TNR BLOGS

December 01, 2008 | 5:30 PM
December 01, 2008 | 4:40 PM
December 01, 2008 | 2:02 PM

December 01, 2008 | 11:22 AM
December 01, 2008 | 11:10 AM
December 01, 2008 | 9:57 AM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

December 01, 2008 | 4:08 PM
December 01, 2008 | 1:36 PM
December 01, 2008 | 12:00 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
06.12.2007
Hillary Loves Krugman

 
Gilford, NH-- Speaking at the Gunstock ski lodge here, Hillary just responded to a question about Social Security by name-checking Paul Krugman and the arguments he makes here. "Some of you read Paul Krugman and... he agrees with me," she said. "I think he's a pretty good judge of the political winds." (She never mentioned Obama specifically, though.)

Update: After the event, I happened to run into the woman who asked the original question. Irene Goddu, an artist from Laconia, had specifically asked Hillary about liftingthe payroll cap beyond $97,500--not only to shore up the Social Security system but because it " seems unjust"  that the payroll tax "lies squarely on the backs of  the middle class and the poor." After the event Goddu told me Clinton "didn't totally answer my question," and said she was unpersauded by the Krugman view. "It's not just that I believe the Republcians and the scare tactics," she said. "Fairness is the issue."

That's when a friend of hers, a nurse whose name I didn't catch, chimed in to say, "Better to take it easy than to tell you something you want to hear!"

Goddu seemed to concede this point. And, indeed, Goddu said she's decided to vote for Hillary and didn't change her mind today.

P.S. Last night John McCain saw a global warming activist dressed as a snowman at his event and thought he was a chicken. Today Hillary saw someone in the same costume and thought it was a penguin. The difference between McCain and Hillary is that he actually called on the chicken/snowman to ask a question, even though he must have assumed it was a heckler.  

-Michael Crowley

Posted: Thursday, December 06, 2007 12:54 PM with 2 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

virginiacentrist said:

When the Republicans find an issue that's unpopular that Democrats support, they bring it up all the time and force votes on it.

The same goes for Social Security. It can't hurt to bring up social security as much as possible. The Republicans favor privatization (they're now on record), which polls at about 25%. Let's make them defend that as often as possible! What are we afraid of???

Hillary (and Krugman) have bought into the blog-hype that it makes strategic sense to ignore social security. "Look at me! I'm so hip! I'm dropping blogger strategy memos and reading Paul Krugman!" Maybe that was a good strategy when Bush was riding a post-election high in early 2005 and he had a Republican House and Senate....but we've got the GOP on their heels now and there is no real danger of privatization. Why not shove this down their throats some more?

The Clintons cannot imagine a world where Democrats have the upper hand on any issue. They can only imagine a world of bitter divides where they are constanly under assault.

December 6, 2007 1:54 PM

teplukhin2you said:

Krugman's a great resource, both for OurSide and for the nation, but someone needs to tell him when his natural instinct toward the blogworld m.o. of Smirk 'n' Sneer is detracting from his rock-solid economic analyses. Social Security's a case in point. Throughout 2000 Paul was warning of clouds on the SS horizon and that we'd best figure out how to weather the inevitable storm.

Courtesy of the Post's Ruth Marcus, here's Paul v Paul:

"[A] decade from now the population served by those programs [Social Security and Medicare] will explode. . . . Because of those facts, merely balancing the federal budget would be a deeply irresponsible policy -- because that would leave us unprepared for the demographic deluge, with no alternative once it arrives except to raise taxes and slash benefits." (July 11, 2001)

"Broadly speaking, the next administration . . . will face two big economic tests. One . . . is whether it can stick to a fiscal policy, including a policy toward Social Security, that prepares this country for the demographic deluge." (Nov. 12, 2000)

"The reason Social Security is in trouble is that the system has a large 'hole' -- basically a hidden debt -- because previous generations of retirees were paid benefits out of the contributions of younger workers . . . a multitrillion-dollar debt that somebody has to pay." (Oct. 1, 2000)

"[B]ecause the baby boomers' contributions were used to provide generous benefits to earlier generations, there isn't enough money in the system to pay the benefits promised to the boomers themselves." (June 21, 2000)

PAUL: friend here. A mild request: please tone down the rhetoric and partisanship so that we can win over moderates and independents. They should be on our side re single-payor, taxes, and pension reform. We need them, so let's reach out instead of smirking, sneering and digging into our partisan bunkers.

best,

t

December 6, 2007 2:09 PM