
Given the earlier quote one could reasonably understand this as refering to the more unemployment/quicker recovery-less unemployment/slower recovery tradeoff -- but the point gets muddled and the poor guy claims the best of both, silently knowing he's bungled things.
Does this bungling prove "Bush is an idiot"? Well maybe, but Bush seems to understand the "wideness/deepness" tradeoff exists, whereas smug, articulate Self-Made Pundit doesn't have a clue.
econopundit.com |
