The moochers of this nation are the wealthy, politicians, lobbyists, and corporations. Stop voting for anyone who supports them. Cut the Pentagon budget by a 3% and we can fund anything in America for everyone -- health care, education, infrastructure. Stop subsidizing the wealthy. Period.
90
See Jack's comment below. "Facts don't shape Republican's understanding of truth or reality."
Ignore this at our peril: another 4 years for the "fake" president.
25
Under universal childcare should women (or men) who opt to stay home and take care of their children be paid to do so?
12
How about a law (or an amendment!) that requires an accounting at the end of the year - every state that receives more in federal expenditures than it pays in federal taxes, must return that difference to the Treasury. The Treasury then disburses those amounts to the states that overpaid. Those against government subsidies in KY, WV, etc. should be all for it.
33
Krugman misses the point. It's not really the Democrats economic proposals that are the problem with non-affiliated voters, although some of these proposals do seem unworkable. The problem is the Democrats' cultural agenda--the identity politics, reparations, turning our society upside down to accomodate transgender demands when transgenderism represents less that one percent of the population, open borders and more concern for illegal immigrants than American citizens. That's what really turns off people who are not card carrying social justice warriors.
59
Its long been known red states are the biggest Welfare Queens.
https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700/
I say cut them off.
38
Most of the south is comprised of moocher states. They were the purveyors of slavery and Jim Crow. All federal aid to the south should be redistributed to Blacks for reparations for the next 50 years.
44
At least be grateful to the Dem states who fund their gun toting, Kristian, misogynistic lifestyles.
19
Dream on. Warren and or Harris guarantee another 4 years of trump. Free everything sounds good but won't win.
17
Unfair. You didn't address the leftist proposals to decriminalize illegal immigration, to supply free healthcare to illegal immigrants, to do away with private health insurance, to make reparations to African-Americans. These are non-starters for many Americans, including most residents of Wisconsin,Michigan and Pennsylvania -states that will decide the presidential election in 2020.
25
Arrogant to say the least. We know the Times and Dems hate “middle America,” those not on the coast and those who are not crazy left. What makes you think children are better off being in child care as infants than with their parents? What a crazy statement. One of many.
13
@Laxmom What’s arrogant is saying that people who need child care can’t have it, because you believe your so-called “family values” are the only family values that count.
45
@Laxmom. What makes you think they are better off? Any studies to support your opinion? Btw, what is middle America and how do you know they are hated?
25
It didn't work to moderate the message last time. Democrats will be called gun takers, tax and spenders, socialists, open border supporters, and income redistributors no matter what, so let's give it a try!
22
The whole trump clan is completely delusional, just look at me, please look at me.
Clueless and repulsive swarm.
24
Once again, well stated Mr. Krugman. Please add to the list of misdirection the more conservative leanings of the Democratic platform relative to foreign policy. Support for our allies and opposition to our antagonists is the center of Democratic policy and the complete opposite of the sitting president.
14
Great arguments that America's "red" states should be dark blue--like the government programs and blue state tax revenues that support them with federal funds and (particularly health care) jobs.
10
Republicans in SC proposed sending several million dollars back to taxpayers at a cost of $700,000 after a lottery windfall. That in a state that needs roads, where schools are "minimally adequate," and where mental health care is difficult to access, among other ills.
It's about buying votes from clueless supporters who are probably laughing that they have taken blue states for a ride. They fail to recognize how the politicians are taking them for a ride by ignoring their health, their safety and their futures.
33
The Democrats lost my vote when they all raised their hands in support of free health insurance/healthcare for illegal aliens. That told me everything I needed to know about the misplaced priorities of these candidates.
24
i got free health when i was a student in France. if they can afford it so can we.
we shouldn't let people suffer and die if we can help it.
44
@Michal
You aren’t alone in that Michal—disgraceful fools all of them.
10
“The discoveries of healing science must be the inheritance of all. That is clear: Disease must be attacked, whether it occurs in the poorest or the richest man or woman simply on the ground that it is the enemy; and it must be attacked just in the same way as the fire brigade will give its full assistance to the humblest cottage as readily as to the most important mansion….Our policy is to create a national health service in order to ensure that everybody in the country, irrespective of means, age, sex, or occupation, shall have equal opportunities to benefit from the best and most up-to-date medical and allied services available.”
- Winston Churchill, 1948
Hey, GOP, progress is a GOOD thing. You can't even keep up with Winston Churchill who said the above over 70 years ago.
You - GOP - are so out of touch with reality and so into influence-peddling and cheating your constituents, that you look more like a desperate pack of addle-pated professional pickpockets from 19th Century Britain .
30
A simple change of ‘Medicare for all’ to ‘Medical care for all’ will remove the flavor of socialism and also blunts the Republicans screaming about elimination of private insurance. In addition, it also opens for better ideas in implementing the policy for medical care for all.
19
"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and a man." Mark Twain
363
@Frank Baudino - Dear Frank: Mark who? What APP is Twain?
3
Like history always curves to justice, Republicans curve history to money. I'm not at all surprises that the State of McConnell, Kentucky would take more than they give just as McConnell enabled the nation's wealthy to do the same with his Tax cuts pandering for power.
19
Krugman is often wrong but never in doubt. In this instance he's wrong about the politics. Biden is the only D candidate in sight who stands any chance of winning the electoral votes in the states that put T in office. Whatever the public feels about taxes and benefits, the rest of the baggage that all the "progressive" candidates carry make them nonstarters in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Indiana, Ohio etc.
12
@NRoad
This is nonsense. Stop trying to win republican votes and throw away liberal ones.
The 40 and under have no pensions, expensive medical or none, no retirement, no union jobs, expensive education.
Do something or pay the price and lose their votes. They have every right to walk away and burn the system down like Trump voters. You want them to vote your self interest while they have been ignored for a generation!
Boomers got theirs. Stop shutting the door after your glory days and pay attention.
30
I think the United States will eventually be split into several different nations. It makes sense. There are large regional differences politically that are only growing larger every year.
Remember other large multi ethnic empires like the Ottoman, Austrian, Roman etc... all ended as well. Just like them the United States will eventually dissolve. The American Empire is already on a downward trajectory. Dissolution can’t come soon enough in my opinion.
17
Facts don't shape Republican's understanding of truth or reality. They don't believe in science, but they use cell phones. They don't believe in economics but they count on California and New York to prop up the national economy in the face of their sustained assault on the fundamentals that make the economy work. They resent the "coastal elites" but they cash their Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid checks which are financed by coastal economies. They are bent by the weight of the chip they carry around on their shoulder that another part of the country is doing far better than they are even though they directly benefit from that success. Envy and pride are all they have. Both are deadly sins.
2733
@Jack.
Succinctly put! The same is true of Canada. We have our entrenched Know-Nothings as well who do their level best to defeat or tear down every social programme from which the Know-Nothings themselves benefit. It's a form of Contrarian mind-set embedded in cement.
Krugman's point is well-taken: if Red States suddenly lost all Federal money, their economies would collapse. That may be the only way to convince un-thinking MAGAs that they've been benefitting from "socialism" all their lives. Given the recalcitrance of Senator McConnell and the fact-blind ideology of Gov. Matt Bevin, Kentucky would be a good place start.
317
@Jack
Hmmm...who do you think supports a large portion of companies that in turn support the coastal states?
Our economy doesn’t exist in a vacuum by state. In addition, the coastal states benefit largely from their coastal locations and for some, their climates....neither of which were derived by the brilliance of coastal state leaders.
But please, continue to prop yourself up with small scale thinking.
16
@Bill
So, you feel coastal states "benefit largely from their coastal locations," and thus do not deserve the riches that result? I assume, then, that you also feel that children born to wealthy parents also do not deserve the riches they inherit? The coastal states give back more than they get to support less prosperous states. I assume you support higher taxes on inheritance and wealth for the same reasons?
300
Why is Krugman the only one pulling the curtain away from the Republican mis-information/industrial complex?
Up is down; hot is cold; and all the welfare chiselers live in the big cities and they ain't white. Don't forget the blessed "free market" that God loves the most, and guns, guns, guns.
I for one am glad to see Democrats who won't equivocate on principle for an imaginary, ephemeral, political advantage.
Compromise only works if you have an honest, honorable, opposition. "Honest and honorable" is not the Republican Party of the 21st Century.
1729
@Ralph Averill It's truly frustrating....how do you counter that, especially when they have their own 'reality' media constantly supporting the lies? Not to mention mainstream corporate media that promotes softer but no less harmful versions.
89
@Ralph Averill
Me too! I say we go for it!
22
@JP. You counter it with the information in this article. Just like red state voters love the ACA, (but not Obamacare-smirk) once an program is explained in terms other than whatever catch phrase republicans happen to be using, self interest will take over.
36
Under the GOP we do have redistribution of wealth. First, from the Blue States to the Red States. Second, from the 99% to the 1%.
The problem for the Democrats selling any plan requiring higher taxes is that most working class people in the United States consider themselves one lottery ticket away from becoming rich. Therefore, anything which might take away their windfall is to be opposed. And, in addition, anything that would improve the condition of "those people" must be fought to the death.
1535
@John Graybeard
Fought to the death? By people who oppose "those people"? In that case, by all means, let the games begin and may the odds be ever in their favor.
4
@John Graybeard Calling red state citizens moochers isn't the way for Democrats to get the working class vote. They're Americans. That's an unforgivable cheap shot & why progressives will never gain any traction in this country for their ideas. I will say this. If this election is about kitchen table issues: jobs & education there's no way the Democrats lose. If the election is about immigration & reparations there's no way we win. Warren & Harris are for reparations. In poll after poll, the majority of Americans voters are against this. Reparations are the only issue that would compel independent swing voters to hold their nose & vote for Trump. Voters are also strongly against any legislation that would increase the flow of illegal immigration. But Warren & Harris are for policies that essentially not only decriminalize illegal immigration but encourage it. Last January NY lawmakers voted to allow illegal immigrants the ability to receive scholarships & financial aid. How are Democrats supposed to tell voters that state aid to help afford college isn't available for them but is available for those who are in this country illegally? Many state Democrats are now offering illegals free healthcare, welfare, food stamps, drivers licenses, schooling, in-state-tuition, & sanctuary. This is unsustainable. The more benefits we give, the more will try to get here. It's an insane & impossible equation. If a far left candidate is the nominee in 2020 then we will lose decisively.
37
@ebmem Divide and conquer, gotta love it. Point to individual examples like transportation and use it to imply the bigger picture. Let's look, as Krugman and many others have done, at the big picture. When NY or NJ pay way more federal tax dollars than they receive back, where do you think that money is going? If you look at the states that receive a great deal more than they send, you will have your answer. It's not difficult.
82
The vast majority of those hospital workers in Kentucky with good-paying, steady jobs need to recognize those jobs are largely if not wholly funded by Federal Tax dollars via the ACA and Medicare / Medicaid.
So how is it that these same people keep electing GOP politicians, including McConnell, who try and try again to cut off those programs?
When a politician is working to take away your job, maybe you should vote for other guy / gal.
1989
@GTM
I suspect many voters base their votes on political culture, e.g., resentment of the college-educated, resentment of coastal elites, resentment of immigrants or anyone else (foreign-born or not) who looks different than they, etc.
231
@Lisa
I agree with you 100%. Many a time I was told "love it or leave it" when I made critical comments about life in the US.
85
@GTM
When Kentucky expanded Medicaid, a large number of able bodied childless low income individuals were added to the rolls. In addition, a similarly large number of previously uninsured got O'Care policies.
Kentucky has many population centers of varying size. But 15% of the population lives in locations that are 100 miles or more from the nearest population center. They have a network of clinics and hospitals adequate for basic care with 50 miles separating them. Kids can get their school inoculations and ear infections treated, women get pre and post natal care, the guy with diabetes gets his prescriptions renewed and periodic monitoring of his chronic conditions. If someone needs more specialized care they travel the 100 miles to a population center and emergencies are transported by ambulance or medivac. It's not perfect, but it functions.
Medicaid had always made supplemental payments to providers who served a large portion of Medicaid patients to compensate for low Medicaid reimbursement rates. So if a rural clinic or hospital was serving 30% Medicaid patients, they got a bonus payment that kept them in operation. Those payments vanished on 1/1/14. Some clinics and hospitals closed, depriving not only Medicaid patients of providers but also those paying full prices.
Hospital workers in the population centers know Obamacare made things worse. Unlike Dems, they vote for what's best for the people, not how much largesse is flowing into their pockets.
6
In their indecency, the McConnells of this country count on us to be the decent people we are, as they demonize us incessantly. $40 billion to Kentucky, not to mention billions to farmers hurt by Trump's tariffs. Krugman hit on the head how Republicans weaponize Democratic and liberal compassion. It is intolerable. 2020 is far more than an election. It will be a turning point in American history. It will determine whether we have reached our limits and are done with America.
1688
@dukesphere If you do not have a educated population of voters, Republicans can count of their votes, Fox news discovered this long ago, when they started their fake news and their viewers responded to the emotional views more than the factual news. Bingo, their viewers wanted to be entertained not informed, much like watching professional wrestling. So the lies got bigger and mostly about Democrats, and the views believe them, example: Obama was not a US citizen, or a Muslim, AND their viewers believe them. And then the lies started to incorporate hate because they got more traction and the haters thought they have found their group and they must be right to hate because it is on Fox News with a large audience, It almost made their hate RIGHT.
42
@dukesphere
Of the top 5 democratic candidates for President, I don't think any will beat Donald Trump. Incompetence wins over competence when voters hate the federal government and want it's institutions to fail. I think we have already reached our limit of compassion. So long as the Republicans represent go it alone every man for himself don't ask for a handout from me, they win. Hate grows on weapons platforms. We have megatons. Love grows from respectful honest communication. We don't have any. Democratic coalition? We don't even speaka the same langua. I'm just flaming in generalities here.
16
I still say he is the real Evil. He could stop the meanness in our country tomorrow but his agenda has been to conquer and control.
15
It's time the Democrats take a page from the Republican playbook: Pass legislation in the House that precludes a State from receiving more federal money than it pays out. It may be harsh, but it's time for a reality check on all those Red States that live in the fantasy world of their own "fiscal conservatism". Redistribution of wealth is apparently OK if it's going from New York to Kentucky. Time to play hardball Democrats.
2988
@Richard Winkler
Not allowing federal money to serve as a natural shock absorber to states during hard times is a disastrously poor economic policy, as any economist will tell you.
.
There are more poor people in red states because they cannot afford to live in blue states because of blue state policies like residential zoning. Poor people have been leaving states like New York and California for states like Texas for decades.
.
Red state working voters hate federal programs that make the poor comfortable rather than helping them out of poverty, because they have to live next to those federal recipients, Krugman's "moochers". They see how our federal programs make poverty permanent. Who are blue state voters to complain, when the blue state solution to poverty is to raise housing prices and the cost of living, which makes poverty move to another state? The rest of the states can't all be gated communities for rich people like California, Connecticut and NYC.
27
@Richard Winkler and the NYT,
THIS is a Times pick?
Surely the NYT is aware, even if Winkler isn't, that Federal disbursements to a particular state are just the sum of Federal payments. If Kentucky has too many people on Welfare and SNAP, perhaps the answer is to pay them to move to New York? Would you curtail Medicare and Social Security payments that recipients have earned? Would you restrict payments to military bases and defense industries?
Basic fact: what a state gets in the way of Federal money and what they pay in taxes are totally unconnected. Any state with an older population, with a lot of retirees, will always get more in Federal money than they pay in.
This money in versus money sent out argument is totally wrongheaded. If New York wants to keep more of the money it pays in, attract more Defense spending, make yourself more attractive to retirees.
38
@Tom Meadowcroft. Your comment suggests that California has intentionally raised its cost of living to force poor people out of our state, leaving behind enclaves of the wealthy living in gated communities. But the fact is that California has many people living in poverty. When cost of living is taken into account, California ranks #1 among the states in poverty rate, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. When cost of living is not taken into account, California ranks about average among the states in poverty rate. https://www.politifact.com/california/statements/2017/jan/20/chad-mayes/true-california-has-nations-highest-poverty-rate-w/
123
I'm a fifty years long resident of Kentucky. When an article appeared in the Louisville paper revealing how much Kentucky benefits from Federal funding I wrote a published letter to the same paper. My letter argued, tongue in cheek, that Kentucky's poverty is a consequence of its dependence on the Federal government; and, that it could escape its low standard of living by refusing ALL monies from Washington. Guess what; my letter drew no replies. Denial flows freely through the veins of a majority of Kentuckians.
256
Surprisingly un-nuanced article. There's a difference between supporting programs that nearly everyone benefits from (Social Security, Medicare, infrastructure, quashing nepotism and preventing oligarchy) and those that constitute employing the power of the federal government for targeted social engineering. The 'moving too far left' is an objection to the latter--the expressed intention of sculpting society to fit a personal idea of how people/society should be (1) with no expressed intention of helping those who aren't among the chosen favorites, (2) suppressing the opinion of/devaluing anyone who doesn't agree with them (3) without having truly justified contextualized discrimination (4) with every expressed intention of ignoring/snarking on any naysayers, objections based in disagreement or fairness, or questions of unintended or downstream consequences. It's a dangerous gamble that folks will be so desperate to get rid of Trump that a 'progressive left' candidate will get a 4 years turn to ram their agenda through and ignore the great lump of voters who want compromise, negotiation, and moderation (but not "establishment").
35
@Seethegrey. Which of (say) Elizabeth Warren's proposals would you describe as "social engineering"? They are only targeted to groups delineated by income or, in the case of childcare, by being parents. I don't see any aspects of social engineering here. Isn't this like the usual right-wing fear mongering?
186
@Koho
Childcare works as an example. Mr. Krugman's argument was the child care would free more women to enter the paid work force where they would pay taxes to offset some of the cost. Not all women (and some men) would rather work than care for their children. Some would be glad of the proxies. Some people have chosen to be childless, others to limit their offspring to replacement or less for economic or environmental/world over-population reasons. There will be some people incentivized by free child care to have more for reasons that others in society disapprove of (some women like being pregnant, others have religions that promote unlimited procreation). Not all people think an institutionalized system with proscribed standards (or a 'best practices' that changes every decade) is progress. Existing public schools show the tension between the needs of the smart, the average and the disabled and the endlessly increasing demands for what 'should' be provided 'for the children'. Free day care for the poor has a de facto undercurrent that the kids would be better off being raised by someone else, someone better. Ditto targeting 'minorities'. And providing something that costs so much only to poor or minorities picks "winners" over the just-over-the-threshold and the would-prefer-to-spend-money-elsewhere groups.
6
@Seethegrey
Free (low cost?) day care helps solo parents, and parents who economically have to work.
To help parents stay at home with their kids, we need decent social welfare for single parents, and strong unions to negotiate wages high enough for ONE parent to support a whole family.
34
I don't think it's fair to call Kentucky moochers. The fact that they receive more in federal payments than they pay out is due to the unsustainability of Medicare with its ballooning costs serving an aging population. These problems apply nationally across all states, so this is a misleading and petty swipe at the Red States.
2
So the status quo - - regardless of past history - - makes Mitch look like the super socialist, is that right... ("what has he done for them lately?")
We need to give red states more capitalism and cut all funding to them.
2
All the more reason why I truly wish we could split the formerly United States into two sovereign nations. On one side would be all of the blue states (including my home state California). The other camp would be made up of the red states -- the Moochers of Middle America as Mr. Krugman describes. After all, the two sides are far apart on most issues and have very little in common with each other. But this would never happen, unfortunately. Not because it is geographically impractical. No, it is because the red states don't want to give up their freeloading status and have to fend for themselves. They would rather have us hated blue states give them handouts in the form of federal grants. We are trapped in this union -- but I want a divorce!
7
Krugman has to tackle head on the cause/effect of Citizens United and meg donor campaign funding. It's what entrenches the distorted politics he deplores and goes further than today's Repubs and Trump.
Mitch McConnell seems to have thought corporations were at some kind of disadvantage in our politics. He said at the Koch Summit:
“All Citizens United did was to level the playing field for corporate speech…. We now have, I think, the most free and open system we’ve had in modern times.”
The “playing field” surely is not level for American voters. Efforts to 'level' it, are simply termed 'redistribution'---of political power.
Most democracies use more public financing in elections. They ban costly paid media ads that swamp & manipulate US voters. They do it to prevent takeover of political discourse by special interests. Ordinary voters have a fighting chance.
McConnell stated he thinks that public financing of elections, would be the federal government trying to use taxpayer dollars “to enrich campaign consultants.”
If the govt we elect tries to level the power and economic playing field to protect the public interest, it's called 'big govt interference in our Freedoms.' When will more voters see through this Orwellian propaganda?
When will the media and Krugman start grappling directly with our warped campaign financing, and it's destructive ripple effects? Would this be labeled too 'anti corporate', thus almost 'anti American'? Let's change that.
5
Those states also voted against aid after Sandy. They’re dead to me.
10
Amen, Prof Krugman.
1
Enough of the Red State welfare !
States should receive no more in aid than what they contribute in taxes. Enough is enough. Red States complain insistently about how bad welfare is - they need to be taken off of it.
6
Thank you for this article. I love it!
I have a greedy, ill-informed, nasty neighbor who constantly complains about the takers of government safety net programs, yet he collects a disability check and his wife has a high paying New Jersey teacher's pension. Who funds these programs? Tax payers. He hasn't worked in 25 years and they travel the world without financial consideration or worries. That he is mad at other people that he calls takers, is insane. And believe me he is not alone in these thoughts. We are a greedy, entitled, and severely mentally challenged society.
15
Democrats aren't really moving to the left; they are merely trying to reclaim for workers what was once theirs -- a living wage, affordable healthcare, and affordable education. With healthcare and education ten times what it was in the 70s, and minimum wages half what they used to be, it will now take a hard tack to the left just to get back to the mainstream where we once were. The so-called free market is not delivering that $4,000 raise we were promised from that last tax cut for the rich; trickle down has never worked for workers. We need a strong intervention now just to regain lost ground. That's not radical; that's reasonable.
13
"Moocher" states provide lots of food and energy to the coastal states. You stop sending money. We'll stop sending food, coal and natural gas. See who blinks first.
6
You will forgive me my dear M Davis. When I go to the grocer’s I find that most of my food comes from California, Florida, Mexico and South America. Not Tennessee, Kentucky or Missouri. As far as coal and gas? We don’t need coal. And time will further reveal the harm that fracking has done to the local environments there. And the folks on Wall Street as I’ve seen it tend to be Trump voting folks from states like yours these days. New Yorkers actually talk about seceding from the Nation. Along with California, Oregon and Washington State. Perhaps we need to be a little respectful. I truly love Tennessee, Missouri and Kentucky dearly. But, I feel that too many of the folks there really have no idea what they truly have. Or care to know. If that were the case the coal mining and the fracking would have at least been done with far greater care and consideration. No, we have already been talking about seceding. And so has all of the West Coast States. No blinking necessary. At all.
9
Happy to buy from mexico and south america. At least those people are willing to work. And we also grow a ton of food in new york, nj, vermont, and pa
7
@M Davis
You scare away the migrant workers, you won't have any food to send us.
5
I don't have any complaint against KY or other red states collecting more in federal subsidies than they pay in taxes. They are paid a lot less for the their efforts than say, NY & CA residents do. Kentuckians may put in less hours per capita than New Yorkers do as well. But for identical efforts, Kentuckians are paid far less than Wall Street traders get. In all likelihood, the Wall Street traders' work has very little, if any social value but Kentuckians' work has much higher social value.
Further the naïve KY residents have been fooled by Republicans to vote Republican telling them blacks (& Hispanics) are the moochers. If they vote Democratic those moochers will continue rob their hard-earned money. They believe it (No matter what they're proud of their white race)
Democrats should make an all out effort to wean the white rural voters back to the Democratic fold. What Elizabeth Warren & Kamala Harris do would defeat that purpose, I think. Neither may win against Donald Trump, if he's indeed the nominee. Someone like Pete Buttigieg, despite being gay & boyish looking, has a much better chance. Others like John Delaney (yes, him), Amy Klobuchar or Steve Bullock has a much better chance to win against Trump.
(After Obama, minority candidates have much less of a chance to win. And yet if Oprah runs she will win)
2
The serfs of America may momentarily believe in the policies you discuss, but when bombarded with the lies of the GOP through social media and state news propaganda they will capitulate as good serfs do. They fear most making the masters angry. They are incapable as participants in democracy.
Between those who don't vote, those who are moderate democrats and those who are republicans you have a huge majority of the people of this country, and they will never misbehave. They will always capitulate to the desires wealth and power.
6
Professor Krugman, with all due respect, where are the numbers to counter the assertion that the Democrats’ proposals are economically irresponsible? A voter without a deep economic background is only asking for the answer to a simple question: how much would each proposal cost and how much does each source of income to the state or federal government contribute towards this cost?
How would Medicare for All pay for itself, or free healthcare for illegal immigrants, or the college loans forgiveness proposal, not to mention the handouts to every unemployed person?
4
Once again the Liberal coastal elites display complete naiveté about places within the country that are not on the Atlantic or Pacific oceans.
My home state of KY was grifted and pillaged of natural resources throughout the history of the country all while those in DC looked on either through stupidity or back room dealings that allowed the continuation of systemic poverty. This is to provide the east coast cities cheap and abundant energy via coal to grow their economies. The resources went out and the poverty stayed.
In recent memory many communities in KY were paid in company scrip and beholden to corporations for food, clothing, and sundries at the town company store. The vast majority of the company owners were Democrat and and were allowed to pursue unfettered, unchecked capitalism under corrupt Democratic politicians. Not to say that Republicans are any better as they are far from it. The state has had terrible spend now pay later types of both parties (primarily Democrats) control the state for the last 40 years.
Before casting stones at one of the poorest states in the nation you should take a moment to reflect about how your "donor" states benefited almost two centuries of the labor and lives of those whom lived and currently still live in KY.
72
Okay. Understood. So there is history that would lend credence to the more prosperous states financing supporting the less prosperous states as a form of paying back and an acknowledgment that government financed support is needed in these communities.
The Democrats are advocating strengthening our government’s support of social safety net programs - healthcare, childcare for working parents, education, environmental oversight, holding companies accountable (paying a living wage rather than profiting off paying such low wages that their employees need food stamps; dumping hazardous waste into local streams and into the air).
Republicans call all of this overreach and want to strip down or even eliminate these kinds of programs and efforts.
So given your state’s history of being devastated by the wealthy and corporations, wouldn’t it be your state’s right to demand that both parties support what now only the Democratic Party now does?
143
So you do think that reparations are a good thing?
69
@TonyZ. I think supporting the party which is more likely to put in place, continue, and expand programs that actually help one’s state is a good thing.
43
A close parallel is the redistribution of wealth from urban to rural areas, not only between states but within states. Minnesota is a classic example: About half the population resides in the relatively wealthy and liberal Twin Cities. Non-metro Minnesota has long benefitted from generous transfers of income and wealth from the Twin Cities. Yet many of these rural denizens deeply resent, even despise their urban benefactors. They are convinced they are somehow getting cheated. No amount of actual facts and figures will shake this belief.
258
@KMJ
I live in the 6th District of MN. Formerly Michele Bachmann territory, now resplendent with Tom Emmer.
I called Congressman Emmer's office in Otsego to voice my concerns over our President's lack of factual discourse.
An employee of Mr. Emmer's named 'Barb' literally went off and started screaming at me that Hillary Clinton had Vince Foster murdered.
I complained several days later and was told by another of Congressman Emmer's employees - 'that's just Barb, she's old'.
I am disheartened in revisiting this episode from last year, because I am not making this up, and 'Barb' is still employed in Congressman Emmer's Otsego, MN office to this day.
Your comment is appreciated KMJ.
I am not making this up.
44
@KMJ I live in Seattle and WA has the same issue. Eastern WA thinks it so bad that they sometime propose breaking away and starting a new state. They seem to ignore most of their govt. money comes from western WA.
31
Might I suggest that Mr Krugman is as out of touch with what is going on in the rest of the country as the NYT was in 2016?
There are plenty of moderate democrats who are worried about the trend of the progressives in the Party. Alienating moderate dems and ensuring that the fractured voting patterns are maintained because of a 'progressive' agendas is pure idiocy. The die hard democrats will vote for a democratic candidate, no matter who it ends up being (it would be torture if it ends up being Swalwell) but there is no attempt by these progressives to court, or even understand, the concerns of the undecideds or the moderates. That is where the mistake lies.
8
If the parade and tanks happen, let's hope if will be his last one.
Military might has to be display for a coward, so he will imagine he is strong and brave.
Delusional creature...
10
KRUGMAN 2020!
5
As statistics show, our laws already set up a 'distribution' system of national wealth up to the elites, away from the majority.
So let's have columms on what 'redistribution' really means, and why the elites have taken over the use of that word, to defend their dominance of our national productivity and resources.
Govt- run health care? We already have it. But run by our own govt's laws, allowing a high profit enterprise for big nsurance/pharma/hospitals. Politicians share in the profits as campaign donations.
The govt we elect allows medical profits to be a higher priority than health care for all citizens. Both our health care and our elections are the world's most costly and profitable. This is equated with 'Freedom' by those who profit by it.
Any push back in the public interest, fitting for a 21st C democracy, is just labeled 'redistribution', as it interferes with the legalized norms of excessive profits.
It can't be otherwise when elections are funded by wealthy mega donors---legalized and blessed by the Supreme Court.
The whole purpose of voting is to promote laws that protect employees, the public, and average citizens from exploitation. But this is termed 'redistribution' in our distorted democracy that was once a role model for the world. Now, it's a warning for the world.
6
So many of the “radical” ideas of Democrats are just tame, watered down versions of ideas that have been the standard in the developed world for many decades now. They are tried and tested: not perfect, but far better than what we have now.
Two examples:
1) It’s simple reality that the US has by far the most expensive healthcare in the world, tied to mediocre results, and dismal access. It’s st s level that leaves the rest of the world gasping, not just at the Return On Investment, but on our staggering denial of the common good - all for the benefit of a relatively small number of vast healthcare companies and insurers. It’s at a level most outside the US consider to be actual insanity. The truth is: HEALTHCARE ISN’T SUPPOSED TO BE THIS EXPENSIVE - we Americans only think it does.
2) Higher Education: the rest of the world long ago learned that a highly educated nation was a short road to power and prosperity. We Americans make education a privilege, and a crushing financial disability for almost everyone who still manages to get one. The smart countries turbocharge their next generation. America... restricts them, and then rewards them with a hundred pound millstone of debt around their necks. How shortsighted is that?!
Democrats say: “We can do better.” Republicans scream that it’s madness.
“Madness” is the systems we have, which can’t get much worse! However, Republicans like things just as they are.
Who’s the insane ones?
8
@GWBear
We can return to 1950’s medicine and it won’t be expensive.
You left out the farm supports .. but true - in much of small town America -- all of the mills have been replaced by Walmart and Kroger -- now with automated cashiers -- and good jobs in medicine (esp. for MDS and hospital execs and the for profit companies) and in education.
I have no idea in fact why Democrats are demonized-- and they have been for a long time -- even when Ike was in office; even with Kennedy and LBJ and Carter.
The Obama wave had to do with novelty and hopes for peace and prosperity (soon dashed - with the ridiculous Abominable Care Act -- shoring up the insurance companies and lots of support for the banksters).
None of it's rational. E.g. who benefits from Medicaid, Medicare? Hint it's not just the patient? Who benefits when federal housing is constructed?
Who benefitted when Clinton got rid of the Luxury tax? (PS I don't consider either of the Clintons nor Obama any kind of Democrat. But the Republican animosity at Hillary had entirely to do with gender.
When middle class women start dying in illegal abortions, there might be some remorse.
I really want DNA analyses studying behavior. There must be a gene for it!
Support E. Warren.
1
"...people shouldn’t receive more in government benefits than they pay in taxes..."
NOBODY has EVER said anything so illogical, from either party. Americans are smarter than this.
3
Reminds me of one of my favorite lines from the West Wing: "Can we have it back, please?"
2
My grand state of California donates billions to the Federal government and thus to Red states. Imagine what would happen to Red states if they had to take care of themselves.
4
"On fiscal and economic responsibility: Nobody who endorsed the 2017 tax cut has any right to criticize Democratic proposals to spend more on things like child care."
Of course we have such a right. Its free speech.
And we have good reason, and its a simple reason: Tax cuts benefit those who are the losers in the government giveaway game, those who pay higher taxes. They pay higher taxes because they make more money. They, on the whole, make more money because they are more talented, work harder now, worked harder getting a valuable college degree, or their parents did those things.
The child care proposals are intended to take the money we pay in and give it to people who don't pay in as much.
That's just plain unfair. Its that simple. Government should be fair.
2
i’ll be glad to rack my talents, education, and work against a whole range of rich guys, all the way from the board of Enron to Bernie Madoff to Pat Robertson to the rest of a long, long list that currently culminates in pretty much the biggest rich dope on the planet, our esteemed President.
I’ll give ya one thing, though: he’s got me on baldfaced sleaze and viciousness. I just don’t have the chops to brag on myself for being born rich, running business after business into the groud, stiffing my employees and contractors, and weaseling $400 mil out of my old man and $1.6 bil from taxpayers.
Also not much of a serial sex assaulter, panderer to vicious tyrants, flagrant liar, and all-round lousy person.
So if that proves superiority, why, enjoy. Sad part is, you still ain’t gonna get a set at Trump’s table.
4
And the GOP tax bill only increased the disparity. I've lived in California for decades and we lost our SALT deductions, which effectively raised our federal taxes by several thousand dollars per year. So now we are subsidizing trump supporters even more.
BTW, California may have its problems, but I'm not leaving because it's one of the few states with a government that actually functions and in which at least some serious ideas and solutions get traction. It also has a multibillion dollar rainy day fund tucked away. And all of this is thanks to us having democrats running the state, without any serious GOP interference and destructiveness. Elections really do matter.
13
@John
Your rainy day fund is already gone due to your public employee pension debt.
1
You lost me when you declared California a “functioning state”. I’ve never lived anywhere where my tax dollars are so wasted by corruption, fraud, and inefficiencies.
2
I have an idea for any democratic nominee. since the vast majority of voters will never pay more than 20 percent tax rate, but worry if the won the power ball that they might have to pay 70 percent of it in taxes if Senator Warren is elected president just exempt all lottery winnings from taxes problem solved. By the way Australia exempts lottery winnings from taxes.
1
I am skeptical of this concept of donor states vs moocher states, as the methodology choices could allow a lot of "goal seeking" to be done with the accounting.
I would exclude Social Security and Medicare payouts by the Federal Govt, since these are sold as "investments" and conceptually shouldn't be a factor. If a worker paid SS taxes in while working in Illinois and retired to Arizona (so SS checks get sent to AZ), this shouldn't factor one way or another.
Military bases are providing a common good, and some money may just pass through (since most military contractors are now headquartered in DC). An Air Force base in TX provides the training for the benefit of the nation, so should that spending only count as a "Texas credit" or a National credit.
Farm subsidies (which I disagree with) may go to predominantly farming states, but the resultant low cost food inputs benefits everyone (your Corn Flakes are cheaper in NY based on a Iowa farmer getting a corn subsidy).
Krugman used to be a professor and an academic wouldn't take these sweeping generalizations to form a simplistic narrative. As an economist, he knows that the incidence of the taxes (who actually pays it) is based on demand, not tax rates. For an item in high demand, the consumer pays all of the tax since the producer can raise the price. For a low demand product, the supplier pays some tax in the form of fewer units sold.
2
I just want to add: In supporting the low-income wage earners, the social programs also indirectly support the profit-making corporations.
3
States don't pay federal taxes. The federal government spends more money in some states than the residents of those states pay in federal taxes, but most of those federal dollars are spent on federal programs, not on state programs. For example, the federal government pays for Fort Knox and Fort Hood in Kentucky, but tthe money doesn't go to Kentucky.
3
Ted would have no trouble finding a primary care physician who takes Medicare in SF or Portland. Lack of access to health care in rural areas is certainly a problem, but one which has nothing to do with the current proposals for Medicare for All or Anyone. In any case, under Medicare for all physicians would have no choice but to accept it, except for plastic surgeons and a few doctors catering to the wealthy.
People like Ted will not determine the outcome of the next election. Young people, poor people, minorities will--if they show up at the polls a Democrat will win. We learned that over the last 3 presidential elections and 2018, The safest nominee is not Joe Biden but one who generates enthusiasm among those demographics.
3
Finding a physician who takes Medicare or Medicaid is less of a problem provided that a payer mix exists that can subsidize the losses. Such would cease to exist with Medicare only rates. It is not inconceivable that some physicians might refuse Medicare altogether and demand cash payments instead. Good luck in the courts FORCING physicians to accept Medicare.
2
OK. But what is the mechanism for donor states to withhold payments to taker states. None. And that has been by design practically from day 1 in our Republic. It’s grating to be belittled and swindled by Red States, but there is no remedy available. Yet another frustration that we need to deal with. Forever.
4
Regarding a tax cut for the wealthy being at least morally equivalent to spending on social services (if morality consist only of fiscal responsibility): Republicans would argue that there's a difference between taking money and not taking money. They would say that equating the two presumes that all wealth belongs to the State to begin with. I would say that's changing the conversatoin from one about fiscal responsibility to one about hypothetical entitlement. Who is entitled to each dollar of wealth is probably complex and policies can probably only approximate justice. What's more important is to think in different terms. Ignore "deserving" in it's own right and focus on designing a system that works well to benefit the nation. Such a system would assign rights to produced wealth, to an extent, because that motivates productivity. And such a system would also assign rights to humanitarian assistance, to an extent, because that fends of desperation. Sorry TJ, rights aren't discovered, they're designed.
1
@Robert David South You can only cut taxes on the wealthy since the wealthy pay most of the taxes. In the US, if you are discussing cutting taxes, you are cutting taxes on the wealthy (since all income steps through the tax brackets). I may pay a 39% marginal tax, but my first $10,000 of earnings has 0 tax. Increase the amount of income that is tax free, and you are lowering my taxes.
1
If we are going to keep private ins in the Health Care mix then at least have a standard form and standard rules for all the private insurers. Letting each set its own rules/forms etc takes a big bite out of administrative expenses. One of the financial advantages of a single payer system.
4
How about replacing the grandiose “Medicare for all” promise with a more responsible and sound proposal of transparent pricing for healthcare and drugs, and the mandatory acceptance of all private insurances by all providers? Eventually, a balance would be reached between the real costs and profit margins, and people would have a real choice.
trump party voters are NEVER going to vote Democrat. That is my greatest point of contention with Biden: his despicable fantasy that he'll win over those people. Not without cult deprogramming. But he seems determined to do exactly what has lost Democrats elections in the past: abandon convictions, compromise, appease, surrender, and alienate the majority of Democrats in the process.
trump voters aren't "missinformed." They don't need to be woken up to any reality. They're 100% responsible for their own ignorance. They're not hostage to the Fox and right wing propaganda bubble; they've willingly burrowed *themselves* in it.
Krugman is absolutely right: a government that we pay for with our taxes providing services for all Americans is not "far left" or "socialist." It's representative government.
13
@Gustav Aschenbach Yes but the theory is that a candidate too far left will even alienate Hillary voters. I don't see it: anybody who voted against Trump before will vote against him again.
3
The runaway pricing of prescription medications is undeniably one of the major factors in health care costs, and generics are rapidly catching up in price. And then there are the vultures that raise prices to astronomical levels just because they can. Pharmaceutical companies claim that they are just recovering their research costs, but executive salaries and advertising costs, make up a significant part of their “research costs”. They forget that government-funded research generates the basis for it all in basic research, and also pays for much of the translational research that leads to clinical applications. One of the epic (dollar-wise) political blunders in recent history (2003, GW Bush administration) was the decision to prevent Medicare from pursuing competitive bidding for prescription drugs.
These problems, and the many related challenges could be resolved legislatively. Guess which political party would not cooperate? It’s the same one that would solve the problem by denying health care to lower income people. Even more mind-boggling is that much of the new “ReTrumpican” base is in that lower income level happily voting against their own interests.
It’s like we blew through “1984” and entered “Brave New World”.
3
There's several of these lists. This one seems sort of out of whack with the others, which list California as by far the biggest 'giver' state on a statewide (not per capita level). See WalletHub for the most widely reported list.
1
This is more biased than anything I have ever seen of your writing. So over the edge that I cannot trust your commentary, any more. We need balanced, uncolored truth, which this is surely not.
4
@JD So red states are actually paying more into the treasury than they get back? Krugman is lying? Or is it that he's failing to temper his opinion with alternative opinions?
Mr. Krugman
Thank you for calling out red state hypocrisy. Denial and ignorance run rampant.
Advocates of universal health care have to start with public education, both fleshing out the details of health care reform proposals and making clear to all the unsustainable realities of our current situation. People must understand that the transition will be gradual, their health care will not be taken away from them, and that higher taxes will cost less in the long run than the ever-increasing costs of medical care that we now must endure. Health care reformers must take nothing for granted regarding public comprehension of this complex issue.
4
Warren needs to be a bit more nuanced about "Medicare for all". Present Medicare relies on private insurance for anything other than hospital care and it makes no sense to expand Medicare and change how it works at this time. There is a problem with the present system in that it allows physicians to not accept Medicare patients. If you allow opting out of Medicare in favor of private insurance, for "Medicare for all" to work physicians must be compelled by law to accept a minimum % of patients on Medicare. In fact that requirement should be imposed now, before any expansion of Medicare.
People who are afraid of Warren abolishing private insurance are afraid of something that will never happen, regardless of who is President. No Congress, even one with Democratic super majorities, will ever pass such legislation.
1
@serban
Physicians are private citizens and not government employees. Why should they be compelled by law to take Medicare patients? Are lawyers compelled to serve everyone who asks for their help?
1
Apart from a military draft I’m not aware of any precedent that the government can force a private citizen to work for them. I doubt the Supreme Court would share your enthusiasm.
@Driven exactly the same arguments we had in my country..... between 1945 and 1948! When we decided to stop being a backward country. A country where people don’t die because they can’t get insulin or treatment for preventable or easily treated diseases because of the sheer spite of their fellow citizens who don’t understand the phrase “there but for the grace of God, go I”.
3
"Voters want to raise taxes on the rich and expand government social programs." This is the ONLY aspect of human nature (I want more fee stuff!) which the left has managed to figure out. Unfortunately, they don't seem to understand that someone ELSE must first CREATE all this stuff, and if they don't have proper incentives for doing so, it won't happen.
2
@c smith It's currently accruing mostly to corporate raiders and hedge fund managers and hospital administrators and private university presidents. Most of the stuff is being created by commies and lefties like liberal scientists and Chinese factory workers and migrant farmers. Unless by "create" you mean "get hold of." So, we're just trying to do some creating of our own.
1
@c smith because you mustn’t help anyone else with your tax dollars! God forbid! I must get every penny back. I live on an island of my own creation and must NEVER help anyone every because only I have earned it.
For a Christian country, it’s a fact that you guys don’t understand the teachings of Jesus
1
After about 35 years in the federal government (the balance having been in the private sector), I have an additional – more compelling, in my view – reason for opposing a total government takeover of health care. The reason is that it would create a monopoly; monopolies – even well-meaning government monopolies – invite bureaucratic rigidities and, all too often, resistance to constructive change.
Much of the latter part of my government career (a scientist/research manager/division-level chief technologist), I struggled against larger and therefore more powerful (bureaucratically), often ponderous, organizations that often tried to squash smaller, high quality organizations that often were more nimble. For example, the behemoths sometimes would allege “duplication of effort” on the part of the smaller organizations – a bureaucratically powerful but intrinsically spurious argument, since quality organizations are *never* copycats. Even within nominally monolithic organizations, a degree of constructive competition is salutary; it can promote creativity and even efficiencies.
A 100 percent government-run medical system runs the risk of becoming sclerotic. Allow some diversity in the form of private competitors to promote a healthy ecosystem.
2
"It’s fair to say that far more Kentuckians work in hospitals kept afloat by Medicare and Medicaid, in retail establishments kept going by Social Security and food stamps, than in all traditional occupations like mining and even agriculture combined."
Yes! And the fact that this information is not trumpeted in local TV ad buys and emblazoned on billboards across the State of Kentucky amounts to malpractice by the Democratic Party.
12
@Frank F seriously? Why are the people of Kentucky not able to see it without that if I can see it across the pond??
Looking at the Rockefeller report is unsettling. Who covers the aggregate shortfall? I assume it is part of the deficit. How big a part.
1
Medicare for All does not mean that private insurance will disappear. It may diminish when the payers of private insurance premiums both individual and employer realize that Medicare is a better deal.
Hospitals and health care professionals who reject Medicare patients may soon change their minds when they realize that there are not enough patients with private insurance to pay for their high salaried executives, unnecessary expensive tests and overpriced elective procedures and slick advertising.
Universal Health Care, whether by single payer, guaranteed health insurance or a free national health service is the answer for better health care for all at a lower per person cost. Period.
3
@Marvin Raps However it is done, insurance has to be affordable to all. I can't afford $1200 a month now and certainly won't when I retire. If I can afford to.
Eliminating private health insurance is a bridge too far for the Democratic Party. I support Medicare for all but it is a pipe dream to think the voters will support a candidate who wants to eliminate private health insurance companies. Health insurance reform is going to be highly technical, requiring financial and actuarial expertise. Progressives need to win this election first and build on to Obamacare. I'll vote for whoever they nominate. Most middle class insured people are not going to let go of there insurance. It's going to come down to just a few key states to win this and those votes in the middle are critical. Young people can't be depended on to get out and vote in enough numbers to get a wave election. Hope I am wrong. Play it safe- play to win.
2
@Chris Godwin There will probably end up being a public option that everyone is mandated to get (needs based cost) and if you still want insurance on top it will be your money to spend. Nobody every gets what they aim for, but if you come into a negotiation with an initial offer that precompromises you've already lost. The Dems are betting that most people get that it's aspirational or else they're dumb enough to not realize the flaws in it or else they're already against it.
My husband and I have to pay >10K more federal taxes thanks to the Trump tax law and we live in California. The middle America so keenly view themselves as "pulling themselves up by the bootstraps" as they receive federal dollars that California contribute significantly, and proudly demonize us who live in the coastal area because that's where the jobs are. We will gladly help out the poor areas in our country because we are all in this together; but they really need to stop listening to FOX news and think critically on where the money comes from.
12
@EShea
It isn't the federal government that is your problem. It is your state and local government tax policies.
Funny there are rich people who live in red states that can only deduct up to 10,000 for property/local/state taxes, but you don't hear them complaining. I wonder why? Probably because there local/state taxes are reasonable unlike the state of CA.
@Driven they don’t need to complain, they are being are receiving a subsidy
There is nothing more radical than outlawing private insurance. And apparently, three of the "leading lights" of the Democratic Party (Harris, Warren Biden) favor this approach. Good luck. 500,000 people working for private insurance fired. 500,000 government bureaucrats hired. 150 million Americans lose their health insurance no matter how much they like it.
A proven winner (for Trump).
3
@Erik People pushed these arguments about the end of slavery. Our healthcare system is immoral and unsustainable. You're just throwing out numbers, but have no clue what you're talking about. 150 million overnight? Yeah right.
1
I'd say cozying up to foreign dictators, installing your unaccountable family as government officials, eliminating staff members who need to be confirmed by the Senate in favor of "acting" chiefs, and staging yourself a military parade is pretty radical...
3
Perfect, Paul Krugman. How many billion again for Kentucky from Uncle Sam than paid in by Kentuckians? I think it would be extremely interesting to check bucks from the feds to the state examined and do this every week, continuing on through all the states and perhaps some of the more interesting senators/representatives of those states. The federal government is us; e pluribus unum. Never more instrumental to read UNUM. Thank your good luck to have a good job and remember where it came from.
1
Yes the irony is that the more libertarian-leaning states that collect less taxes from their residents actually take in more federal dollars than they pay. The rest of us are picking up their tab.
9
I was wondering when someone will finally write about red state welfare.
11
As much as it appeals to me to only allow Red stares to collect what they put in, unfortunately this is not going to get them to think, be better fellow citizens, or realize consequences of their votes. They will just feel validated in their resentments that they are obviously the more deserving people and the illegal, heathen city dwellers are just being so selfish. It could even escalate to violence.
We should have let the South go when we had a chance.
14
@Sarah Why not do it, let it escalate to violence, and let them die off in war? I agree that we should have let the South go.
Let’s hope the Democratic candidates in upcoming elections have more sense than to base their platforms on the notion that calling people “moochers” and inferring that their IQs are equal to their shoe sizes will result in votes. This was not helpful unless your goal was to entertain the Trump haters.
To bring about a change in administration in the next election, we need clearly stated policy proposals, a way to pay for them, clearly stated benefits, and respectful appeals to those in the “moocher” states and others who think MAGA is a thing.
3
Fundamental facts that the Fox Sphere will cry foul about. These points should be hammered away at the electorate every day until Election Day.
4
Thank you for saying everything that needed to be said in defense of a reinvigorated left with real ideas that "moderate" Republicans have been wailing against both in the pages of this paper and elsewhere recently.
It's too bad that those who live in the have-not states, the ones that receive disproportionate amounts of federal money, the ones that largely voted for Trump, don't understand that they are already the beneficiaries of "socialist" programs -- that is, the redistribution of wealth from the wealthy states to the poor states. Until these people understand that, they will keep on voting against their own interests.
There's no arguing with the ignorant.
6
I kept trying to understand why Trump supporters don’t seem to hold Trump (or Republicans) accountable or even seem to want to. Having spoken to several and having read comments by many, my take (not “the” take - just what it seems) is that they are angry.
Angry that factories have closed, angry that their communities are suffering, angry that it is likely that their children’s future circumstances will be worse than theirs, not better (which was the American dream).
While what seems like everyone in highly visible (mostly costal) areas says how great the economy and the market are doing, they are working two jobs (not all of Trump supporters, but at least some. The wealthy coastal Trump supporters just wanted the tax break - that I know, I work with many of them and that is the only thing they talked about in 2016).
It appears that they also don’t believe that anyone will actually really help them - Democrat’s or Republicans. All politicians are beholden to those with money and, at the end of the day, those are the only voices politicians hear.
What Trump provides is not help (they don’t really expect any), but a voice. He trashes those who have discarded them to empty factories, dead-end jobs, and run down schools.
Trump is, in way, held accountable. Not by the measure I was expecting - ie is what he is doing actually improving their lives, but by the one measure that they still believe in - does he give voice to their anger. He does - and people listen.
1
How amusing that the good professor can actually say that a vast, federalized system of "child-care" (for working mothers only, no others need apply) will produce children who "would eventually become healthier, more productive adults." And what metric, pray tell, leads us to that conclusion?
The fascination of "progressives" (a slander on a great historic reform movement) with warehousing kiddies so their obedient mothers can join the heartless American workforce is a wonder to behold. It speaks to the deepest goal of progs--the reordering, discipline and collectivization of American life, down to the level of parenthood and relations between men and women and their offspring. What a happy prospect! Liz Warren--Big Momma!
3
Mothers tend to leave the workforce when pregnant, for obvious reasons, and it can be hard to re-enter, making the slide into "stay-at-home-mom" somewhat default. There's nothing wrong with choosing to stay home and raise children, however, I believe Paul Krugman means that those women who actually would like to rejoin the workforce have a large disincentive (i.e. no one/no system in place to care for their children). This not only prevents the mother from earning anything, it means that a lower income family unit would be unable to earn enough money to, say, pay for educational courses that would allow them to earn higher paying jobs, without forgoing something like more nutritious food for their young children, if not more.
1
To all those saying, “I think Krugman is right” - he was wrong last time!
4
Well, someone needs to pay for all those opioids in Kentucky now that leaf is becoming a tough sell. Good job McConnell! You’re the poster boy for the biggest welfare state in America.
3
Thank you Paul Krugman! Excellent read!
3
I presume Paul donates all his income after tax in excess of the average income for his zip code to the government.
https://fiscal.treasury.gov/public/gifts-to-government.html
6
MAKE AMERICA DECENT AGAIN. MADA. Vote Democratic.
Balmy Presidents are not good for America.
1
And why are states like Kentucky receiving so much more federal aid? Through which programs is that aid being sent, and which party supports or opposes those programs?
Go ahead, argue for reducing environmental, educational, and social welfare spending. It'd certainly reduce aid to poorer states, and the poorer people in them.
You are absolutely right that politicians and pundits swoon over the 1 percent. In fact we all believe we in the middle are closer to them than the our neediest citizens. We are told to look up and dress like them, talk their talk of how their stocks and vacations are so ideal compared to the other more modest talk in the middle -- average --or lower beings.
On TV PBS presents ads of luxury river cruses in Europe and introduction to what's showing on TV by its biggest donor. We watch the shows of the hardscrabble lives written by Dickens or Poldark's struggle to keep the farm. The shows reflect the fears of the middle classes presented by the 1 percent. Yet, we are closer to falling than ever.
Bring it on Democrats.
1
Did you really mean the best argument "against" "Medicare for All" is that Repuplicans will scream about a govrnment takeover of health care? Which they will do whatever you do.
Sounds like an argument for "Medicare for All."
1
Paul,
Why have you seemingly carefully avoided or sidestepped a critical discussion of Bernie Sanders campaign? After all, if he is nominated by the Democratic Party's convention it will undoubtedly be not only a godsend for Trump, but it will split the Democratic party at this critical juncture of this nation's history. Since you have surely read Sanders' campaign literature, it shouldn't be news to you that the the enemy according to Sanders is not just Trump but the Democratic Party establishment!
Unlike you Paul, Elizabeth Warren's political nimbleness of mind I find very unimpressive for the following reasons; Warren, like ineffectual idealists, has an overly rigid mindset, like Bernie Sanders, on advocating compulsory Medicare for all; her absolutist positions, like Bernie Sanders, on accepting campaign donations only from the grassroots contributors (regardless of the consequence?); Warren's well meaning but foolhardy proposal even before the Presidential election of suggesting reparations to Native Americans. Do you remember the 1972 landslide defeat of of progressive Senator George McGovern by Richard Nixon? I was involved in McGovern's disastrous Presidential campaign bid.
When I read instant analysis of the 'debates,' I am reminded of the utter confident dismissal of Trump by the commentariat during the Republican primaries of 2016. Can Warren or Sanders unite a fractious Democratic coalition behind either one of them? I'm more skeptical than you.
2
All my Republican friends say people need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps.
But when they have children, they move to the best school district they can afford.
They have all taken tax deductions for home and children. Which is government subsidized housing and child care.
And I have never met a pro-life / evangelical who has not used birth control at some time.
7
In the televised debate from the TV Series "The West Wing" President Bartlett makes exactly the point that his opponent's state receives a great deal more money from the Federal government than it pays in. I have never understood why the Democratic candidates do not make this point about states like Kentucky. The point is NOT that this should not happen; the point is that the Federal government is doing something important for those states by using the money it gets from other states.
1
The right is much better at PR than the left.
It is easier for the right because their message is simple - fear and liberals are bad.
Explaining how healthcare, taxes, deficits, job creation has been better under Democrats going back to Reagan takes people having to do a little work.
On the other hand, where are all those Hollywood liberals? Can't they give us a simple story?
And if they can, how do we get the Fox News audience to listen to it?
3
How did the Democrats decided that "Medicare for All" was a good slogan!?!
Also, proposing to ELIMINATE Private Insurance is a non-starter; politically and impractically not FEASIBLE.
The correct slogan should be: Medicare AVAILABLE for All.
This is the public option, and if done right would gradually move people away from their private insurance to it. Current subscribers to private insurance would become more and more aware over time that, at least now, private insurance and insurers don't really have the patient's best interest in mind or heart, rather only to make a profit off them (and please don't get sick and make a claim).
4
@Mahantia You do know there are private non-profit and also mutual companies who are insurers right? Mutual companies are OWNED by the policy holders and not stockholders. Private does not automatically mean for-profit. Mutual companies were in fact the basic structure of MOST insurance companies of all stripes before the 1980's. If they over collect premiums and have excess reserves they literally pay dividends to the policy holders.
1
Eliminating private healthcare companies to provide Medicare for all to lower cost is nonsense. Medicare Advantage coverage, supplied through private companies offer more benefits than plain
Medicare does. Medicare projects their cost, and pays the private company the amount they would pay in benefits. If government is more efficient, how can private companies offer more benefits, and still make a profit? Advantage programs are not permitted to offer benefits that are less than Medicare. Maybe Medicare would be less expensive if the federal government wasn't involved.
The so-called "explosion" of taxes that would supposedly occur if "Medicare for All" replaced employer-provided health insurance is greatly exaggerated, for two reasons. (1) Younger people use a lot less medical care than older people. Currently 40+ million people have medicare; the the cost of providing Medicare coverage to an additional 160 million people would be _much less_ than 4 times the current cost. (2)or the 160 million people who have employer provided health insurance, 20% of the charges they and their employer pay are overhead and profit for insurance companies. Since Medicare has 2% overhead and 0% profit, this would represent a substantial savings.
I think that eliminating private insurance is not a good idea - private insurance can be an excellent supplement to government insurance/healthcare (as it is in many countries and as it is for those who have Medicare supplements). But a plan in which _both_ employers who provide insurance and employees who receive that insurance are required to pay their share to a government plan would be financially feasible. Yes "taxes" would go up ... but _payments_ would go down. And if it were done in the way I just suggested, everyone could _see_ that payments had gone down.
1
@WZ Why would any company offer healthcare coverage? Are you proposing that government seize current company payments for coverage? So companies that have never offered their employees insurance pay less than companies that gave great benefits? If Medicare is so efficient, how come private companies under an Advantage program offers more coverage and more providers and makes a profit on what Medicare pays per individual on the government plan?
Is it too late for the Republican Party to refuse to back Trump for re-election? It’s happened before (Franklin Pierce). I fear that may be the nation’s only hope. I want to vote Democrat, and I want to vote for a woman. But I do not, at this time, feel that I can vote for either of these front runners. Harris has already lost my trust. And I am not impressed by Warren. Never have been. I believe that Harris and Warren will put too many voters off and that the other party will benefit — just as it did when the divisive Hillary Clinton was running. And if That Man is the other party’s candidate, God help us. We need a new approach to 2020.
What does support for child care mean? Will the federal government subsidize all child care facilities? My son and daughter-in-law are both teachers in a low paying state, and spend around $1400/month on day care. This kills most of one of their salaries. If feds support child care, is it only in the inner cities or would rural communities be dealt in too.
@Gary Adams Gary nothing is free. There is no money tree behind the capitol building. If childcare is subsidized with one hand, the other hand of government will hit the wallet for taxes to cover that expenditure. childcare costs something to provide. The costs will still be there.
1
@Maddy Yeah, if you have some kind of ungodly combination of public and private, like the government paying for child care without looking at the bill. Then the price would just sky rocket, like colleges have. Controlling for that needs to be part of the plan.
What I do not understand is what the democratic candidates seem to be missing, about "medicare for all."
Well, in my experience.
Now seventy years of age, i was moved into medicare some six years ago [I think] and was told to choose from six commercial managed care plans approved by NYS. Each such plan, separately, provides medicare for NYS; while the provider remains an independent commercial health insurer with its other offered plans.
So, where is the conflict? In my case - as with all other NYS medicare recipients as well? - "medicare for all" does NOT eliminate private health insurers. And, I got to keep seeing the doctors I had been seeing before enrolling in medicare.
I mean - just sayin.'
@gene s minkow That is medicare Advantage. Not traditional medicare. If private insurance is eliminated not sure what happens there...the DNC has in the past denounced medicare advantage.
I've been saying this for a long time. If we took into consideration what counts for an actual welfare state, or even a borderline failed state - we have plenty of them within our own borders (my state probably included) - propped up by federal government and unable to bootstrap themselves into any sort of sustainable existence.
I have to thank the people in actual productive states like NY, IL and WA who generously pay federal tax dollars so that my net loss state can continue to exist. Ironically, there seems to be some correspondence between the red states and the states that can't figure out how to pay their own bills. Weird.
2
When I was approaching Medicare age, still working and with employer-provided insurance, I hired an independent insurance agent with decades of experience and up-to-date on the pros and cons of my options after retirement. I ruled out the Advantage plans because they had co-pays and limiting provider networks, and finally chose a supplemental Plan F that covers the 20% Medicare shortfall. Add that $3K/year to the $2K I pay in Medicare premiums, the $400/year for Part D drug plan. Now consider my 17K fica withholding over fifty years and the matching amount my employers put in the pool; that’s a lot of money paid towards my care. Double the total because my husband pays the same out-of-pocket. Dental and vision would be extra, my two prescriptions still go up every refill, and long-term care is out-of-reach. That’s what’s seniors must pay for peace-of-mind if they have carefully budgeted for it.
When discussing healthcare costs, realize that insurance, including a public option, is more expensive than most imagine. That’s what people didn’t like about the ACA, though most in their ignorance blamed Obama’s name on the bill. That the plan was developed by R think tanks as an alternative to their favorite idea of “Buy the health care you can afford”, has largely been ignored.
When looking up my FICA lifetime withholding on my SSI statement I am reminded that only the first $118K of income is exposed. This is the biggest flaw of our current plan, and the obvious remedy.
6
@Alice Smith Alice, FICA has two parts. The SS component has a cap. The medicare tax is applied to all levels of income and has NO income cap. And since 2013 high earners pay an additional .9% on income over 200/250K. The medicare tax is 2.9% on all levels of earned income.
@Maddy
According to my SS statement, 1.45% was withheld for Medicare and matched by my employer. Had I been self-employed I would have paid the full 2.9%. My income ranged from $272 in 1968 to $68,541 in 2016. I propose no cap on Social Security withholding, which would befit a democracy.
1
The fundamental point is that health care costs have growing at about 10% per year since the mid-90's. Republicans have done nothing about stabilizing health care costs because of "freedom" or something like that. Democrats at least have tried to get coverage for everybody.
The expanded costs of health insurance have basically eaten up the average person's pay increases for the last 20 years, and have reached the point that companies no longer want to pay them. Witness the right wing proposals for companies to replace health insurance with $5k vouchers, even though health insurance costs far more.
The problem will not go away until the US government acts, no matter how much the Republicans want it to disappear.
4
@Mitch Lyle So first Mitch let's recognize part of what is driving costs is the fact that we are consuming more care because we can in fact do more. How many retirees do you know now with a knee or hip replacement? (My mom's hip replacement cost $85K all in with PT, etc - she never paid that much in even though she worked, at a 2.9% tax rate) It's common place. We have many more options in cancer care and cardiac care like stents. Life expectancy has also shifted.
In the 1990's we made a huge shift. We used to have 80/20 co-insurance as the most common model and many insurers were mutual companies (owned by policy holders - I used to work for Prudential). We shifted to HMO and then PPO's, which obscured prices and introduced "copays" - which were lower but sort of felt like after the copay things were free. 80/20 kept prices transparent. Now you can't even understand a healthcare bill. Your VP of HR should not pick your healthplan. Plans should be portable and the tax benefit should belong to individuals not corporations. I can support getting rid of for-profit insurance in favor of private non-profits and mutual companies but not single payer. markets need a price signal to work...force pricing transparency. If someone made $100K for 40 years, at 2.9% they paid in $116K over that time. The median household income is around 64K. so do that math. Any single hospital stay with a surgery can cost more than that individual paid in over their entire career.
Good point about the rich states to poor states income transfer but editorial begins with straw man arguments. People are actually saying, Democrats want a return to bussing? Democrats want open borders? And Democrats want to get rid of all private insurance?
3
@anon
Did you watch the debates? The Democrats are bonkers. They want open borders, free college, and to lasso the moon.
1
@Greg Yup. And I am a Democrat. I think a majority of Americans are not currently represented by either party.
1
Well put, Mr. Krugman! I'm tired of hearing it from middle Americans engaged in non-productive industries like growing our food or producing our energy. What do we coastal Americans need from them? We're the ones engaged in the truly productive endeavors like writing smartphone apps that turn your face into a puppy (I mean, just LOOK at snapchat's valuations!) and shuffling securities from hedge fund to hedge fund. We'd be better off without them!
8
Even the coasts have farms.
1
@Seanathan, actually most of the great fruits and vegetables come from left-coast CA, home of the apps you disdain. Nobody should mistakenly frame the midwest as the farmers of our food.
3
Please do not ignore Bernie Sanders
4
@Matt Fisher Sunday, another "opinion writer," Frank Bruni, said this about Sanders:
I couldn’t detect any difference between Sanders now and Sanders four years ago: The mad gleam, bad mood and hoarse-from-yelling voice were all the same. A screenwriter friend of mine emailed me midway through the event to say that Sanders resembled “a very angry chess player in Washington Square Park in an undershirt and madras shorts in the summer heat.”
I would ask Bruni: What was Sanders saying four years ago that he needs to change? Sanders knows exactly what to say, he's consistently on message, and he's on the side of the American people.
1
There are smart informed people living in Red States. Just not enough of them.
6
The Republican message: "Who are you going to believe? Me or your lyin' eyes?"
3
The first Democrat candidate to have a Bill Clinton "Sister Soljah" moment by declaring themselves against the violent actions of Antifa in Portland, against 'open borders' and sanctuary cities will win by a landslide. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtSifopiL1g
Of course they should adopt Warren's tax policies and be prepared to cut back on military spending. Tulsi Gabbard are you reading this?
2
It just goes to show you how ignorant and uninformed trumps base is.
2
When America's politics are in the thrall of a renegade; when privately invested capital (the stock market) produces a higher yield in profits when compared with working capital; when dynastic wealth threatens to exceed the gross domestic product; when federal policy is decided by former lobbyists; when antiquated institutions—the Senate and the Electoral College—are used to propel a party to power despite losing the popular vote by millions; when all these trends concur, we must accept that we live in a plutocracy. A handful of people has become America's aristocracy, and in the best tradition of the Bourbons and the Romanovs, they are draining our country's wealth to finance their McMansions and multi-million dollar cars. Some even dream of going to space. Many of us have-nots would like to help them out with that last item.
3
Maybe the next Congress should try a new tax bill with states only getting federal funding for things in proportion to the taxes they pay. Let's see how the conservative states get along without California paying their bills.
5
The insurance companies have already begun with their untrue ad campaign. I saw one yesterday on TV with folks lined up to tell their sob story about how awful the healthcare is in Canada. How long they had to wait to see a doctor. But then the real news came on and one story was about a caravan of busloads of people crossing into Canada to fill their prescriptions. One lady's $400. dollar insulin cost her $40. north of the border. Some of us see through rose colored glasses others with wool pulled over their eyes.
3
As usual Mr. Krugman you don't pull any punches, on the truth, love it.
3
We are going back to the '60s---the 1860s. If the discussion were only about economics, Prof. Krugman's take on how most Americans feel about the progressive agenda would make Trump's re-election highly unlikely.
But, it appears, the Republican Plantation Aristocracy has successfully sewn the seeds of Demographic Panic, creating a large bloc of fearful white voters. These folks have become so fearful and angered that they enthusiastically vote against their own economic interest. They have come to WANT a government that prioritizes excluding people of color from voting booths and the country itself.
To them, getting screwed economically may just be the price one pays to "MAGA", even as they know that the "great employment numbers" don't reflect their own personal economic insecurity.
3
Those who are poor, ignorant and conservative deserve none of my empathy. They consistently destroy themselves by voting for rich men who use them and their ignorance and hate.
One can be very sure that these people do work in jobs that the gov't pays for but are too ignorant to know that. Anyone who complains about taxes and gives money to the GOP and churches should be refused gov't aid and employment. They don't want to take care of anyone else. No one needs to take care of them.
1
@vel
I can assure you that many of us conservative voters are doing very, very well in the current economy. So well that we do not need the governments help as we have ourselves to rely on. Support yourself and your own family.
2
How about an alternative blue hat for the 2020 election that says:
Make America Trump-Free--Again!
1
There isn't anything to the Republicans. Logic or conscience are not what they offer so they can't harm them as a weapon.
Only a heavy diet of lies carefully designed to raise their blood pressure can keep their voters motivated. They have nothing in the real world to offer "The Base".
But here we must take account of the power of their fantasy and the nature of the personalities those fantasies appeal to. The sadistic actions the Republicans take toward Latinos or Families dependent on SNAP to survive, the liscence they are given to hold others in disdain, even lash out and punish — these are real rewards for the base because it brings them pleasure.
This sadism has been cultivated by degree over years and if it is now horrifying to men and women of conscience to see families torn asunder and babies put in cages — well rest assured that others unlike you, who watch FOX quite often, will go to the polls and vote Republican precisely because the party delivered them such a rarified pleasure as that.
Their moral downfall is total. They are not capable of love. Ours has become a sick society.
That the continued prosperity of the red heartlands depends upon the tax largesse of the liberal coasts is precisely why they want to dominate us even more! Pointing it out to them won't stir their conscience, if anything it will make them more ruthless and willing to accept the dictatorship that has quite clearly been laid out and named — more than two terms.
3
@ArthurYes and many people vote their fears, especially their hatreds....
I say we stop subsidizing the parasites of Kentucky and fund the Green New Deal.
2
"Last week’s debates clearly weakened Joe Biden and increased the odds that a more definitively progressive candidate — probably Kamala Harris or Elizabeth Warren — will win the nomination."
Yes, let's definitely overlook the candidate running a close second behind Joe Biden, and in some cases overtaking him. Your anti-Bernie bias is showing. I'm shocked.
1
Good article. Thank you for the facts and figures!!
2
Let's hear it for the FAIR State bill (Fair Allocation of Income and Resources to States). Not state can receive more than 1.05 of what it pays in in taxes. Many of the red states would dry up and blow away.
3
Or maybe, just maybe, they might be spurred to modernize their economy and invest in education.
1
@JS: "Let's hear it for the FAIR State bill (Fair Allocation of Income and Resources to States). Not state can receive more than 1.05 of what it pays in in taxes."
How about we just go back to the original intent of the Constitution?
Dr Krugman is right, any democratic candidate that proposes universal health care (or Medicare for all) needs to have a plan for the transition period. Is it 2 or 4 years, does it go through Obamacare and Public option, does it retain some private insurers, like in many EU countries, or eliminates all of them....
These details are critical and important for people to imagine how their employer insurance (about 60% of Americans) will it fare, will it be abruptly cancelled, or will they have some time to chose one that is cheaper or have better coverage, etc.
Medicare doesn't eliminate private insurance, not with Medicare Advantage plans. I get my Medicare through United Health. Others through Regence, etc. Let's get some clarity on what exactly is being proposed before getting hysterical about private insurance. Remember many countries with gov't health care also allow customers to purchase additional private insurance. None of the Dems are stupid enough to collapse the U.S. medical system in one simple blow.
3
@Tom meadowcroft. Please help me understand your logic. I'm sincere here not being sarcastic. I am actually trying to understand your reasoning. You say. "Who are blue state voters to complain, when the blue state solution to poverty is to raise housing prices and the cost of living, which makes poverty move to another state? The rest of the states can't all be gated communities for rich people like California, Connecticut and NYC." So are you saying that if wealthy blue States would only lower their home prices and thus their tax base and stop sending their poor people to your state your state would be better off? Wouldn't it be better for all to have your state emulate the policies of the wealthier states and raise the quality of life for all?
A great many citizens who vote for Republicans in net-tax-positive states (e.g., red states receiving more from the Federal government in taxes than they pay) are unaware of, or in denial of, this fact.
In order to drive home the point that their economic model simply doesn't work, Congress must enact legislation limiting federal largesse to the amount a state pays into the Federal treasury. When KY (for example) sees a significant drop in GDP bc it isn't paying much into the Federal treasury, perhaps the citizens there will begin to understand the bill of goods they've been sold, and adjust their voting to actually address their own interests.
3
Why do people in these conservative states are so convinced that they are the fiscally responsible and self-sufficient Americans?
Because they have a very effective right wing propaganda, from Fox to dozens of right wing radio outlets, right wing internet and thousands of evangelicals congregations. All singing the same tune: liberals/democrats bad, irresponsible spenders and conservatives fiscally prudent and self-sufficient. And it works like a dream.
3
How about each state keeps it's own Medicaid/Medicare tax money for it's own citizens? Then the Red states can cut as much as they want and starve themselves to death. Perhaps only then the voters there will learn that they benefit more than they know, and it's not some "other" person who is getting all the "government handouts."
3
As a retired college professor living on the East Coast I highly resent the term “Coastal Elites”. There are many blue collar workers in our communities. During the eight years when I was working on my doctorate, I was one of them : bus boy, hotel room cleaner, gardener, painter, etc. Yes, there are some who inherit wealth and status here - but there in the “Heartland” as well ( the Kochs, the Waltons, the DeVoss’s, etc). Not everybody inland is a white, unemployed white man. Maybe Democrats should work on empowering the forgotten people in the fly-over states.
1
Thank you Dr Krugman for putting the proper lens on this issue!
I am so sick of seeing the Rs shout loudly that they are so, so disadvantaged while they destroy the tenets of civility and humanity that have, here to fore, been our national character.
2
But anyone trying to ask Trump or his “base” or his evangelical stalwarts about this phenomenon (coastal blue states actually subsidizing red states) would be smacked down with their favorite retort “FAKE NEWS!”
How can we even dream of establishing a modicum of bipartisan fairness in this country when the red portion deems facts to be fake if they do not support their message? The truth is what Trump says it is and that’s fine by them.
If Kentucky gets $40 billion more from the federal government than it sends in taxes, then why does Kentucky need a special liaison for transportation projects, set up by Elaine Chao, McConnell's wife? Moochers, and greedy too.
1
I will regain faith in the Democratic party when they learn clear messaging. Republicans have provided a treasure trove of bad deeds easily illuminated. 3 years of Trump shows short proclamations work. Drill down data can be made available.
First get people's attention.
Ditch misogynistic. Republicans are prejudiced against women, we know that by their votes and policies. Same with race.
@kat perkins
I don't think you understand the problem.
First, Democrats do appeal to a much broader voter population, rich and poor, black and white, immigrants, of different religious preferences, etc. This alone makes it that much, much more difficult. Second, Democrats do not have propaganda arm that would aid in constructing/testing the message. Conservatives have absolute advantage in this through Fox, right wing radio and evangelical congregations. Third, it is much, much easier to construct message when you lie. You just use simple phrases/lies and your propaganda machine makes sure those lies are repeated 24/7.
1
"you can only portray progressives as radical or irresponsible, especially as compared with the modern G.O.P., by ignoring or suppressing a lot of facts"
And, your point?
When have facts EVER gotten in the way of the Republicant agenda, lol.
The "Moochers" of Middle America?
Thankfully, I don't form my opinions based on the shallow, one-sided, self-righteous opinions of a name calling op-ed writer, no matter how blind faith-ed he or she may be to their political party. So far, the only moochers of middle America seem to be the very "progressive" candidates who want to raise taxes. Not sure about the validity of, or reason for using a Fox news poll, or the unsubstantiated claims that raising taxes would be good for anything, especially the economy, but even Paul’s demonstrated poll points out that those polled by fox are less supportive of broad tax increases. Moreover, this shallow exercise in pen pushing completely overlooks the costs associated with all the other brilliant free stuff programs these “progressives” are willing to give away in order to get elected…and who will pay for all that good stuff. The USGAO estimates that illegal immigration costs you and I approximately $8 Billion annually. Forget free Medicare for all. Is that all legal US Citizens?
3
@Kimbo
The moochers are the" have-not" states that take disproportionate federal money from the "have" states. That's socialism at work, by the way.
2
I would like to submit a Modest Proposal, for consideration by Paul Krugman and by my fellow New York Times readers.
Let's create a new rule that, if you vote Republican, you no longer qualify for Food Stamps.
NB: I know what I am proposing is impossible, and unconstitutional, on many levels, but it may be useful as a thought experiment..
This rule is fair, and I think most Food Stamp recipients would understand that immediately.
You can't bite the hand that feeds you.
If you vote for the Republican Party, which is dedicated to dismantling every program ever created by the Democrats, then how, in good conscience, can you continue to collect money under one of those programs?
3
@Peter - how about qualifying for food stamps also requires using birth control? This rule is also fair. If you can't afford to feed yourself, you're not prepared to care for a baby.
1
My dream is to see Mitch McConnell held accountable for all the damage that he has done to this country.
One great weakness in our system is that it doesn’t have much oversight and accountability for those who would willingly betray their country, like Mitch McConnell.
6
The concept of creators of wealth is a generous term for those who rake who have most of the wealth and have created mechanisms to protect their interests. Greed is good could just as well be applied to their self definition. Obviously there is a yawning wealth gap in world. Taxation is the only area where this unfair situation can be addressed. The Fox News shibboleth of big gov't harming the wealth creators and unfair to white people in general has one virtue, it is simple and easy to package. The truth is that the US is a big complex mechanism. The greed is good mantra that gov't can be shrunk to the benefit of all Americans has been tried and has not worked. The GOP policy of piecemeal grudging surrender only if necessary to the inevitable needs of the populace has made gov't shut downs a regular occurrence.
"The point is that while you can criticize particular Democratic proposals, you can only portray progressives as radical or irresponsible, especially as compared with the modern G.O.P., by ignoring or suppressing a lot of facts. I guess facts really do have a liberal bias."
Great close professor. We live now in a political universe where facts really do have a liberal bias, as only liberals seem to care about them.
1
Many of the Red States rely on Federal money from the Blue States. As suggested by another commenter, every state should keep the Federal Tax money from their tax payers. My version would allow the tax money to be redistributed, but it would have to be a varying amount passed as part of the budget. That would be a reminder every budget season that these people not wanting to help others are on the dole themselves.
3
CORRECTION TO MY PREVIOUS POST: The 2.59 figure should be 2.57.
It’s still not true.
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf
@Robert I spent several minutes scanning all up and down the data tables at the link you provided. There are tables listing military deaths by state for several of our wars over the last century, but, nowhere is there a table showing military deaths *per capita* by state for our war in Iraq which followed 9-11-2001. So, the link you provided is irrelevant to the statistics I asserted in my original posting. Here's the link to where I found the numbers I quoted: https://www.dailyyonder.com/iraq-death-toll-state-state/
1
That’s fair enough, my bad—exceot for a few eensy technical details.
First off, your source doesn’t seem to say where they got their numbers. It certainly doesn’t explain of these were combat deaths.
Second, Montana turns out to have high per capita veterans numbers. There are several possible reasons—like you, who was based in NYC, and moved there. Generally, this’ll skew the numbers.
Third: Montana has a low pop. That means that fewer deaths give you higher per cap figures. California has the highest veteran pop in the country, and more overall deaths by far...and a lower per capita rate, because of sheer population size.
Fourth: staking your claim on Iraq alone is pretty much cherry-picking. I might as well say that Blue states are more patriotic, because they lost more soldiers during the Civil War and WW2.
But above all. I have to say, it’s kind of an odious argument that you’re making. We absolutely have a general prob with too few Americans having served, which has left too many both unrealistic about the world and disconnected from their country. So say that, rather than totting up deaths as though they were coins whose payment proved patriotism.
The thing krugman’s talking about is money. So let money be money, rather than exchanging human lives for money, and claiming that how many lives got spent gives you a Patriot Number.
And maybe, ease up on yelling at your fellow Americans a little.
One of the most useful columns I've read in a few election cycles.
4
Yeah! I live in a donor state, NY. I'm all for cutting off Georgia, Alabama, Kentucky and the rest of the perennial bottom feeders.
We can really use the money to care of problems in NY, and we do have plenty.
All I remember is after Sandy struck, the Republicans dragged their feet on disaster relief for the North East. On the other hand, parts of the country that seem to have multiple annual disaster receive relief much more quickly. Some of these communities have rebuilt multiple times. (Maybe it's time to move!) Sandy was an 80 to 100 year occurrence.
4
The 80-100 year storm will be quite a bit more frequent now.
1
@ThePB
I agree with your basic thought, but it's important to note that some wealthy people are generous.
To your statement "Eventually a Gates might turn to philanthropy, but a better way to deal with this is higher taxes to get the money back in to the economy, stimulating growth and paying wages" keep in mind that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has distributed $50Billion in grants during its 20 year existence. That's an enviable record of giving & may provide a good comparison with the Trump Foundation. It should be instructive for voters.
2
@SH Yes, but it would be better if, instead of relying on philanthropy and the pet concerns of a few individual billionaires, that money was in general circulation and being spent on more projects decided by more people.
4
@bounce33
But it isn't your money to decide how it is spent. You go earn your own money and then you can write checks to the government.
"I guess facts really do have a liberal bias." great idea. so another Idea, "call... on “donor” states like New Jersey and New York to cut off places like Kentucky"
Medicare is one of the key "transfers".
Nothing connects NJ and Kentucky through medicare. Coal miners paid SS and Medicare taxes via their coal mining employers so unless one count the owners of the coal mines who were residents of New Jersey and NY, the Coal Miners paid for this benefit since 1965! NJ and NY ARE NOT DONORS. The bankers of NJ and NY are extractors just as the coal miners, except they get fees for transactions, not blasting coal seams for fuels.
Yes, facts help but wordsmiths who make such assertions need to adhere to their own good advice.
1
Except neither Social Security nor Medicare are entirely financed by employee contributions. They’re not even MOSTLY paid for that way.
And that goes double for the OSHA, Medicaid disability, and other Federal programs, that help these folks.
@Monty Brown He said "medicaid" not Medicare.
2
Common misperception that you “collect” the money you pay into Medicare and SS all those working years. No, you pay money into a big pot and it gets redistributed around and sent back out to recipients. By virtue of having lower incomes alone red staters put less into the system but surely don’t have lower health costs than anyone else.
It’s great marketing that everyone has Medicare and SS labeled on their pay stubs so it doesn’t feel like a welfare scheme but it is.
2
I’m an ex-pat New Yorker who left home to serve thirty years in the U.S. Army (four tours in Iraq) and who then retired to homestead in a log cabin in Montana, so, the topic of rich urbanized states versus poor Heartland states is in my face every day. Dr. Krugman’s statistics about tax money flowing from rich urbanized states to poor Heartland states are absolutely correct. But Dr. Krugman and his kindred monetary number crunchers always miss one absolutely critical counter statistic: Since September 11, 2001, per capita deaths in military service for poor Heartland states has been multiple times that of rich urbanized states. For our war in Iraq, the combat zone death rate for Montana is 42.9 per million people aged 18 to 54. For New York, the same figure is 16.7. The figure for Montana is 2.59 multiples of that for New York. Montana buries its killed in military action sons and daughters at 2.59 times the rate for New York. Similar disparities exist between either of the Dakotas and Massachusetts, between Nebraska and Connecticut, you get the idea. The conclusion is simple: Rich urbanized states earn their place in America with their money. Poor Heartland states earn their place in America with their blood. Dr. Krugman and his fellows need to factor in spilled patriot blood in their assessments of which states are supporting which.
5
Taxes aren't voluntary; the military is. I believe that if we were to re-institute the draft, we would have fewer wars for folks like you to serve in.
2
@S. Richey
Let's note that the reason for the delta in combat fatalities between red states and blue states stems from the fact that the military is often the only real economic alternative available to red-state citizens. In many case, the politics of red states (little spent on education, healthcare, passing restrictive abortion laws, open racism, etc) have in general ruined their states' ability to attract the sort of people who are truly entrepreneurial who might build job-providing businesses.
I honor the sacrifice of the military, but please don't tell me that the red states even out their debt to the blue states via military service. It's not a question of honor. It's basic economics - where there are no jobs, the military is the backstop.
Perhaps it merits review by red-state ideologues - if the US as a nation didn't spend so much on the military, perhaps there would be enough money to establish programs which would actively provide economic and social benefit to the beknighted red states to the point where military service was not the only option.
4
@maggie Because military service is voluntary while paying taxes is mandatory, military service is on a higher moral plane than paying taxes. Voluntary self-sacrificing patriotism for our nation is more worthy of praise than grudging acquiescence to the taxman. By that measure, you just confirmed my point for me; poor rural states sacrificing blood more than compensates for rich urban states sacrificing cash. Also: I need to correct my math. the 2.59 figure should be 2.57.
1
An excellent article. The biggest welfare queens in the United States are in the agricultural sector. Farmers and ranchers whine like babies about losing money even as they declare themselves rugged individualist who eschew the federal government. Most Trump supporters are taken aback and deny the fact that blue America supports red America. This shouldn't really surprise anyone as their information stream is as limited as their intellectual ability. The latest happened just this morning when a Trump supporter praised Trump for America for the 10-year long economic expansion, the longest in US history. I pointed out Trump had only been president for 2 years and who really deserved credit for that expansion? He just looked blank.
8
While I agree with Dr. Krugman on many of his points, the main thing that keeps me from staying with the Democrats is their coddling of people who are in the country illegally. Providing citizen funded healthcare to them, letting them acquire driver's licenses (which are practically voter registration IDs), and, in some areas, allowing them to vote in local elections. So, what choices do we really have? The Democrats are handing the country over to people who are scamming their way in versus the Republicans who are handing the nation over to the oligarchs and plutocrats. America, it was fun while it lasted.
4
If you think about it, you will realize that promises can be made but laws and policies still have to go through Congress. Many things are said on the campaign trail for primary voters, but in the general election a candidate will move in a more moderate direction. Also, even if we gave an income and fed and clothed and gave medical care to every immigrant it wouldn't be a fraction of the cost of the tax cut to the ultra-wealthy or one fancy new war toy. I am not in any way advocating giving immigrants everything, but I think you are letting this issue cloud your thinking a little bit. If you do a little research, I think you will be reassured about how far are Democrats are going to go as you say to "coddle" immigrants. Right now we are just trying to get them out of cages and give them soap and toothbrushes at the very least. And reunite children with their parents. You sound like a person who would be on board with that. We need your vote for a Democratic candidate, and Democrats do listen to their constituents.
2
From reading this column, you would think that all we have to do is get Harris or Warren into the White House and PRESTO, all our problems will be solved. Healthcare, daycare, and higher education for free and for all! But unless a president has the legislative muscle and friendly Supreme Court that Obama had for his first two years, none of this is going anywhere. I don't see a perfect storm like that of 2008-2010 coming again in our lifetimes.
2
@Steve Baby steps. At least we can leadership that starts to steer the ship in directions that make sense including addressing climate change, help with the high cost of health coverage, and building infrastructure and efficient energy system to keep us competitive with the rest of the world. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
3
Professor Krugman, your analysis is "spot on" - backed by stubborn things called "facts" (thanks for the hyperlinks).
Now could you perhaps forward a copy of your column to the DNC (and all the "progressive" Democratic presidential candidates)? I didn't hear one of them apply your facts-based analysis to their "progressive" positions during the two-night debate extravaganza last week.
All this hand-wringing about how "progressive" policies will doom the eventual Democratic presidential nominee WILL come to pass - IF the Dems continue to be afraid of their own shadows (and the shadow of FDR - which looms over the entire nation as it weeps over the oligarchical proto-dictatorship that our nation has become).
C'mon, Professor - help us put a little spine into our Democratic Party leaders. We are the majority. And we're tired of keeping our light (an "economy that works for everyone") under wraps.
8
Private health insurance for basic health care is the problem; Medicare for All, or outright socialization of health care (we're talking about the VA, an institution Paul Krugman supports) are very effective solutions. That is a fact, and in politics facts should be important. If you fear, as does Paul Krugman, that Republicans will successfully manipulate voters' erroneous beliefs that Medicare for All will harm them because it eliminates private health insurance shouldn't you ask yourself the question, "Is it good politically to encourage people to believe things that aren't true?". If you answer no, as I suspect Mr. Krugman would, then in that case he should support all efforts to provide ordinary folks with the facts about how their private health care plans are less good for them than the alternatives I mentioned above. It's just possible that such a campaign would change the public's mind on this subject, and even if it doesn't I can't see any excuse to avoid making a good faith effort to try to do so because not doing so actually helps Republicans prevent the advent of universal health care for millions of Americans who need it.
3
Medicare for All has zero in common with the VA.
Having just driven through Kentucky on both Interstate highways as well as smaller primary and secondary roads it is apparent that an immense amount of federal funding and forgiving (no way those refineries in Ashland are compliant) keeps the state afloat and its residents depending on the federal dollar.
Meanwhile, the amount of tax dollars diverted to sectarian interests delivering what are considered public services is extensive. Much of this region is so far from the 21st century.
2
There Krugman goes again--providing facts and talking common sense about the economic malarkey the Republicans, Fox and those right-wing media outlets feed American middle- and working-class people.
The going-nowhere-fast people whose salaries have stagnated and buying power declined, while the rich keep getting richer, and the Trump federal deficit surges.
The question of our right-wing times (from Nixon-Trump) that will be explored for generations to come:
What was wrong with the middle- and working-class Americans who kept voting against their economic and social well being and for a political party that lied to them and stole elections and all the goodies for themselves?
1. Culture (religion, region. cultural myths & fairy tales, celebrity fantasies & delusions) trumps economics--expressed in a statement from the 1960s : What begins as culture, ends as politics.
So why can't these struggling middle-class and working people figure out they are being duped and conned by a party that will do nothing for them and is determined to take away decent health care, Social Security, good public education and affordable college, quality infrastructure, national parks, and even clean water and air?
2. Poor education, anti-intelligence, & destain for knowledge and professionalism, summarized by someone who said: Americans don't want to vote for anyone smarter than they are.
3. Psychology: misplaced anger re-directed by GOP
4. Political party opposition ineffective
9
The problem with punishing the conservative-dominated red states is that they still contain blue oases in their cities and minority areas. Those people don't deserve to suffer along with the Trumper crowd. Cutting those states off would hurt the innocent as well as the guilty.
While we're on the subject, the bluest of blue states, such as NY and CA, still have their rural red areas. We need to figure out how to swap property so everyone can live in a state that matches their ideological preferences without a civil war.
1
Krugman writes one sided articles. Medicare for All is the worst plan (best plan if you lean Republican) ever devised. Once the public figures out that they’ll be queuing up for care at the local VA like facility in middle America because their favorite hospital is closed, they’ll turn and run from the Dems as fast as possible.
2
@Kirk You may want to do some research. Public health care systems of all flavors are showing better outcomes and much lower costs throughout the world.
For certain they are not perfect, but they are on a whole far superior to the travesty we call health care.
3
you got a favorite hospital? Thank God I am 65 this year.
Federal taxes should surely help those in need; to enable them, not disable them. That is sum is the difference between liberals and conservatives.
Liberals want to use tax dollars to keep their base dependent upon government, ensuring loyalty to the party. See labor unions, who decades ago lost their need and now siphon finds from hard working Americans and provide no measurable benefit to members.
Conservatives want to use tax dollars to fund the military, providing jobs and ensuring we remain the only super power on earth.
Please remind the author Medicaid is a liberal program, so it’s benefiting of Trump states is neither a Republican scheme nor liberal benevolence. It is the remnants of a once great party (Democratic) who believed in a social safety net. The modern party is anti capitalism and anti American. Socialism is as un-American as communism, racism and
America is great again, thanks to Trump and the GOP tax reform. Else why did not the economy perform this well under Obama? I know, this is really the Obama economy .....
8
It’s amazing, watching the Ayn Rand types twist history into a pretzel so they can justify hoovering up every penny in Social Security and Medicare and anything else they can get anyplace close to.
By the way, what WAS our economy like when Obama took office in 2008? I seem to recall that you guys left a problem or two on the floor...
19
@EWG
This economy is propped up by 1 trillion Trump borrowed this year.
What would happen if you lowered the budget deficit by 500 billions (half of federal deficit)? Trump's economy would collapse like a house of cards.
2
Just one point on the health care issue: Proposing that the commercial, for profit health insurance companies be eliminated in favor of Medicare for all immediately is a foolish proposal in the extreme. The entire health care infrastructure would be affected and we would all suffer.
These are intelligent people, especially Warren and Harris. They need to realize that this will scare many away into the GOP's arms.
466
@Harold Listen to what they propose in detail. There is a place for private health insurance BUT they will have to compete against a public option. Better yet they should become non-profit as in some European countries. This would, of course, put an end to gigantic salaries for CEOs.
360
@Harold
insurance companies don't have to be eliminated in favor of Medicare. As it is now, people who are on Medicare usually also purchase Medicare supplement policies from private insurance companies, as well as drug plans, also from private insurance companies. Even if we had Medicare for all, this system could continue and the insurance companies could still play a role.
133
@DRTmunich
These are details that will be worked out in time. First, we need affordable Medical insurance for the middle-class working families, people who work for wages and salaries, say up to family income up to 150K or even 200K and let the wealthy buy their own private insurance. The premiums could be a low affordable payroll deduction like an increase of FICA. the government could fund SHIP covering insurance for every child. Cutting the military budget by one third would pay for most of the subsidies if not all of it. We could have the best health care for all.
But we need a government WANTING to improve the quality of life for people, Republicans put all their efforts in denying health care and any other government service. They are the enemies of the people, not the government, the Republicans are the enemy, the special interests are the enemy of the people.
166
Thank you, Mitt Romney
That's all great. But you're preaching to the choir. Only thing is, Joe Bob from Iowa is not in the choir. He's the one who needs to be convinced, and no amount of rational, logical reasoning will matter. He needs a catchy phrase that fits on a bumper sticker (or a MAGA hat). Facts be damned.
4
Amen.
Rural Eastern Kentucky is currently an economic wasteland because it was, until recently, sustained by coal. Now it is largely sustained by Federal tax dollars.
Other enterprises were intentionally excluded in order to keep wages low and to limit competition. The average person I know receives approximately $700 a month in SSI payments, so how does anyone expect Kentucky to be a net contributor? The only time our rural areas bustle is at the 1st of the month during "the draw". Ask yourself how well the businesses around you would function if everyone only had $700 per month. This is my home, but it is an incredibly depressing place to live.
2
I am from Kentucky and still have many relatives who live in the Bluegrass state. Tell me, why is it that many of these poor people who are on Medicaid, SSI, and other forms of welfare, still vote for and buy the lies of Trump and others such as McConnell, who as Trump uses them and really doesn’t give a damn about them or coal, other than to get votes. What can be done to wake them up. To get through; to get their heads out of FOX News, that is just another painkiller, a drug, that hides the underlying truth. Your thoughts?
3
Moochers sounds like basket of deplorables. We really going down this road again?
5
Republicans have been stealing and lying to the American people for decades. Remove and replace all Republicans with Democrats 2020.
3
Paul Krugman for president!
2
Warren, Harris and all the others Democrats running for president...are you reading this? Are you planning to use it in the fight to turn this country around? This idea that the rust belt and middle America are the "real" Americans and real patriots is a load of you know what. Democrats cannot let them throw that stuff in our faces any longer. We need to call them out every time they fail to call out Trump and give him a pass.
Today, Trump supporters were going after the new Democratic house members as they went to try and see what was happening at the immigrant holding facilities. Thank goodness they gave back as good as they got. The Democrats need to learn to FIGHT!!!!! We cannot give them an inch until they decide to stand up for the constitution and laws that govern this nation. We need to stop playing the what if we irritate someone game. If we are on the right side of issues...STAND UP FOR THEM!!!! Nancy Pelosi....you are blowing it with your tepid middle of the beltway tap dancing. Start the impeachment process. We are on the right side of the issues.
2
Love you!
New York Times readers seem to consist mostly of knee-jerk far left progressives who enjoy reading about how right they are about everything. It's the only explanation for such an enthusiastic response to yet another "Republicans are bad, Democrats are good" Krugman column.
6
Blue states makers, Red states takers.
3
The republicans are in an all-out war to retain power and money as the majority of the country's populace become people of color. This is to be done by any means possible - the constitution be dammed.
2
Oh Paul Krugman! That thing you do with facts makes me mmm, mmmm, mmmmm!!!
Perhaps we should apply the donald's NATO rule to the states. They need to start pulling their own weight.
3
WRONG. The leftist elitists demos are radicals. If in power they will destroy everything POTUS has and will do to keep America great again.
I certainly hope so.
Imagine if New York state and California seceded from the USA. Where would states like Kentucky get their money?
3
Interesting. What does Krugman say to the hundreds of thousands who were forced into bankruptcy because of healthcare (and education), which the candidates are proposing to offer for free to just-arrived illegal immigrants who have contributed nothing? To those about to lose their plans?
I don;t hear a word about fixing intergenerational poverty (in Baltimore as well as West Virginia), helping the homeless and the insane reparations pandering?
Krugman is in his liberal bubble. Democrats are as radical as Republicans.
Stop pretending that the Democrats are a saintly party that does no harm. The Democrats are a party that believes that the issues of undocumented immigrants should come before American citizens----then they get angry when a volatile president like Trump gains in some polls despite his unpopularity.
Yes, all people should have healthcare, undocumented immigrants as well----but where does it stop----do they get free housing, free tuition from taxpayers?
Democrats need to respect TAXPAYERS. There is no such thing as a free ride. I am a centrist Independent, I voted for Clinton in 2016, but if this keeps up, I'll be voting for Schultz or some other Independent.
Get out of the liberal bubble----Democrats have a Middle America problem. They have a young white male voter problem. Fix it.
6
Krugman’s point is that Democrats are essentially expanding on the New Deal and the various civil rights legislations, and pretty much sticking to the principles Democrats have long had.
Republicans are radical, because they’ve attacked their own history and principles at the root.
3
@Bob I'm a recovered republican, full blue democrat. I pay plenty of taxes. Never had a free ride.
Krugman isn't saying the democrats are saintly, just that the republicans have become evil. The GOP is the one with the young white male voter problem. White supremacy, racism, bigotry.
Again, Democrats ARE taxpayers. They aren't the ones in rural Kentucky voting for Trump and collecting all kinds of government assistance.
Colin Woodard in his book American Nations describes the cultural fault lines in our country and posits that if the U.S. were to break up it would be along those boundaries. Using his map, perhaps it's time to realize the U.S. has fault lines that are irreparable. How about the Union States ripping up the Confederate States surrender and letting them go on their merry way. It will save them a lot of money at the least.
2
Whatever happened to ask not what your country can do for you but rather ask what you can do for your country? Maybe pay a fair share of taxes?
Democrats better come up with a sensible platform and candidate. Any more of Trump time is going to be lethal to the republic.
1
Cutting government spending helps the economy. If you cut off the moocher states, they would restructure their economies and become more efficient and wealthier. People in Kentucky vote GOP BECAUSE they see their neighbors mooching.
Spot on, as always, Dr. Krugman.
1
Red States prop up their government with the Washington swamp which funnels Federal more to the South and Midwest. I think poor Texas has the dubious honor in the South as the only state in the region that sends more money to Washington than it receives. 1.06 out to 1 00 in. A pittance compared to wholesale robbery of New Jersey. All this money and so many years and they are still at the bottom of the heap. Why doesn;t the GOP demand accountability from its own voters
Social welfare is income based, GOP farm welfare goes to everyone giant corporate farms and small family farms.
Folks under the GOP it will only get worse. clearly taxation without representation.
We tried Trump's way and all we got was even more debt.
Maybe the Democrats show a better fairer way.
So if Kentucky gets more federal dollars and pay less federal tax than NY that means McConnell and Paul are doing a better job representing their state than Schumer and Gillibrand. I could have told you that.
Back to the issues at hand. Medicare is forced insurance. Period. 2.9% of our incomes to be exact. Not a wealth redistribution scheme (read vote buying). Further, it costs 4% of the GDP to pay for it and this is will climb to 6% in 2 decades. So, something has to give. More taxes and/or less benefits. But what did you expect from a government run program? High costs and poor service, of course. Now the Democrats "solution" is to throw more people on it. So it will cost more, and let's add people who came here illegally too, and then make them citizens. Buy votes and steal from people who work. Got it.
Then they want me to pay for people's college education and pay off their college loans. Hmmm I worked my way through college, so I wouldn't have loans, and so did my kids. Sounds like someone wants to steal from me. Not happy about that.
Maybe just maybe, some college and some medical care isn't worth it and costs too much. If that's the case, then let's let the people paying for it decide on a case by case basis. If it's kinda well lame.. then they can just charge a little less. let the payer decide
1
Here’s an idea: how bout each year require that the “Real America” (Red) states send delegations out to creditor (Blue) states to plead for continuance of this subsidization .. Hey brother, can you spare a dime?
1
Mr. Krugman, what are the chances that Trump's "base" will believe you?
1
Thanks for clarifying that the GOP relationship with Reality is a joke.
Start with language. Universal Healthcare. Medicare for All is too easily distorted.
Trump stepping over a cement step like he was marrying Kim was performance art. I always wonder what the Warmer family does with his sycophantic gestures towards this dictator. It must be excruciating.
The GOP is worried about "Socialism" when Donald Trump is flashing his cleavage to every commie/oligarchic dictator on the planet to beg them to "like" him?? Good God.
Mitch McConnell's Kentucky welfare status should be the basis of his opponent's run against him. While he and his wife get rich off of their foreign connections, the state exists thanks to the rest of the USA.
2
More liberal nonsense. How does putting children in government-subsidized childcare make them “healthier and more productive adults” rather than being raised at home by a loving parent?
And maybe Obama wasn’t a socialist, but the 2020 Democrats sure are.
Trump is a shoe-in for re-election, folks. Might as well deal with it now.
2
You mention that one third of the 2 trillion in US debt for the tax cut is bought by the rich in foreign countries. Yes: but you miss the point that that means most of it is bought by the wealthy in this country who will make more money off the interest they get by providing that loan to us. The US rich always do well. The get the tax cut then they make more money by loaning us the money to pay the debt of the tax cut! If people only stopped and thought about this they would take over the country by voting. But they get so confused and get so much propaganda and the media help keep them in ignorance. Only in America.
It's reasonable to conclude, based on the list of top ten moocher states that, the very people who gladly accept the handouts that allow them to pay for their homes, cars, food, childcare and houses of worship, do so using funds redistributed from the very groups they seek to suppress--women, minorities and the LBGTQ community.
I find it hilarious, even if it is a caricature, to picture a married gay couple in NYC, with dual Masters degrees, earning over three hundred thousand dollars a year, paying the mortgage for a couple who hates them. God forbid (pun intended) that the money come from a Muslim couple, a DACA recipient or an illegal alien who works sixteen hours a day, pays taxes and qualifies for zero benefits.
Yes, I am generalizing, but that's an "entitlement" I've earned.
2
Tell these people you are against big government and slash money to their states claiming this is what they wish for.
This unfortunate article by Prof. Krugman shows that classist attitudes are openly acceptable and even encouraged in polite circles.
Instead of calling common working, struggling Americans moochers, try to work out a new economic plan for them. Many are under a fog of propaganda and historically the downtrodden have taken out their class anger on people even less fortunate than themselves - immigrants, people of color, etc. The elites have actively encouraged them to do so: from the Right by direct propaganda and from the Left by overt classism.
3
I have been thinking along the same lines for quite some time.
The very people whose claim to fame is their hatred of the Federal Government. Are as Dr Klugman correctly points out the largest recipients of the Government handouts.
Like all else Republican their hypocrisy is mind boggling .
Can we PLEASE get this message to the Dems running to beat Trump--if voters understood this (really understood)Dems would have a fighting chance against Fox news lies; how can we help? Get this message to the DNC chair for a start. It has to be told consistently and often, and preferably with visual graphs.
1
Another thing to consider is that liberal economies work. The blue states generate 2/3rds of America's GDP. Kentucky is one of many red states kept afloat by liberal labor and largess.
As someone who grew up in Europe I find it pretty interesting what passes for the left in the US. The two party system and the Republican march ever further right have allowed Democrats to become the centrist party.
Actually, the biggest thing Democrats are moving too far left is immigration.
Completely ignored by Krugman.
4
Kids must go into debt for college! How many girls want a career in daycare? And absolutely no one can afford healthcare! Go ahead, vote for the moderates (and Republicans), who have engineered this mess. I’m voting for progressives! Go Elizabeth!
1
Kids can longer afford college. Young girls no longer choose a career caring for children! And no one can afford healthcare. Go ahead Krugman keep voting for the moderates, I’m voting progressive!
Not to mention the unthinkable amounts of money that flow into corporate welfare.
Dear Paul,
A fair point to show the hypocrisy. But before you gloat, you should read an alternative view, pulled from the last paragraph of an article in The Atlantic from 2017:
"Alternatively, we could use the "state dependency" map as an opportunity to reflect on a different paradox—the longstanding role of the far-away federal government as an agent of community. Because of federal programs, people in places like South Carolina and Mississippi are getting a helping hand not from their neighbors a few blocks away or in the next county over, but from residents of Delaware, Minnesota, Illinois, and Nebraska. Whether you like that idea depends, in part, on how you personally reconcile the tension between two long-cherished, core American values—our passion for individualism and our regard for community—and whether you see "community" as encompassing the whole country.
That's a far more interesting thing to think about (though perhaps less viscerally satisfying) than which states are moochers or freeloaders and which are getting fleeced."
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/which-states-are-givers-and-which-are-takers/361668/
You should read the entire article, Paul. It is definitely more balanced and gives a far better analysis than your piece.
1
The red state moochers are a lot like the hard-line brexiteers in Britain in that they don't know how good they have it, and they will rue the day they fell for right-wing radical, ignorant lies and the propaganda.
The myth that there are all those angry, left-behind white guys in the red states, and that they are somehow justified in their extreme and radical anger because the coastal elites talked down to them or ignored them, is very old and stale.
The Kochs, Adelsons, Putins and the GOP rich may be white and angry, but left behind they are not and elect trump they did.
We can't convinced trump's vile, mesmerized base of anything remotely resembling the truth, but we can out vote them. trump lost the election. The system handed the presidency to him on a small margin of voters in a handful of red states. Get rid of that margin and make American sane again.
Dems can do it by setting forth bold policies that truly will make all American's lives better, not just the rich and not just the whining red-state and corporate moochers.
2
Excellent strategy to get Trump re-elected. Have all the Democratic candidates refer to people in middle America as moochers.
6
The coastal blue states have long supported the red states! Period. Not the Trumps nor the Koch brothers, nor the oil industry, tech nor any big corporation. It’s the people who work for them making average wages. I am disgusted when I hear the chants of the people who have time to hang out in diners, or those Midwest retirees in their isolationist enclaves in FL partying with Trump. They complain about paying their way - no someone else is doing it for them.
1
Brilliant! Let the Magats know the truth. Many of the GOP's red state rubes live in and yearn for the distant past when their steel making and brick laying actually created wealth. When you only needed to be a white man with some high school to get a good paying job. The world has passed them by, or perhaps they stood still while the modern world confused, angered and frightened them. Appealing to them as Democratic centrists suggest is a losing battle. Better to ignite progressives to vote in sufficient numbers to overwhelm them. Then lets do what is "best" for them as they profess and eliminate the welfare that keeps them poor and ignorant. Give them an incentive to work rather than to collect government checks which they despise. Serves them right.
3
(Because a moderate did so much for us last go around!). I just wrote your buddy David, you, like he, have yours, don’t you? Don’t care a darn bit today’s kids can’t afford college. (Aren’t you a professor?). Then ask around - see how many young girls have chosen the lucrative career, caring for children? See how many want to care for their own? We need a progressive childcare program, ASAP! And then you’re against Medicare-for-All? I believe that puts you in the same party as Sen. McConnell? Head on over, because a Democrat you are not.
California has more in common with 3/4 of the countries in the world than it does with Kentucky and other trump states.
Sign me up for a federal tax cut and a state tax increase. We need to stop supporting the American Taliban: let Kentucky form a holy alliance with Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia -- countries where god and absence of reason are also the currency of the realm.
2
My liberal friends said it was the height of stupidity to think the government was evil during the Obama Administration. The exact same people now say it’s the height of stupidity to say government is not evil.
Poor Paul, left to move his facts about the chessboard, a board that in fact runs on myths.
Telling Trump voters that they are Moochers is simply dumb.
This article propogates a silly narrative.
3
"...you should be calling on “donor” states like New Jersey and New York to cut off places like Kentucky and let their economies collapse. And if that’s what you mean, you should let Mitch McConnell’s constituents know about it."
Another instance of McConnell laughing all the way to the bank.
1
I completely agree with Dr. Krugman. Living in a "blue" state, is is monumentally irritating to continue to read about states like KY who reap the benefits of our tax dollars, and then whine and cry about "socialism". Democratic candidates should bring this up at every possible opportunity. When the GOP brings up the evil concept of "wealth redistribution", then they should be asked when they plan to return the excess in federal funds they have received, since richer states have had their wealth "redistributed" to states dominated by the GOP.
2
The good professor has lost his Socratic way:
1. " where they would pay taxes that would offset some of the cost." - if that is all true then the market does not need to prime the pump - women will logically determine that returning to work make more economic sense than not.
2. "Richer states subsidize poorer states. And the reasons are clear..." - that is all fine and good - but the exact same reason why you argue that corporations are not people is why 'states are not people' - you have argued absolutely nothing about individual or group behavior.
1
"...women will logically determine that returning to work make more economic sense than not."
Did you read the whole paragraph, Steve? "Support for child care..." is needed to make the economics work out.
Re #2, Republicans constantly talk about cutting benefits, and the people who receive them and need them keep voting for them. "Keep your gubmint hands off my Medicare" is a real thing. This is a problem.
I have been advocating for states to stop subsidizing each other for years. Just have states collect taxes (local jobs!!) send the federal government 20% of all revenue for the military, interstate roads, national parks, Government in DC. Then each State pays for its own healthcare and retirement plan.
If Kentucky or (insert red state name here)starves its citizens, or doesn’t educate them, or denies them healthcare, so be it. People should have the right to get what they vote for.
3
I would also like to see an analysis of how many people in states like Kentucky are on social security disability, and how much it costs.
During the last presidential election, the Washington Post profiled Trump supporters at his rallies who were complaining about the ACA and similar programs, but were themselves living on SSI or SSD. I don't begrudge individuals those benefits, but I do resent states like Kentucky, in the pursuit of low taxes, that don't take care of their own by having a tax structure that doesn't adequately fund education, healthcare, job development, the elderly, etc., and then rely on a hidden support system of federal money, including federal disability, to support their residents.
4
"Support for child care, for example, would free more women to enter the paid work force — where they would pay taxes that would offset some of the cost."
I read/hear claims like this all the time. It seems to me that they all have in common an underlying, unstated -- and questionable -- assumption: Enough unfilled jobs currently exist, just waiting for these hypothetical, newly freed workers to appear. And that these "ghost" jobs would be permanent jobs, so that the newly freed/employed workers would remain mostly employed despite future economic ups and downs.
Put more generally: Everything has limits, including economies. Why are economists mostly unwilling to face this truth, and rationally/realistically/explicitly factor it into their proposals and prognostications? I, for one, could be more convinced if they did so.
I just felt a moment of sadness for Paul Krugman. Ever the rationalist, tirelessly presenting the facts. Pushing against the tide of sloppy thinking. But the majority of citizens of the "moocher states" don't care about reason or the facts. I lived in Idaho for many years and every year Idaho took in something like $1.25 in Federal funds for every $1.00 in Federal taxes it paid. Yet most citizens of Idaho complained about Federal taxes, the evils of the Federal government, endlessly biting the hand that fed them.
6
@Victor
The problem is on the Democrats. They are poor at communicating such information. If the shoe was on the other foot you would be constantly hearing it from the GOP about the blue moocher states.
2
I guess I'm getting more conservative. I used to agree with just about everything Paul Krugman wrote.
How can it be fiscally responsible for progressives to promote free college (tuition forgiveness), Medicare for all, everything that's included in the wish list that's the Green New Deal, and reparations? Democrats need to level with the public about how they pay for all these programs. And don't get me started on modern monetary policy.
The progressive agenda will sink the left and Trump will win a second term.
6
@David . Medicare for all is fiscally responsible.
U.S. corporations will save billions of dollars every year. That will fuel higher wages and more employment and a lot fewer emergency room visits. I believe some hospitals will close
due to lower health care costs but we will save billions.
1
@David
How about we cut (gasp!) the military budget?
1
@GolferBob
Hi, I agree it's fiscally responsible, it's just not popular with the majority of the public when you tell them the can't have any private insurance. If the candidates looked at the German model, they'd have a better chance. It's all about revving up the progressive base.
"But polling overwhelmingly shows the opposite: Voters want to raise taxes on the rich and expand government social programs."
Yes, thank you sir; that is all true. When asked to raise their hands for "medicare for all" (MFA) in one recent dem candidate forum (CBS), I think only two raised their hands. All polls show dems and republicans and educated and lower educated, middle "class" and lower "class" all want MFA. The dems are doing it again. They pay attention to what their donors want and not the people. They stand a good chance of misunderstanding that and losing to Trump; again. Highly likely. They "do not get out and around" enough. They are making a big mistake. Trump for another 4 years?
2
While redistribution of wealth from the upper incomes to the lower incomes is one of the functions of Government I would submit that the redistribution of wealth from the lower incomes to the upper incomes in the ONLY function of business.
4
Dr. K speaks of " hospitals kept afloat by Medicare and Medicaid." Interesting. One of the lesser-known Dems in the debates last week complained that every hospital would close if Medicare for All becomes a reality because the Medicare reimbursements are too low.
So which is it?
I sense the possibility of a column here, Dr. K, if I may be so bold.
5
@Al Luongo
Yes. You nailed it. "one of the lesser know dems" has, in one fell stroke, destroyed all the logic, evidence and facts presented here and elsewhere. Not to mention the fact that, obviously, that unnamed "lesser known dem" speaks for the entire DNC, all columnists, all academics and everyone not a Republican. Give us a break, Al.
1
Many comments herein are focused on the percentage of "poor people" and how that strains red states' budgets. Not mentioned is the quality of life factor that doesn't just come from being "rich" in monitary terms.
What becomes tangible in the poor vs rich argument is the higher rate of wages through "Unions" and higher taxes. These words just in themselves are monstrous concepts to red states. Then there is the other reality of how these same state's politicians keep lying about all those "entitlements" that should be cut back and privatized. Sorry to pop the balloon, but these federal government programs are set up as an earned transaction with the American workers and their families. Social Security, Medicare-Medicaid, Unemployment, and many others are being paid for by FICA taxes. Usually half is paid by the employee while the other half by their employer. Self employed persons pay the full fare.
We've earned these safeguards for our futures and in staying healthy enough to keep working. But the word "entitlements" is a huge insult to many Americans and well it should remain so.
Then there are Unions that are far more prevalent in the blue states. They have given in to management over the years, but they usually force higher wages. This helps the wage base across the board to be higher also in these states. Red states have demonized Unions and the higher taxes that they levy also across the board.
The net result is greater wealth for blue states than red states.
6
Every day some corporate owned pundit warns Democrats to steer clear of the left and remain in the safe center. But where has moderation gotten us? It hasn't increased the annual median income for most Americans, reduced gun violence, addressed climate change, protected unions, improved education, increased minimum wage, reduced infant and maternal mortality rates, ended homelessness, improved healthcare or any of the other many issues facing this nation.
Moderate Democrats enable Mitch McConnell to achieve his political agenda because he doesn't play safe or fair. I am sick and tired of being sick and tired of Democrats getting outmaneuvered by McConnell. Enough of Democrats like Obama and Biden who give away the store to get one Republican vote to appear fair and balance. We need younger, bold leaders in the WH and Senate.
11
It is sheer nonsense to yell that Obama and Biden (and Pelosi, and Schumer, and many others) did none of those things. And you ought to be able to argue your case, not just throw more Trumpery at the wall.
@Robert
First, I didn't yell anything. Second, you obviously did not comprehend my point. Third, I am an Independent who traditionally votes for Democrats. Fourth, you have made no case.
Not paying for what you get is at the core of the conservative mind:
- whiteness is something they get for free, but that they feel entitled to the benefits of
- citizenship. You didn't earn that, why do you feel entitled to the benefits AND you resent others that wish to EARN those benefits
- Limited Liability. Corporate owners get this form of insurance for FREE. Why? I pay for car, home, and health insurance out of my pocket. Why not require corporate owners to do the same to protect them from liability?
- Carbon pollution. Why should you be allowed to create pollution, noise, traffic, and climate change and not pay for those externalized costs?
Only the most entitled person would feel that they should be allowed to get something for nothing. And yet, conservatives at their core believe they should. "Keep things the way they are and were," they say. Yeah, that's because they like getting free stuff on the backs of others. Totally immoral.
7
So the Democrats want to impose fines on its citizens that don't buy healthcare and then turn around and give it to people who are here illegally for free and that's not tacking too far to the left ?
Right......
12
@Norville T Johnson No, they don't want to do that.
Forget the WH in 2020. Let's take the Senate and keep the House. Then we will bulldoze Trump and the remaining Trumplicans.
10
@Dissatisfied
Wrong!
Keep the House, take the Senate, White House and bury every evil trump and the republicans strive for.
Being right does not translate into winning an election. Whoever is “chosen” by caucus, primary, and “super delegates” will have to get in a down and dirty battle to win the Oval Office. When you wrestle with a pig, (i.e., Trump), your going to get muddy. Because that’s where the pig loves to be. Any fallacious pledge to run a cleaner campaign by the Dems will only result in another loss and make the Dems look more and more elitist. Get muddy, win, and then take a two month shower before inauguration. Then govern!
3
If the rest of the country was like Kentucky, we’d have no money to send Kentucky.
9
Thank You, I have been making this point for years.
The very people who 'Love to Hate' big government are its biggest Beneficiaries , especially when it comes to benefits.
Their hypocrisy is truly mind boggling , of course truth be told they do Love the Government handouts, just not when the recipient is a Black or Brown person.
8
The Red States are the takers. That is a fact which should be broadcast every day.
7
A great article with a TERRIBLE headline.
2
Krugman should publish an analysis of welfare recipients by party.
2
@Ami
Remember, "keep your government hands off my Medicare."?
https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/11/keep-your-government-hands-off-my-government-programs/
I heard this morning while driving to work that gas stations can now provide us with gas during the summer that gives us more ozone! Trump fans, rejoice! Those easings of restrictions under this administration have given you air quality standards that will put you at risk from ozone exposure during the time of the year when you most want to be outside!
Give your guy a round of applause...
... if you still have the strength to clap those hands while you're having trouble breathing.
3
Republicans have highjacked the word “socialism” to mean anything they don’t like, and their base have pretty much bought into it with a steady diet of Fox News.
3
"...while you can criticize particular Democratic proposals, you can only portray progressives as radical or irresponsible, especially as compared with the modern G.O.P., by ignoring or suppressing a lot of facts. I guess facts really do have a liberal bias."
There you have it. Republican propaganda outlets are very effective in keeping the unthinking Republican base inline by denying facts. Even the party name, "Republican," is a misleading falsehood.
Kentucky is a welfare queen. Other red states are welfare princesses. But people who live in red states see themselves as "us:" hardworking, patriotic, god-fearing white Christians, the backbone of America. They see Democrats as "them:" non-white heathens, elitist, child-killers and (not just liberals (used pejoratively) but) socialist libertines.
Republicans have used propaganda not just to win elections, but to divide America, deny facts, deny reality, portray themselves as real America and any opposition as a socialist commie enemy.
Fox and their ilk are not harmless free-speech, not simply greedy capitalists selling Republican policies, not voices of conservatism. They are corrupting, nefarious, subversive, organized weapons attacking America from within...intended to undermine America by keeping their audiences convinced that only Republicans possess the truth: real Americans are wealthy white Christians and their white male workforce which will one day also become wealthy by supporting their god's Republican policies.
6
So, you're telling me, a woman living in Philadelphia. that my taxes are supporting the cruel policies in Alabama!
1
@Rita
Well not exactly, but your dollars are probably subsidizing poor rural communities in the center of your state. PA is a state that gets back a little more than they send to the Federal government every year.
But your general theme is correct, urban wealth generating centers are subsidizing rural communities that cannot support themselves. All of those proud, self righteous, angry, "hard working real Americans" who absolutely oppose government handouts effectively have their hands out.
The map at this link almost looks like a map of the 2016 election (with some otable exceptions). Note that 13 states (if I counted correctly) are effectively subsidizing rest of the country. I wonder what would happen to Alabama, Oklahoma, Oregon, if they got as much federal money back as they put in.
https://www.moneytips.com/is-your-state-a-net-payer-or-a-net-taker/356
No mention of healthcare for illegal immigrants?
Democrates 55+ years old will not stand for that!
5
Yes
“Speak truth to power”
But where else would we find the rubes to grow our food and fight our wars?
4
Mr. Trump and the Republican Party are hoping fervently that the Democrats nominate Ms. Warren (fake Indian) or Kamala Harris (real Indian, the South Asian variety), or if the gods are kind, both on a joint ticket. And when Mr. Trump wins re-election, Mr. Krugman will be schooled (again) on the fact that America is not silently yearning for the socialist paradise he dreams of, where all outcomes are equal.
3
That the GOP is a bunch of corporatre and medical welfare bums is hardly a secret. The secret is why the heck CORPORATE media and the pundits haven't been calling them out on it for years.
Krugman does a real service in exposing the hypocrisy, but he's not going to lift Mitch McConnell's snout from the trough. Only the voters of Kentucky could do that, and given the facts here presented, why should they. They can claim to be self-less Christians all the way to their federally paid for medical system and their food stamp supported checkout at the grocery.
Mitch won't sabotage anything that hurts his voters. He'll talk about the need to slash entitlements, but that's just for his big donors. He'll be sure to cover his own rear when push comes to shove. Kentucky is a welfare state in fact, but Mitch doesn't like it to be talked about out loud. His big donors don't care, as long as the bill is kicked down the road and can be financed by Chinese slave labour.
1
All the while RNC and their leader fund raising $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ through the roof $105 millions...will need to see the list of these donors, see if any Russian 0.1%. connections pop-up.
Oligarchs of the world standing united for trump...
Western democracy is obsolete according to Mr. Putin.
Oy vey!!!
One exclamationI I happen to know.
I heard people are asking if the streets can handle hardware, meaning tanks on 4th of July, I wonder if people can handle this reality TV special episode, produced by the same reality showman & proud draft dodger.
3
If we assume the US debt clock is reasonably accurate and unbiased see https://www.usdebtclock.org/
Then combining the debt, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and other "promises" the total liabilities of the US Gov't are $124 Trillion or $1 million per taxpayer.
Neither party wants to deal with this.
Paul - how do you suggest we resolve this?
3
If only facts mattered.
3
WRITE IN Mueller and fix our broken democracy, Show the world the true power of our vote. He will lock them all up. A life long democrat
1
The question has never been whether we, in this country, believe in welfare. The question is just about who should be the ones to get it. It seems totally ok if White, Christian, middle-American's get it. Totally ok for businesses to get it. Totally ok if rich people get it. But, the minute you wade into the area of black or brown people, or non-Christians, then the whole thing comes into question.
The whole idea of "welfare moms" and "druggies" is code for "black people"...never mind that only 3% of WV is black, but the state gets 26% of its income from welfare. No one worries about those welfare moms...
The Trump-country white base only get's angry about sharing when they are sharing with people of color.
7
Are you TRYING to get Trump re-elected?
4
Great article however the red state people who really need to read and believe this never would. You could never get a mid westerner to believe those terrible, liberal New Yorkers are sending money to help him!!
4
I wonder if any of those MAGA-hatted Kentuckians in the photograph realize that one of their senators, Mitch McConnell, has done precious little for the good burghers of the Bluegrass since he went to work for them in 1984. Well, actually, when he went to work for Daddy Coal.
It’s not at all surprising that Kentucky received $40-billion off blue state revenue. It makes one wonder what else they do down there; distill whiskey; race thoroughbred horses; deny people access to life-saving healthcare?
McConnell’s a snake, always has been one, slithering from one cash cow to another, careful always to conceal his obligations to the rank-and-file. He’s already on record as being the herald of the dreaded “S” word, having thrown it out already on the booby-trapped campaign trail. Saint Paul (I think) said, “The Lord loves a cheerful giver.” McConnell says “My rich donors love a stupid constituency that re-ups me every six years because racial hate is profitable and free!”
Kentuckians have been groomed to hate people who don’t vote Republican, all the smiling patriotic Daddy Warbucks that so smirkingly run a game on them. “Get them thinking about someone else and fleece them when they’re not looking,” he seems to sneer.
It’s a lot easier to hate the people who feel entitled when you’re blind to your own theft of other people’s money. It’s how Republicans gerrymander the national debt. They know their docile sheep are too stupid to know when they’re being fleeced.
3
Yes, Yes, Yes...Paul Krugman.
1
Are they really moochers or are they being warehoused and kept fat and deluded so that their votes are assures? Just a thought.
Quoting the sub-head: 'The Democrats aren’t radical, but Republicans are,' will likely cause this post to be flagged "uncivil", but if it winds up getting posted in less than 8 hours, that will be better than last week's time lag.
It doesn't matter whether we voters on the coasts deliver the popular vote in 2020 to the Dem candidate, if that candidate doesn't win the Electoral College - which means a Dem must win Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, or possibly Ohio if all other Electoral College votes are as in 2016.
So, if it's Biden, Warren, Harris, or Bernie or whomever the Dems choose, what matters to us is how likely voters in these 4 states view the Dem candidate.
It won't matter one whit if a Dem wins the popular vote by 25 million in 2020, if the Electoral College is (again) delivered to 'Individual-1', as labeled by his very own Justice Department.
7/1 - 7:13 pm EDT
7/2 - 9:07 am EDT
3
Why shouldn't the Democrats run against Mitch McConnell as the Senator from the Socialist State of Kentucky?
2
In fact, the best argument against “Medicare for All” skeptics like me, who worry how voters will react to proposals to eliminate private insurance, is that Republicans will scream about a government takeover of health care — and Fox News viewers will believe them — whatever you do.
This might be the single most important message to Democrats this election cycle. Do not worry about how policy proposals will be attacked by the GOP because ALL proposals will be attacked by the GOP and their media echo chamber with equal intensity regardless of how moderate or extreme the proposal is. Accept that policies and those who will propose them will be lied about, misrepresented, and assaulted nonstop and there is nothing that can be done about it. Ignore them, do not try to appease the GOP, it cannot be done. Propose what will truly make the USA a better place for the most people and make sure the message is clear, loud, and unapologetic. The best message in the world means nothing if the delivery lacks conviction and no one hears it. Then let the electorate decide if they wish to live in a truly free society or if they wish to continue to labor under the yoke of the 0.01%. That is the best that can be done.
2
The fascinating thing is just how hard many Republican politicians are working to kill exactly those programs that Dr. Krugman mentions that help the politicians' constituents. Reporting by The Times and other sources shows that the recipients of federal support in places like Kentucky often hate the programs that help them, because that's how they're directing their hate of being poor and having few prospects. They still apply for benefits because they feel they have no choice, but hearing politicians denounce the programs seems to make them feel good briefly.
2
Paul Krugman hits it out of the park again. It's about time the propaganda line that the Dems are leaning too far left is refuted. Bosh!
My senior friends and I are all in favor of the progressive Dems who are presenting plans to save the climate, expand medicare, cut drug costs, deal with the opoid epidemic, knock down barriers to voting, take money out of politics, reduce student debt, create jobs by expanding renewable energy and implement a progressive tax policy to achieve a democracy that works for everyone, including newly arrived immigrants. The debates showed the Democratic party welcomes diversity, ideas and change. Our presidential candidates gave this old heart a charge to do what I can to elect Democrats for President, Senate, House, and State.
8
For progressives, the situation is pretty much hopeless. The US is like a South American oligarchy where 1% owns 50% of all arable land. Except that in the US the 1% owns 50% of all the financial assets. For the US to change in a progressive direction, it would require "land reform" for stocks and bonds... That is, a breakup of the big estancias and distribution of the wealth among the non-wealthy. To do that, it would require dismantling decades and decades of laws and legal precedents, a status quo that the lawyers and judges themselves helped create. Unless there's a massive crisis--that is, a massive drop in equity values and purchase of most equities by Uncle Sam for redistribution--the revolution won't happen. And nobody in the top 20% or 30% wants that.
3
This is further proof that the only solution for this country's myriad problems is to expel the south. They are the taker states that consistently and repeatedly prevent us from solving real problems like climate change, health care, education, guns, etc., etc., etc. Then, once they're gone and their low-tax, libertarian utopias fail (because they've been cut off from the financial enabling that the blue states provide), they'll have to rethink their outlooks and policies.
8
Not only that--remember those years, 1861-1865, when we had no southern votes in Congress. They passed the transcontinental railroad, land-grant colleges, the Homestead Act...it's likely that none of these would have survived the scrutiny of the South, since it wasn't particularly in the interest of slave states to open up new territory for free people!
Rational economic arguments alone won't carry the day. We already know that a large section of the electorate voted for trump against their own economic interests in 2016 and are likely to do so again in 2020. While most of those voters probably would not vote for a Democrat no matter what, there are still some others in the middle who might be swayed but who are put off by the mere mention of divisive -- not uniting -- stances that might appeal to a segment of the party but are not favored by a majority of likely general election voters.
The number one goal here is to defeat trump. Full stop. All other aspirations are lost if we do not do that, and we cannot do that alone. I think it was FDR who said that is a terrible thing to try to lead a nation and look back to find few if any are following you.
1
If Warren becomes President, she should appoint the best analysts, economist and researchers on healthcare reform to come up with a determination on Medicare for All. Appoint Bernie Sanders to head the group, give them 24 months, and then make a Yes or No determination based on the data. That's the Elizabeth Warren Way.
7
Actually, I thought the Elizabeth Warren Way was to avoid starting out with fundamental bias, and look at things as objectively as possible.
Rather than starting out with the bias that M4A was the only possibility, and appointing a guy with a pretty poor track record on honest numbers, the thing to do is to look at what’s fallen short in Obamacare—it’s not like the architects didn’t study the problem first, you know—and then ask what would work best.
@Robert I'd only want Bernie there so that objective data would prove him wrong; he'd quit in a huff and go back to Vt.
It has been my personal experience that those who benefit most from government programs are the same folks who complain the loudest about about the undeserving "moochers" (generally people of color). These all the complainers have benefited from veteran benefits, USDA programs and defense industry jobs (super well-paid given their educational level). Some directly benefit from the ACA and Social Security. What I don't understand is how to engage these folks. Reasoning does't help. Getting angry gets even a worse result. When confronted with how red states are subsidized by blue state you get that same goofy grin that Mitch McConnell gave when questioned about a possible Supreme Court appointment in the last year of a Trump term. Needless to say, I fear for our democracy.....
5
However, campaigning on "Medicare for All (incrementally in 10 years), by lowering the Medicare eligibility after this next Presidential election to age 60 from age 65 would bring in a lot of Fox News Party votes.
1
Thank you for pointing out the Mitch McConnell's state receives far more in Federal "Aid" than it pays out in Federal taxes - we should all be tired of subsidizing Mitch.
8
But will people listen? Feelings (gut or heart) trump (pun intended) rational thought and facts time after time after time.
The most successful democratic candidate will be the one who can translate those facts into feelings--"I feel your pain."
We need someone intelligent as president, but as a candidate we need someone empathetic.
2
I think you missed a spot here, Dr. Krugman—far as I can tell, states like Kentucky are also much bigger cheapskates than New York and the other commie enclaves when it comes to education funding, Medicaid, child care, help for the disabled and the elderly, and so on.
I’d be a lot more tolerant of shipping cash to states whose pols build their careers on screaming at us lib’ruls, if those states did a better job of helping people who need it, setting up good health systems, running good schools, and so on.
You’d think that that would be what the loot is for.
6
Medicare for all, socialist medicine, universal healthcare...call it what you like. It has not flown and will not fly in a country this size. There are too many people who do not see that it will help the disenfranchised. Viewed as yet another "We know what's best for you" proposal, Trump's base will let the democrats know that they're not interested. Realistic proposals are needed, nothing approaching what many view as "freebies" will be tolerated and the democrats have got to be mindful of this. Hillary Clinton lost in the states she needed to win because of this and so will Warren, Biden and anyone else who thinks they know what is best for a huge part of the population. These are people who do not need or want to be schooled by those that they view as elitists. Trump has (literally) rallied his followers into a frenzy reminding them of this!
1
@Jasper Lamar Crabbe
1. The vast majority of the American people support Medicare for All - including a majority of GOP voters.
2. No taxation without representation.
3. To cover even more people than Obamacare, at even lower costs, ALL studies have shown that it's the only realistic solution.
Now you can either start to inform yourself, or refuse to do so and then treat those who did as "elitist". That won't change the fact that it IS the only pragmatic solution.
3
These claims about Medicare for All are largely untrue, unfortunately. Please don’t misrepresent like this.
@Ana Luisa
Hi...You've misread my comment as I am not calling anyone elitist. I am pointing out that proposals such as this are not going to be accepted by many many Americans who DO view people like Warren & Biden as elitists, thanks in large part to the current POTUS continuing to pound that notion into his base! Pragmatism aside, you're missing my point...there are TOO MANY VOTERS who will not accept what THEY view as paying for others. My comment has nothing to do with me refusing to be informed and frankly I'm surprised the Times allowed you to insult me.
The cumulative effects on public opinion of 40+ years of Republican attacks on government and "tax-and-spend liberals" will be very hard to undo, but Democrats have to start the undoing. Mr. Krugman's column here is a good contribution to the deprogramming of comfortable Middle Americans who believe that they don't need and have not benefited from government taxes, spending, tax policy and law but have achieved everything by their own efforts. Elizabeth Warren is chipping away at that mythology of the "self-made man" and the "makers and takers" world view of Republicans. Even Donald Trump, the candidate, struck a blow when he proclaimed "the system is rigged" but went on as president to rig it even more and further enrich his own family in office. Democrats in this election cycle have a great opportunity to educate working- and middle-class Americans about "the system" we have all labored in, benefited from and suffered from and how it can and must be changed to benefit more of us. Please do.
7
Except Krugman's whole argument falls apart about Red states when you consider the Democrat Presdient (Obama) tried to give them even MORE Federal money than they send to DC in taxes through the expansion of Medicaid and they said no. So what about that Krugman? They actually said no to more Federal money that you would have gladly spent. So I guess if the red states are the moochers, the Democrats are trying to make them even bigger moochers.
4
sigh, the Republicans didn't want any of Obama's or Democrat programs to succeed. that's why they didn't expand Medicaid, not to save money
3
What about that? What about that is this: it’s not encouraging mooching to make sure people have basic health care, and it turns out to be way cheaper than letting them eat cake.
The key to turning around this country is educating the masses. This article is highly educational, but it is not being read by the masses.
This is the challenge for the Democrats. How do you reach people, who only believe what they are told, from sources that they trust (Trump, Fox News). How do you teach them that the sources you admire are duping you. That the policies you seem to admire are not in your best interests.
The Democrats need a short slogan that says it all. I am sure that somebody out there will come up with a good one, but my candidate is: "It's About You."
2
@MS The only way to do it is to show it. The blue states need to implement these programs and demonstrate their value.
I believe that a well managed single payer system can lower costs and improve outcomes. If that's true it should be demonstrated at a state level.
2
Krugman makes a good point: programs like daycare are not just handouts, they are investments that largely pay for themselves in terms of the increased taxes working parents will pay. The same is true for healthcare; over a lifetime free healthcare also largely pays for itself in terms of federal taxes paid. For both programs there are other economic benefits as well, like increased purchasing power, and non-economic benefits of these programs like health, security, and stability. So when a Republican asks how are we going to pay for them say, "They pay for themselves."
7
@Sherry I'm skeptical of the claim that these benefits pay for themselves once you throw in the inefficient costs of the government running anything. I've worked for govt and the inefficiency is appalling as is the the worker's commitment to the quality of their work
2
For example, in the event the “child care program” is successful, it should then, if common sense prevails, be compulsory?
I lean Republican because I believe in self sufficiency, a mantra not understood or acknowledged by the left. This election, however, I am likely to vote democratic because too much goes to too few. I am reserving my right to reconsider if I see too much of the left's irresponsible spending which I find appalling. I would like to see the military budget cut by 10% and the elimination of tax provisions which favor the rich, such as passive income and mortgage deductions. But I don't want a country that rewards the lazy and other leaches that will vote Democratic
1
@Bryan - Barely over 50% of eligible voters actually vote. Those at the bottom end of the economic spectrum are very often the very people who don't vote. So claiming that people vote Democratic for "free stuff" doesn't fly when you consider the voting history of those on the receiving end of programs that help the poor. Many of them don't vote at all or vote Republican every single time.
3
@Bryan This is a fair position.
However, it's important to understand the economics and incentives of our current systems. For example health care currently provides great incentives for providers to fix sick people (via reimbursement for expensive operations) then it does to prevention (general practitioners have the lowest average salary among physicians).
In addition health care costs disproportionally hurt smaller businesses that want to compete for good employees due to economies of scale.
Finally the uninsured, the poor and illegal immigrants place a burden on health care emergency rooms at the peak of their poor health.
These are the trends that need to be addressed to adequately address health care. I have yet to hear any cogent argument on how private health care can address this.
To equate a public solution with a "spending" solution is to misrepresent the benefits of single payer, which will reduce overall health care costs due to incentives for preventative care.
Don't believe me, instead, do the research. The world abounds with success stories of single payer medicine.
@AnejoDiego We must get private companies out of health care as they are using capitalism to crush us. Just look at the constant advertising now of doctors and hospitals. Health care should be a government run thing. I recall Obama saying that Medicare was the one thing that government actually did a pretty good job with. Generally, having worked for a few government entities, I have no faith whatsoever in the government's ability to do anything efficiently.
1
We must not forget that conservative ideology is based on the necessity of genocide and slavery as fundamental building blocks of the contemporary economy.
That they have crossed the bridge into ultimate amorality binds them to lying and cheating and stealing to ensure there persistent role in the economy.
There is no logic. It is survival at all costs. And the costs are the welfare and security of others.
Do not expect the argument that blue states are fundamentally supporting red states to resonate within red states. They have no pride in self sufficiency. Their pride is beating the system by having other people pay for their well-being.
3
@HT - Actually, if you talk to most Republican voters in red states, they're positive the red states are the ones supporting the blue states. They really, truly believe that because they hear it all the time from Fox and most Republican leaders.
2
You omit one big factor Paul, all those fly over states had their jobs eliminated thanks largely to the coastal boys, whether through Wall Street merger/acquisition mania, creation of big box stores, destroying family owned small businesses and farms, out sourcing jobs and globalization of manufacturing etc, while the Silicon Valley set works day and night trying to figure ways to destroy the rest of the working class jobs and AI hasn’t even begun in earnest. So while you’re busy doing your “deplorable” number again remember this is what brought us Trump. Oh and one more thing Paul, I noticed you omitted Bernie, preferring to offer up this elections status quo candidate Kamala Harris, lovely lady that she is, she’s still a faux progressive, Republican lite candidate if there ever was one. This is all a moot point though I’m afraid after the first debate focused primarily on who would throw the most money at the immigration crisis(and which candidate spoke the best Spanish), a crisis Democrats insisted didn’t exist when the “Wall” was on offer, this as every working class person with three jobs is barely squeaking by; even Silicon Valley folks making six figures are discouraged by the obscene cost of living wherever there are good jobs and the grinding inequality that tech has created in its wake. Really Paul, attacking those left behind accomplishes nothing but more divisiveness and hatred. Fess up, even the Davos boys are running scared from the mess they created.
5
Walmart (Big Box personified) is based in Arkansas. Don’t blame the “coasts” for that.
1
Talk is cheap. Show us in poll numbers, research and good journalism practice that “middle America” embraces these liberal positions on immigration, health care and education funding.
The liberals are talking at the coffee shop in DC or the lunchroom at Columbia.
Take that message to western PA or North Carolina and gives the facts on response. Not nuanced, not Hope or “reading between the lines” but fact on how they feel.
2
@Practical Thoughts - When I attended the first (and only) town hall held by our new Republican representative, several years ago right after Republicans in Congress were talking about privatizing and/or shrinking Medicare, I got there early and talked to everyone sitting around me, hoping to find another Democrat. Those on both sides of me and in front or and behind me all said they were Republicans.
When the representative took the podium, the entire crowd started shouting various versions of "Leave our Medicare alone!" When he responded that we couldn't afford it, the entire crowd shouted in chorus, "Tax the rich!"
1
Given there is no endless supply of money, where is the funding going to come from to pay for illegal alien health care? Or is it simply another Democratic vote ploy?
4
A biographer: The money to cover illegal immigrant healthcare will probably come from the same place the money to cover those with pre existing conditions did in the ACA, from reducing the fees paid to physicians serving Medicare recipients which is a huge part of the reason those on Medicare are struggling to find Doctors at all in many parts of the country.
1
@Angiographer - We already provide treatment for illegals in every ER in the country. It costs 10 times as much as it would cost if they were able to see a GP instead of using the ER, and those costs are passed on to all the rest of us.
13
@MegWright Im a 76 year old citizen who paid taxes all my working life( I got a S,S, card at seven to carry clothes up and down stairs to the tailor at my families clothing store), I now live in rural Oregon having left the disastrous mess of San Francisco then evolving mess of Portland. I have Medicare and a good supplement, I’ve been waiting four years to see a GP, they don’t want Medicare patients we must go to drop in clinics and sometimes wait hours, but by all means let’s concentrate our resources on providing excellent healthcare for those coming to the country illegally to seek a better life: I wish I could go to Germany or Norway seeking a better life or at least to get away from the fractured nation we now live in.
87
Republican “free stuff” is invisible (lower tax rates for various income types, etc.) Democratic “free stuff” is visible (food stamps, public housing, etc.) Democrats have to get better at explaining how much more the Republican “free stuff” costs.
3
First, could you expect less from McConnell? If trump wins again the I say the blue states should pull away from the Union. They say charity starts at home. Let the red states with bad education, poor civil rights and politics driven by religion actaully reap what they sow for a while. Then if they want to share in the fruits of equality for all they just have to accept it.
3
@M Vitelli If charity begins at home why did off shoring of primarily red state jobs begin in blue state enclaves such as California and New York? It seem to me those most “ sharing in the fruits” are China and Mexico.
1
Democrats would win a lot more elections if they all got on board with the same talking points like this and repeated over and over.... "Socialist Republicans use big government programs to redistribute wealth. Socialist Republicans use big government programs to redistribute wealth. Socialist Republicans use big government programs to redistribute wealth."
2
I'm ready to raise taxes on the red-welfare states. starting with Kentucky. They raised my taxes when they took control of the government in 2016, reducing my SALT deductions. They did it on purpose for petty vindictive reasons as part of their give away to corporate and wealthy contributors. Trump and McConnell list it as their greatest accomplishment.
I'll vote for any Democrat who promises raise taxes and reduce federal dollars to Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky and all of the welfare states run by sanctimonious hypocrites who all claim to hate big government while getting fat off of it.
4
A suggested amendment for your modest proposal. For 6 months the Federal Government should give back to states only what the states pay in Federal Taxes.
Then let us see how they feel about Gov't Subsidies.
4
It's really funny to see how those who were all gung-ho for Hillary and very anti Bernie are now all for the "socialist" candidate (as long as it's not Bernie). Perhaps they just want a woman no matter what. But really what it tells me is that they are still completely clueless about the electorate. Since 2016 the general public is tired of the divisiveness in politics. They are looking for a candidate that can unite this country. These leftist candidates like Warren and Harris will not be able to do that effectively. We will make it quite easy for Trump if we choose them over a moderate.
4
It’s fascinating to see isn’t it?
@Arbitect Harris is as much of a leftist as Hillary.
@Ted True (I should’ve put leftist in quotes) and I am beginning to wonder if the same is the case for Warren. Warren pretty much copied all Bernie’s positions and went even further left on some to stand out but really, what it feels like is just vote-getting sound bites without presenting realistic ideas that will have a long-term positive impact. Having very strong and extreme (for the US) policy positions does not translate to being a good leader necessarily.
I agree with the general principle of redistribution. With the exception of perhaps climate change, wealth inequality and economic insecurity are our two greatest problems right now. However, Krugman is slightly disingenuous when explaining his argument. Look at the balance of payment data he presents. According to the Rockefeller Institute, there are barely a handful of donor states in the nation regardless.
If you live outside New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts, chances are you are a net recipient of federal aid. On a per capita basis the list expands to include Conneticut and a few others but it's hardly exhaustive. Krugman fails to explain why a wealthy state like California, 20% of national GDP, is a net recipient of federal tax benefits.
I'm not saying the question is rhetorical. I'm just saying Krugman fails to provide an answer. I'd love to gang up on McConnell and Kentucky. However, we need to ask why New York and California are experiencing drastically different outcomes from federal government despite both existing in a generally productive and liberal environment.
2
Sounds like we could have a deal, Krugman. I’ll agree to not have rich states subsidize poor states if you agree to not have rich people subsidize poor people.
3
Actually, the way those tax cuts worked—pretty much a case of poor people subsidizing the wealthy.
But if you’re concerned, how ‘bout we chop, oh, subsidies for agribusiness, tax breaks for the wealthy, stuff like that? Or maybe just get Sam Walton to cough up for the Medicaid and food stamps a big chunk of his employees are on?
2
The Waltons have been raiding the Treasury for decades. They should be made to pay.
Blue states pay more than red states because the blue states are where the rich people live and Democrats represent the rich. Complaining about this is not going to make you any more popular with the have-nots in Middle America. I'm sure they would gladly trade political power for economic and cultural power that the blue states have mostly hoarded. We're the only country in the developed world that can't even get affordable healthcare to large numbers of its citizens. So you can't say that the Blue States are really giving the Red States any great deal, despite the huge resentment that rich people in blue states have for bailing out the struggling red states. The fact that a true progressive like Elizabeth Warren stands out among her center-right challengers shows where most contemporary Democrats really stand.
2
@Chris Gray Democrats--and the states where they reside-- represent the "rich" because they value education--and have made a significant investment of time and money in developing skills that allow them to earn much higher wages. They invest. They innovate. They live in urban centers where higher paying jobs are available. They've made a choice that every American has the freedom to make.
It's ironic, but much of the rank and file conservative base expects the federal government to come to the rescue with a bailout. Yes, a bailout--free, unearned money that pays for their houses, cars, food and childcare. The precise programs they rail about in public, they rely on in private. Krugman didn't invent this information. Any American who's invested in their own education -- and has taken a civics class -- has known this for a very long time.
And, we do "trade" opportunities -- in a redistribution of the wealth that benefits those who think they're cowboys, converts and conservative.
@MAA It seems to me these “ educated” people on the coasts created much of the problem to begin with: to wit: Ralph Lipschitz Lauren and Donald ( The Gap) Fisher began the off shoring trend that destroyed our own textile and clothing manufacturing in the South, soon to be followed by every other industry turning the Midwest into a rust belt. Well educated Wall Street geniuses like Blankfein and Fuld drove the worlds economy off a cliff. Bezos and his lesser ilk destroyed millions of small businesses. These Stanford and Harvard grads in Silicon Valley aren’t inventing cures for cancer they’re to busy “ disrupting” businesses that created jobs for millions of Americans for generations, the net result of the geniuses at work has been a handful of billionaires being created, some shareholders doing quite well, Wall Street doing great during booms and busts cheap goods from China to add to the global trash pile and a decimated American middle class.
1
So happy that Krugman has raised this. Why are we not hearing from our Democratic representatives on the unfairness between "giver" and "taker" states?
Bring federal spending to the states that are paying more in federal taxes then they are getting in federal spending. This is something that used to be a basic function of any representative. There are a lot of military bases and government agencies that could be moved from taker to giver states.
2
It's not only that states like Kentucky, South Carolina, etc. received way more from the federal government than they paid in taxes they are then able to keep their own taxes low to lure jobs, investment and people from other states. If this were a temporary "condition" that would be one thing. This has been going on for decades and little to no progress is being made in raising these sates from the bottom of social and economic indicators.
4
The European Union compared to the USA. When Greece was having massive financial problems the EU forced Greece into austerity. The USA subsidizes states that are doing poorly.
It was a mistake by the EU to have a common currency without a central government that taxed and then sent out payments. This is what keeps the USA together and the EU keeps trying to break apart.
But why the Red states keep blaming the Blue states for Blue state success I don't understand. According to the GOP California and New York should be poor and struggling. Instead it is Kentucky and Wisconsin that have problems with money in spite of receiving large payments from the federal government.
Perhaps Democrats are better at governing and Republicans are better at running for office.
If Trump is any indication I would say that is correct.
3
As usual Paul Krugman points out the FACTS. But how do we get Kentuckians and others in the middle to accept and understand these facts instead of the malicious lies spread by the GOP, Fox and Friends, and others?
3
What Democrats need, is a one hour special, or some other method, targeted to Trump voters, to explain this is a way that makes sense and is believable (the facts don't lie.) Until all this becomes common sense to them, Sean Hannity and the rest of Fox will continue to paint a completely different picture and the election might again go to Trump.
3
What a wonderful thought. If only Kentucky really were a foreign country. Thank you Paul Krugman, for the optimism and the laugh.
2
Let's take back the giant giveaway from the tax cut, the subsidies to the farmers and the subsidies to the oil and gas industry. That's a good place to start.
9
Most people resist change. No doubt a vast majority who have private health insurance would not want to give it up because it is change, and even if Medicare for All would be probably better, they will still need to make changes. This is a ballot box issue that ought not be ignored.
Allowing the public option provides a phase-in. Much as the ACA acquired adherents, Medicare for All would also.
The idea that wealthy states are subsidizing poorer states is neither new nor ipso facto wrong. Taxes should go from the rich to the poor at least in part.
The problem is who in Kentucky benefits from this $40 billion. My guess is wealthy corporate interests with a seat at McConnell’s table are principal direct beneficiaries through government contracts. Ordinary Kentucky residents are secondary beneficiaries at best. And of course McConnell benefits because those wealthy interests happily contribute to his campaign to assure he remains in office and they continue to profit.
9
I was once chastised for suggesting that debtor states should not have a full say in what takes place in this country, until they collect enough tax from their citizens or businesses so there is some equality in contribution. I live in the State of California and may I remind you, and I will, that we are the fifth largest economy in the world. We should not have to provide aide to other states just because they do not want to subject their citizens to the tax necessary to run their state governments. I do not mind if we contribute in emergencies, but I do not like the idea that places like Kentucky and Mississippi suckle off the hard work of Californians and then put on MAGA hats and criticize the coastal elites.
14
Let's not forget alaska in this - lots of well paying oil jobs, no state income tax, and I believe one of the highest rates per capita of federal help. They cut millions from law enforcement in native villages and AG Barr gave them $10 million from the blue states to restore it. Libertarians - but they are happy to take handouts, just don't tax them.
1
$40 billion a year for Kentucky. Is that the McConnell tax?
Welfare by any other name is still welfare. Corporations and their investors got a large dose of welfare in 2008 with the Fed as their donor. Now we have 2 trillion dollars more debt for the country because of the last tax cut. And where did that money go? Right back into the pockets of those who caused the crash. There is only one solution to the current problem of welfare for the wealthy. That is to go back in history to the 1980s when the Reagan tax cuts took effect and unions were eviscerated. Let's reestablish progressive tax rates for all, where the money will be distributed to all that participate in the economy. Without unions, greedy corporations will continue to take an unfair share of profits that are generated by the workers.
We must repeal Citizens United where the large tax cuts for the rich are just re-invested in buying the electoral system. Anti-trust laws must be used to stop corporations from not only becoming too big to fail, but also to keep our democracy alive. A democracy cannot exist for the financial benefit of the top few percent of wealthy people. By definition, that is an oligarchy and not sustainable.
8
I have an acquaintance in her late 50's who was raised by her grandmother in near poverty, reliant on "social programs" such as they were in the 60's for farm families. She worked her way through college, got a degree in business, married, and had three children. Two of the three are married and doing well. The third has fallen on hard times, is a single mother, with health and other problems her mother doesn't share much about. But the point of all this is that the mother (my friend) is a hard line MAGA supporter. If you ask, and even if you don't, she'll regale you on how social programs are a drain, the recipients are wasteful and not worthy, etc. In another conversation about the needy daughter, she rails against the "establishment" which will not give her and her children what they need, saying she deserves every dollar of federal and state aid. The hypocrisy of her views is lost on a woman who is here because her grandmother had access to aid to support her, and now her own daughter is in need. But the government shouldn't be giving away "her" money. And I know she's not the only one.
8
I think you're conflating a few things. On the issue of entitlements, for which I'll focus on health coverage, there's the widespread Democratic efforts to close the gaps left by the ACA and realize actual universal coverage and there's a narrower effort to institute single payer. The claims you made about the politics show the former to be very popular, but do not challenge the political liability of the latter.
A further matter is the claim that single payer-advocates make that all other advanced countries have single payer. Could you please emphasize that that claim is dishonest, that several European countries such as Netherlands, Germany, and Switzerland rely in part on private insurance in order to achieve universal coverage?
2
Those three countries do not have single-payer systems, period. They have systems that in different ways, are a lot like Obamacare.
2
A Democratic candidate such as Elizabeth Warren will make mincemeat out of trump on the debate stage by simply stating the situation as Krugman has outlined. Biden can't do that because he hasn't got the chops and he doesn't believe it.
2
@Jeff P
FYI: Biden has actually been the ONLY vice-president in half a century to have managed to get healthcare reform through Congress and signed into law that insures 20 million more Americans and saves an additional half a million Americans lives a decade.
Some of the other candidates on stage have helped to get it passed, but none of them has led the entire endeavor, only Biden did, together with Obama, Pelosi and Reid.
So to claim that he wouldn't believe that we need universal healthcare, or couldn't explain that in front of tv cameras to a lying, corrupt Trump, is utterly absurd.
THIS is the kind of cynicism that constantly slows down progress in this country, you see?
Since money is speech and corporations are people, maybe congressional representation and electoral college votes should be directly proportional to a state’s share of the US GDP or the share of federal taxes it pays. No representation without taxation?
3
I don’t think Dr Krugman really read the Rockefeller report.
On page 7, it explains that grants and funding include Medicaid, SNAP, TANF, and social security and Medicare. Defense spending includes military bases and defense contractors. Federal wages are also a factor.
So New York’s problem is too few poor people, old people, military bases and federal workers.
On page 13 is the list of the balance of payments for each state. So is Kentucky the top recipient? No. Virginia is number 1 followed by Florida at number 2. Kentucky is number 3. How can that be? Where is your state?
4
In the first place, money’s money. Spending is spending, in terms of the local economy.
In the second, is your point that Virginia and Florida have no military bases?
Third. That Report says clearly that the primary reason for New York’s BOP problem is that state taxpayers pay more in Federal taxes.
And fourth: any way you slice it, that Report says Blue and Bluish states put more in than they take out. And Red states are generally the opposite. Ain’t you the guys who yell about how NATO countries don’t ante up their fair share?
1
Please read David Brooks's column also published today. Dem left shoud not assume that just because Trump is likely to lose that it can overdo its policy programs. It has to win the Senate and the House as well. Fight gire not with fire but rather hot or perhaps warm water and do not try to do everything in three months. We want to get us all together again or at least mnosdt of us.
Getting rid of private insurance for a Government only option is radical. Just like privatizing our military by the Republican party has been a radical idea not to mention a violation of the 2nd amendment.
The Republican Party has moved radically right since Reagan was elected. Democrats moving radically left isn't the solution.
The ACA with a public option would have worked if it was rolled out in any competent manner.
The first order of business should be dismantling the post Citizen United decision that has lead to mass privatization of our public institutions and public policy that is in the pocket of private business.
We need an Attorney General and Justice department that work for the people not the President.
Restoration of trust is the first order of business. Once that's done we can restore the social safety net including national health insurance. We can restore our public army, our public school system and our publicly owned land to its rightful owners, the people.
The Democrats are a broad coalition. There are radicals in the party and there are centrists in the party. The radicals need the centrists to win. Progressives aren't radical, getting rid of private insurance as part of universal health care is.
2
The Democratic party would be the center-right party of many comparable democracies.
The idea that the Ds - even now - are particularly left as compared to UK, Canada, NZ, Aus - is not right.
@T
UK public health system has been failing for years. They are putting the private option in place.
France has the best Universal Health care in the world. They have private health insurance as part of the system. It is required for citizens of France to have health insurance.
1
My home county is one of the largest recipients of federal agricultural subsidies in the state of Texas, tens of millions of dollars over the years to a county with less than 50,000 people. Texas is one of the few red states (possibly the only one) that is a net contributor to the federal treasury. But some of its reddest areas would collapse without federal dollars.
6
~ 1.8 million people live below the poverty level in NYC alone (this is equal to the entire population of Idaho). It is increasingly difficult for anybody to afford housing there or make a living wage there and then there's crowding, bad schools and crime in many big cities. California is 12% of the U.S. population. It has 35% of the countrys welfare recipients. If big city coastal population centers are the ideal future of the nation, we are in big trouble.
4
Almost sounds like you’re arguing that NYC and CA should keep more of their tax money to deal with the problems you are pointing to.
I don’t think that’s what you are arguing.
What will Idaho do without $ from NYC and CA?
@T. Probably have to raise the price of all the products you pay lower subsidized prices for (ex beef, wheat etc). Maybe raise taxes on all the rich coastal types that own 2nd homes here. None of us live in a vacuum.
My husband figured out the disparity in tax payments vs. receipt of same in red vs. blue states about ten years ago. When Pelosi was Majority leader in the House the first time that discrepancy began to narrow. My guess is that it’s grown wider. And Jon Stewart sent a crew to the Republican Convention in 2012 to ask people from Alabama, Alaska etc how they felt about being in debt to California and New York etc. not a clue what they were talking about. Nice that Krugman has joined my husband and Jon Stewart in pointing this out!
6
"Politicians and pundits alike tend to have a lot more contact with the wealthy than with ordinary voters."
This is not to be underestimated. It is not just that politicians and pundits come to believe "the priorities of the 1 percent actually resonate with the general public," as Prof. Krugman correctly notes. It also affects their gut instinct of which policies are at all feasible, even setting aside political difficulties passing them into law, without somehow fundamentally breaking the order of things that sustain American democracy and prosperity. All significant structural changes are pronounced "too radical" because they are fundamentally unthinkable in the wealthy, corporate-dominated milieu to which politicians and pundits belong. Elizabeth Warren's well thought through proposals appear indistinguishably impossible alongside Bernie Sanders' vaguer, more inspirational gestures at policy. All are similarly unthinkable, such that there's no call to examine their possibility in any detail nor to consider any modifications that might make them more politically amenable or economically and socially effective. The fact that The Alaska Permanent Fund has, since 1982, already been making direct payments to every Alaskan, now over $2000 a year, never comes up in the context of Andrew Yang's proposal to address the long-term inequities of tech and wealth-dominated globalism with direct monthly stipends. What's simply unthinkable is the best ideological protection of what is.
5
Donald Trump as President was unthinkable, too. And now, people are yammering about how he has rewritten politics.
Although it makes me feel mildly queasy to say it, in some ways Trump and Warren et al are saying similar things: “Washington has failed working people.” (Only one of them has a plan to do it, but I digress...)
This is correct to say about DC, and it is correct because of the intellectual myopia that Dr Krugman is pointing to.
Conservative thought is stuck in a 50 year old thought process. Any different, new, progressive idea is radical. We have a Republican party incapable of governing as that requires thought, ideas, analysis and change, not stagnation. Stagnation leads to destruction. The only thing Americans are progressive about are their material possessions, toys, money. American selfish greed. What's in it for me. How much money can be made on the sale of a product? What new item can I own. Capitalism at all costs doesn't work & as your example the wealthier states and taxpayers pay for the poorer, but not the wealthiest in the country, which continues to add to the income inequality. A country so large with such a large population needs to think about Social Democracy (change the wording) & Social Capitalism. Environmental pollution, climate change, limited natural resources, etc demand progressive thinking & new ideas. The idea that just because one can invent manufacture a product, it sells and corporate wealth ensues, "should no longer be acceptable" to society. If that product or business puts at risk the health or welfare of society or the environment, then oversight & restrictions should exist prior to the product's availability. 21st century knowledge & research capabilities require this. As with the Internet, Artificial Intelligence this did not & is not happening. No social responsibility. A civil government is socially responsible. The goal is balance.
2
I get what Krugman is saying. It’s rational, sensible, and fact-based. But US voters are none of these, in this post fact-based era.
6
It’s all about perception. What
People think is more important than reality, and as we know, almost half of Americans can be made to believe anything.
2
I have often thought that there is more economically in common between most people in red states and those in AOC’s district than people think. I can’t imagine why people in Kentucky ( for example) would think otherwise. I wonder.
I take issue with Dr. Krugman's response to the issue of electability. The problem is that it's not knowable at this point whether Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren are "probably" electable. What is knowable is that enormous majorities of Democrats and Democratic-leaning Independents believe that the most important issue now is beating Trump. It's also knowable that until Harris decided to weaken Biden--which she did with calculated intent--many of those same voters thought Biden had the best chance of beating Trump. It is also true that Biden's enemies have weaknesses we can depend on the Republicans to exploit, in an absurd electoral college set-up that can easily favor the re-election of Trump and a majority of Republicans in the U.S. Senate. Given all these things, I question Mr. Krugman's statement, notwithstanding his great brilliance and expertise. Little matters more than beating Trump. Millions of ordinary Americans grasp this profound need. It is amazing that some elitists in the Democratic Party don't seem to comprehend the simplest things.
3
C'mon Kentucky, say something!
4
Krugman is genius. No wonder he won a Nobel.
7
I don't know if this counts as too far left or far too stupid, but what I think is going to sink the Dems, and is certainly making me squeamish, is the political correctness, identity politics and lack of respect for free speech that has infested the party. It is every bit as dangerous as the more traditional and recognizable authoritarian narrative coming from the right, and maybe even more so given that it's wrapped up in language that would make Orwell proud, such as "social justice," "cultural competency," and "inclusion."
I would never, ever vote for Trump, and it's very difficult, although not strictly impossible, to imagine myself voting for any Republican, but the Dems' pandering to this nonsense, which ranges from the more militant aspects of MeToo to the taking down of "offensive" murals to the banning of unpopular speakers on college campuses to the incessant bashing of white men, may very well leave me in a real quandry come election day, if the Dems end up nominating someone who embraces this idiocy.
I have too much respect for true freedom to support anyone who wants to erode it, regardless of whether that threat comes from the left or the right.
6
The Republicans are much more astute at playing the messaging game. They have successfully drowned out the Democratic message. They have also given voters a common evil black or brown danger. Along with the Fox megaphone, use of social media and an uneducated easily distracted public this has become very clear.
Couple this with the Republican understanding back in the 1960s that they must control Local, State and Federal elections as well as the reward of gerrymandering and the destruction of voter rights, they control the entire game.
It is unclear what the Democrats role in Government at this stage of a very successful coup.
4
The best argument for the political viability of Medicare for All is "Republicans will scream about it no matter what"? That's really weak. Dr. Krugman should try a little harder or just concede the political foolishness of this particular proposal.
@ATS
Did you read this op-ed before commenting?
The best argument for the "political viability of Medicare for All" is that the vast majority of the American people support it - including a majority of GOP voters.
No taxation without representation, remember?
And the reason why the fact that the GOP is demonizing it should discourage Democratic candidates to continue to represent the American people, is irrelevant, is because they'll demonize ANY Democrat, as they have done for years, thanks to the creation of their "alternative fact" bubbles.
So with that ... any comments on substance? Or is "weak" the only idea in your mind ... ?
2
Paul,
The rich states giving to the poor states is an old thing. One of my vivid memories of my dad, a man who didn't suffer fools gladly, (but was by no means a liberal) would argue with folks who came into his business and railed against the Kennedy/Johnson administration taking tax money from our state, South Carolina, and giving it the "welfare cheats" in New York. Dad showed them the statistics that showed we were a net "receiver" and that NY was a net "giver" of tax revenue. It made no difference.
His son carries on his tradition of arguing with brick walls.
10
As Dean Baker repeatedly points out, the Democrats would be much better served focusing on the fact that they are not there to redistribute wealth downward, they are there to stop the unfair and corrupt redistribution of wealth upward that is already going on for decades.
7
No Taxation without Representation!
I just wonder what would happen if New York & New Jersey residents (and residents of other such states) just stopped paying their federal taxes en masse.
1
How to play hardball:
Make a bill, call it the "Anti-Moocher Act" or something equally inane, that will cap federal expenditure in each state to 1.1 or so federal intake except in emergency situations (Yes I know that will be abused but just think of the headlines about 'emergency' redistribution). Don't actually bring it to a vote in the House, but keep talking about it. Force the Republicans to put up or shut up on redistributive policies. If they are dumb enough to support it, pass it with bipartisan support. Then repeal it when the pain starts to be felt. It'll be like prohibition, a bad idea that changes the national discourse by virtue of its awfulness.
3
One can only admire the many ways you have at your command to persuade people not to fall for a pack of Republican lies. It appears that there must be a rich vein of stupid in the US that Republicans can mine endlessly with little effort. Nothing they say or do needs to have any substance or make sense. Yet Americans are not stupid. The majority voted for Hillary by over 3 million votes, yet she lost and the Republican won. There is something very wrong with the electoral system. Much more needs to be said about this by anyone who has a chance to be heard. The debate isn't only about who has the constructive plans and whose plans are selfish, deceptive, and empty. As a number wizard please tell us how many millions more votes Democrats will need to truly win any election that they win vs. win the votes and lose anyway.
1
Excellent. I do believe that states like Kentucky should be cut off and their economies allowed to collapse. Maybe then their citizens would sit down and have a hard re-think about that whole 'frontier-self-sufficient-squinting-into-the-setting-sun' nonsense mythology they pump themselves up with. The rest of the country, the part already in the 21st Century, cannot afford to subsidize their precious "way of life" just because they think it's picturesque.
2
We all know it. The takers and the makers. Some of the maker states believe in subsidizing the poor.
Everyday that passes reveals more and more what a mistake it was for Lincoln to keep the union together. I can only imagine how much progress this country could have made if we didn’t have the millstone of the Confederacy and its racism and ignorance dragging us done.
1
The Tax "Reform" enacted by Republicans Only majorities and signed into law by Republican Donald J Trump has further shifted the income of high tax Blue States to the low tax Red States.
A recent Rockefeller Institute study found that Connecticut, NY, NJ, Ma,Wash,and Ill were the states with the biggest outgo and smallest return on their Federal taxes.
https://www.governing.com/week-in-finance/gov-taxpayers-10-states-give-more-feds-than-get-back.html
Older studies using different criteria showed a different mix of contributing states, but consistently the Red States are the largest recipients of federal income taxes raised elsewhere.
https://www.businessinsider.com/the-states-the-most-and-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government-2015-7.
Meanwhile, the states of the NE corridor can't get the funds to build and re-build vital infrastructure: Hudson River tunnels, high speed rail, electrical grid, etc.
The limitation of Federal tax deductibility for state and local taxes means that the residents of these states who pay withholding taxes are actually paying taxes on "phantom" income and their higher local taxes (residential property and city taxes) takes another bite.
None of the highest donor states have "oil" wealth gushing from underground. What they share is higher taxes to support human development through education and more education for their own children's and other people's children. The most important natural resource are educated and productive human beings.
3
Did he say 40 billion or trillion for Kentucky? Because these days, any new progressive policy proposals are in the trillions. So taking a 40bil net subsidies to a state as licence to spend 50 times more (2 trillion) for even modest progressive proposals is fiscally irresponsible. Of course, Krugman knows better, it just doesnt sell clicks.
2
The New Democrat economics is as stable as supply side was. More women will enter the workforce if there is childcare provided for free? You can’t prove that. Prove what you claim. Show your work. Otherwise you are selling snake oil.
1
Paul,
Isn't your suggestion that rich states keep their federal tax money instead of redistributing to poorer states according to need simply a page out of the rich conservative's anti-tax stance? It's simply that old rich man's wail about "keeping what I made". So much for your so-called progressive credentials.
2
@Concerned Reader
No it isn't.
This op-ed is about showing why claiming that Medicare for All is "radical" and "progressive", as the GOP does, is utterly false, as most Americans, including a majority of GOP voters, support it.
Paul I agree with you that "Democrats are mainly arguing for greater social justice, they can also make a much better case than conservatives ever could that their proposals would help the economy and at least partly pay for themselves". If you really believe what you write, then it is time to aggressively support, your fellow professor in Pukahanus, the ONLY presidential candidate that can enunciate what you write better than ANY one running.. Perhaps even YOU!
Your argument regarding the electoral impact of a shift to the left on Democratic chances ignores empirical data, summarized in two words: “George McGovern.” The public is easily frightened by Republican propaganda about “crazy liberals.” Fear elicits a much stronger than hope for a good many voters.
1
If an individual (especially a Republican individual) is upset by the notion of wealth redistribution, then how does that individual reconcile the redistribution brought about by recent tax cuts? Republicans have hidden behind the notion of trickle down economics since the days of Reagan and his voodoo economic policies, meanwhile the sucking sound of the 1% vacuuming up the nations wealth is becoming unbearable.
1
It would seem the issue the 2020 election hinges on is Busing. At least if you believe the CNN poll. What else distinguished the beneficiary of the huge "surge"? Her stand on eliminating, or not, private health Insurers?
It is clear that their are committed minorities (no cap) trying to stampede the herd into a quick pick. That the Dem challenger MUST BE a woman or/& a Minority. Well, not necessarily, BUT not necessarily not either.
We need more time. And the Dem party needs to winnow the #s on stage. NOW. But not to 5. Between 7 and 9 with an extra hour should suffice.
Dems also have to look closely at running a candidate with an answer to everything already pre-packaged. Can they ever get through Congress (for that matter, will Dem Congress candidates have to repudiate parts of the program before the election, creating an embarrassing weakness for that candidate?)?
And, most important, how best to deal with the Socialist smear?
I'd say, to borrow a line from Streisand's McGovern album-
Meet it Head On. (& how did McGovern ever lose? You can't find anyone now who admits to voting for Tricky Dixie...)
Don't get lost in the weeds, or plans' footnotes, in short.
How about this simple billboard message throughout Kentucky?
"Hey Mitch!
Why does Kentucky receive 40 Billion MORE in Federal Aid than it pays in Federal Taxes?
Isn't that Socialism?"
4
How do you get the facts across to the voters? And that's the rub. From a monetary standpoint, voters in Kentucky, and other red states, won't vote against their own pork since they want the aid. In their minds *they* support the entire country, and they're not getting their fair share.
And they've been given the easy answers for years.
Their money is being stolen.
The welfare queens. Those black or Hispanic families in Chicago. Lately the immigrants (only Mexicans).
The blue states steal money, by spending funds on healthcare and pollution controls. What happened to the red state's "right" to send coal and paper mill pollution downstream to the coast.
The red states will only be "great again" when the theft has been ended, and those responsible are in jail
(mostly Hillary, Obama, and most recently Ocasio).
This attitude is ingrained through years of propaganda. It needs generations to fix, and won't easy.
Dr. Krugman's facts are considered lies.
We're in for a rough decade or two.
2
The farther America moves into this "New" economic scenario the more I think that the Civil War could have (and SHOULD have) been avoided by letting the South secede.
Slavery would have passed due to the economics. Jim Crow would never have existed. And honestly, the remaining United States would probably be a stronger nation although traveling to Disney World might be a little more of a hassle.
Let's just split the country in two, BLUE coastal states and those along the Great Lakes joining Canada, and RED central states joining Mexico, and call it a day.
That way, we folks in the rich BLUE states can stop subsidizing the moochers in the poor RED states.
Works for me.
2
Remember those red states might have more Democratic voters, but gerrymandering still has the state “red.”
Please don’t throw us all out!
Well written!
Why don't the Democratic candidates go to Kentucky and inform the voters of that state the facts that you mentioned?
As to " Medicare for All".....not going to happen.
People are not going to vote to put themselves out of work.
There should be incremental steps...crawl walk first.
The Democrats should be bold, pick a new generation for leadership vs yawn...same old same old.
When Republicans read artilces like this that points out the contradictions in their supposed beliefs and the reality of their base all they do is put their fingers in their ears and yell "Whee-oh whee-oh whee-oh whee-oh!"
This message can't be said loudly enough. It should be on billboards all across "middle America." I would be delighted to cut off Kentucky...and Alabama, and Mississippi and all the other radical right-wing backwaters that my "coastal elite" blue-state tax dollars are supporting. They survive thanks to handouts from people like me, and as a thank you, they "own the libs!" by spitefully sending the absolute worst people in the world to Washington to pass laws and install judges who will make my life, my country and frankly, the entire planet worse. On top of it, I have to listen to their endless, ignorant whining- whining-whining about how put-upon they are and how they have to "take their country back" from people like me. Fine! I'd be delighted to let them have their own country all to themselves, and let them go it alone without any support from New York, California or any of the other actual income-generating parts of the country. See how long they can last with little more than Fox News and a bunch of tent-revival superstitions to keep them afloat.
2
I have voted Republican. The new tax levels are an abomination. Corporations didn't need 25%. Carried interest should have been addressed. Adding trillions to the deficit is anything but conservative and looks a lot more like Venezuela. Here's the but. I don't support all the democrat giveaways. Like forgiving college debt when many others paid theirs, or went in the armed forces first, or ROTC, or commuted to community colleges. I don't support the false narrative Republicans are racist or that we have some obligation to the million people who've come to our southern border in the past year. Or that added scrutiny to immigrants from the Middle East is wrong or white racism. aOr single payer. This opinion piece is largely correct but only scratches the convenient surface.
1
Garbage. Ask people if they want raises or tax raises. No one wants tax raises. it's what you accept when feckless democrats fail at the negotiating table.
2
I wish I was given this choice. I haven’t seen a raise, but I surely feel trickled on.
1
It's worse than that. I just received a phone call from a contract administrator for the VA, from a call center in - Mississippi; And there was the arm wrestling about ACA coverage with another contractor in Tennessee.
Why should ANY state that refuses to extend the ACA receive ANY federal medical contract administration dollars?
2
We should cut off the red states. Much like cutting off the vascular supply to a cancerous tumor.
4
I appreciate your brilliant and concise analysis.
More of the Democratic candidates should adopt an "it's the economics, stupid" message. Several do already, but it is difficult to translate effectively in 60 seconds. Your condense reasoning is very helpful.
Hooray for Paul Krugman- keep up the clear thinking and fine columns!
1
I have healthcare through my employer.
Golden handcuffs.
I would like to see a list showing the Federal monies received by each state, verses the monies sent to the Federal Government. Are the Blue States really subsidizing the Red States?
Thanks
PROBLEM: Voters in the "moocher states" are unable to understand "how it works" and therefore vote on "likes'ya".
When you call people moochers it I see an insulting term can I use it for people of color in the inner cities on welfare who live in public housing, what about illegal immigrants, or highly paid civil servants whose unions keep making demands on tax payers or politicians who have never held a real job in their lives. The term would fit all of those groups too.
2
@EAH
Paul’s point is that the term has been used ad nauseum for all the groups you mentioned. The irony is that the people using the term are part of the group they deride.
@EAH
Yes--you can use moocher to describe all the groups in your post.
1
Nice job, Paul. Thanks.
Not only do facts have a liberal bias, all the rational considerations Krugman points to are superseded by the primary consideration of republicans, i.e. racism! That is why Nixon's "southern-strategy", was so accurate, and how we got to the current pig, sorry to all pigs, in the White House!
"Radical conservative": Now there's an oxymoron for you. The party that says it represents conservatives is consistently acting radical.
Meanwhile, the Democrats need to support an immigration plan that slows down and controls the influx of immigrants without imprisoning children. They need a plan to create decent jobs for those people wearing the red MAGA hats, and they need to sell it in the red states.
How about a blue hat that says Make America Great Again - vote Democratic.
For some time now I have shocked my more liberal friends by advocating for the South to secede. This is why. Spending time down there makes you see the drive to be independent never left. I see rebel flags everywhere. I say let them. Free them to be the 3rd world nation they so desperately aspire to be.
3
Everyone should read the Forbes article about Paul Krugman and why his ideas have been discredited. He's found a home with the NYT's as a Champion of Leftist Policies however.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/johngoodman/2015/01/15/voodoo-economics-the-weird-world-of-paul-krugman/
2
Unfortunately Mr. Krugman those Kentuckians who are predisposed to vote for Trump do not read your column.
1
Maybe a statistic in this story could be a place to start in exposing Mitch McConnell for the hypocrite he is. Root him out!!
If higher taxes are such a good thing then why are all the Northerners moving south from the Northeast to escape them.
I rest my case.
4
If blacks are told to get over slavery, then why won’t Southern Whites get over the Civil War and take down all those grotesque monuments glorifying the racists who fought in it.
Paul... you conveniently forget about the billions in mortgage crisis bailouts that went to all your east coast pals in NY, CT. The state differentials you talk about now are chicken feed compared to that.
4
@bx
nice try...federal government *made* money on TARP. Can't say that about our consistent handouts to moochers.
Some people can hear our wailing but the average over-the-cliff lefty is to busy marching in either gay pride parades or at the boarder. Don’t these people have jobs? But I digress , so let me get this straight , my tax dollars go to Ms so and so , so a stranger can raise her child to be a healthy more productive better human being. Is that what your pitching? Because your big three argument is weak. First if the electoral college stays the same they’re going to lose ,even with millions more in votes. Second they are and always have been fiscally irresponsible. One word example for you...reparations. And re-distributing the wealth I don’t know what you’re talking about but I can tell you this I like my private insurance. This is your pitch to vote for one of these too far left dems? I’m not burying it and you shouldn’t be selling it! Just admit the Democrats have moved too far to the left and now if they don’t reverse course the beltway will repeat 2016.
1
Paul, you're right, of course, as usual. Now, can you please shrink it down to make it fit on a hat?
Voters (outside of the 1%) who think the GOP has their back can be labelled as conspicuously stupid.
50% of all US military bases are in four red states and California.
The largest per population and acreage are!
Fort Bragg NC 260,000 ppl 160,640 acres
Fort Campbell KY 234,900 ppl 102,414 acres
Fort Hood TX 217,000ppl 214,000 acres
Fort Benning GA/AL 107, 627ppl 182,000 acres
These expansive military camps support populations of thousands of soldiers, retirees, personnel, and their civilian families.
This does NOT include the surrounding cities that make their money in real estate both rental and owned homes (Many military members/families live off base.) restaurants, hotels, car dealerships both new and used, computer and tech stores, bars, concert halls, hotels, AirBnb, malls, clothing stores, tattoo parlors, pawn shops, and more!
If these installations shut down or moved to blue states these cities and states would see the worst depression you can imagine. The Dust Bowl as ppl move to find work and shelter.
The members of congress protect the pork that goes to these states with an iron fist ALWAYS using our country’s INSANE love of the military. PATRIOTISM!
A much higher number of our voluntary members are from these areas...they only see the military as their future jobs.
I was a US Army doc in the Vietnam “police action” and my late spouse a West Point grad, retired after 30 yrs full colonel.
Our military is a large welfare system. Provides jobs, health care etc. What a massive boondoggle!
5
The Republicans in these Blue States are quite content be politically over-represented in Washington and thus be the new "Welfare Queens" of the American economy. But I have to hand it to them - their shamelessness does not stop there. In many of these blue states the GOP controlled state legislatures refuse to adequately fund their state universities and medical schools! The solution is to reserve admissions places for out of state students who can afford the higher tuitions! That is a new moral even for the Republican Party.
3
Re: balance of payments, where richer states subsidize poorer states -
The Democrats need to make more of an issue about this. All this Republican talk about how blue states are ripping the country off with safety net investments is just a massive disinformation fog that the conservative base laps up without any knowledge of the truth. The facts are clear, as in your Kentucky example. The poor red states, in particular the deep south, are the takers who depend on federal funding, which is large part comes from the northern and coastal blue states.
I'm actually not against this, because the poor need help, and that help will go toward making the country better economically and morally. But I am very much against the hypocrisy from the right, and especially the way they feed nonsense to their truth-challenged base. The Democrats need to expose this to the voters and let them see how they are being hoodwinked and taken advantage of by the Republicans.
3
What we need is a Democratic candidate who can make this case in a nonjudgmental way so the good folks of Kentucky and other red states understand how they are benefitting from the largesse of the federal government and the taxes paid by folks in states like NY and CA. And that programs like Medicare, Medicaid and social security are fundamentally socialist programs. Of course, that message would have to be heard over the screaming of Fox News personalities and daily Trump lies. Which is a clearly a huge challenge.
2
I think you spot on with your assessment of taxes and spending. I agree with you on "Medicare for all" as well. However, I think on cultural issues, the Democrats are positioning themselves Left of the electorate.
Take abortion (the most divisive issue), most Americans (about 70%) want to keep Roe v Wade in place. Most Americans (about 63 %) want some limits on abortion, mainly 2nd and 3rd trimester. I'm not making this stuff up, go out and look at polling results from Pew, Gallup, etc.. But I haven't heard any Democratic candidate acknowledge present any nuanced views on this topic. And let's be clear, the best result for the country would be a Blue wave.
The presidency is the ultimate prize, but the Democrats need to challenge and win as many congressional seats, state house seats as possible if we are going to undo the damage done to this country over the last 40 years. This means winning elections in purple states, red leaning states as well. This means not doing things that are going to turn off undecided voters. And let's not forget, the top of the ticket impacts lower seats as well.
The Democrats need some more nuance in their message if they want to win big enough to effect a change in direction for the country.
Slightly OT, I sure wish some of these presidential hopefuls would more focus on Senate seats rather than a longshot presidential run (I'm talking to Steve Bullock, John Hickenlooper).
FWIW, I'm for Warren.
As a Californian whose taxes should act to insure that those states with lower resources are lifted by my higher taxes, I am pleased to contribute to their needs. I am displeased, however, that their governments reject the use of my donations to pay for the needs of their residents’ health care and other survival needs. It distresses me, furthermore, that far from permitting the residents of those states to “mooch” at my expense, my funding is supporting the largest military machine on the earth.
4
Sadly, the next Democratic president should/will have to propose these budget solutions;
1) Free all Southern states from the ACA/ Mandates/Medicaid expansion/abortion rights and let all their rural hospitals operate on a market basis.
2) Demand a dollar for dollar cap on all state received income/benefits from the Fed with perhaps a very small (5 to 10%) variance for emergencies.
3) Make all crop insurance a fee based program underwritten and actuarially sound (with private underwriters). Farmers can pass on increased costs to consumers. Same with flood insurance - no subsidies.
4) Make certain all other Federal Defense spending is spread out on a state by state basis. Again, allow a variance based on absolute necessity.
5)Cap all guaranteed student loan payments to state colleges and private colleges. Require states to put some "skin in the game" for every student loans. Let the states weed out the for-profit/religious schools, not the Feds.
Perhaps, when the local rural hospitals all go away, crop and flood insurance is market based, and Federal spending declines in the poverty stricken states, these states will come to the table and quit promoting unending war, trade wars, racism, and birth control objections.
If they don't, they will have achieved "states rights" in a pure form.
Citizens can "vote with their feet" as President Reagan exhorted them. People may choose self segregate (both ways) to appropriate states and we can all move on.
5
I guess it is all in your definition of what radical is. I imagine that if you believe in not having to pay the debt that you chose to take on, deciding that your life without the baby was more important than allowing that life to be even though you made the choice to perform the act, ignoring whatever laws you want to ignore simply because you do not agree with them, and deciding that others need to pay for whatever benefits you want to have do not make the definition of radical then yes, the Democrats are not radical. However, many who are not radical by historical measures would argue those are radical views.
2
It's quite true that the states that voted for Trump take more from the federal system than they put in. It amazes me that people in those states don't realize how dependent they are on those federal dollars. Instead they just listen to the propaganda of their own local politicians.
2
Krugman's column needs some additional facts for a truly rounded picture of the effect of Federal expenditures in various states. For example, for a number of years in states such as Iowa there has been an epidemic of paper cuts on the fingers of Iowa farmers. These occur when the farmers open their monthly checks from their union, aka the Agriculture Department. Many bankers have complained about the bloody checks and require that their clerks wear gloves to protect against infection.
As someone who has lived in one of the "socialist" EU countries (Belgium), I would also point out that a bigger government is not just about redistribution.
One example is sports. In Belgium, most villages own modern infrastructure like a sports venue, swimming pool, athletic track, etc.
You and me could start e.g. a volleyball club and pick a few free weekly slots from the infrastructure roster. The village might chip in for some of the materials needed too. We could advertise our newly founded club in the monthly village newsletter which most of the town reads.
The result is that my kids paid less per year for their sports than what they pay here per month. And they did a lot more activities too because it's easy, local and affordable, things like learning to play an instrument and arts classes are available everywhere. So it's easy to let them try a lot of things to see what they like and want to continue. Oh, and during holiday periods, the village provides very cheap multi-sports camps for kids of all ages. All schools teach kids how to swim, etc. You get the picture.
The point is, you pay more taxes but you get so much back for it. And these things create a common ground between all levels of income and education. I could talk to my cleaning lady about kid activities and how they are doing in school because the circumstances are the same as for my own kids. She might have joined our imagined volleyball club. That's what an advanced society is all about in my opinion.
3
There is a rather simple and straightforward solution to the various Medicare for All plans now are being proposed. It is to add a public option to the ACA that would essentially operate in the same manner as Medicare and be available to all who want it. However, allow those who like their employer-based health care plan keep it. Although the former would have to pay an increase in the medicare tax, they would save money in the long run by not having to pay $10K-$15K per year for a supplemental ACA-approved private insurance plan. Those who choose to keep their employer-based plan , would soon find out that the Medicare for All public option will provide the same benefits and allow them to keep their own physician than their employer-based plan, but at a much lower price. Thus, they would discover that the Medicare for All public option would be greatly to their advantage This "market-oriented" approach would be a smooth. less disruptive transition to a system that would benefit all. Note that since the Japanese have a public health insurance plan, they don't have to raise the price of their imported automobiles by $4-5K, to cover the cost of an employer-based health insurance plan. Not having to do that would be a big benefit to consumers, and might even make U.S. manufactured products more competitive. Now, this is the kind of "trickle down" economics that I like.........
1
So much in this article makes sense but as other readers have noted, you are speaking to the believers. The democrats running for President need to use these argument in their stump speeches and in their debates. This would be so much more effective and substantive than raising their hands like lemmings to the cliff in support of free health benefits for 11million undocumented people - with no explanations.
3
Dr. Krugman rarely embarrasses himself, but this time he has. He says that the argument that Harris or Warren are less electable than Biden is "probably" wrong, but provides not a scintilla of evidence, not one word. Surely, he can do better than that with so much at stake. Not only that, Biden still leads substantially in the polls after taking best shot Harris could give him. Well, we all let our own preferences color our thinking now and then, but we hope for better from Paul Krugman.
We who read this column are all getting a bit frantic by now and maybe our grasp on reality is fraying a bit. We need to stay focused, even Dr. Krugman. I can certainly forgive him for losing it now and then; he's only human.
If you don't believe that beating Trump is the foremost thing we need to do in 2020, if you think making a bold statement is worth not actually having power, or if you think that all old white men are the same, then feel free cast the vote that makes you feel oh-so-good deep in your liberal heart. Trump is counting on you.
Never forget that this election will not be decided in the bubble in which you live; it will be decided in about six states, most of them in the Midwest. Moderate voters in those states will elect the next president. Which Democratic candidate is most likely to appeal to them? If you're smart, you'll vote for that old, white guy in the primary, whatever he did in 1975. Or, make a bold statement and get Trump again.
2
Thank you again for sharing the facts with those who are interested in the truth. To the Democratic candidate for President: Please talk about the "balance of payments" on the campaign trail. People who live in "donor" states have a right to know how their tax dollars are spent. BTW: It wouldn't hurt to bring up this issue during the next Democratic primary debate!
1
I guess the meaning of "moochers" has changed.
Here I thought it was the 50+ million moochers who no longer want to work, thanks to the world's largest safety net, replete with car and cellphone.
What more could be fairer? Stay tuned and find out.
Hey, there are votes out there waiting to be purchased.
4
@Lake. woebegoner
I am a social worker, could you please tell me where I can help my carless clients get a car so they can get to work? I was not aware of this entitlement. This is life changing!
I will eagerly await your reply!
1
@I Many of us wonder where they get them, too, Illinois.
And there are other means of conveyance to work besides a car that many such folks could use instead: free transit, cab, bike and foot.
Hats off to those who can work and choose to work and find a way to get there.
1
I suspect voters in red states oppose progressive ideas not because they are opposed to ‘redistribution’ but because they fear it will mean a smaller government checks for them.
1
I agree that there is broad support for reform of healthcare in the United States. Still I hate that red state/blue state balance of tax payments argument. I suppose the reasons nations have bothered to hold territory has always been their interest in subsidizing those poor uncivilized folks. Are we to imagine, Dr. Krugman's point is he or she who takes the profit is the only one who contributed the useful work that created wealth?
People can't eat Facebook and Netflix. Water has to come from somewhere. Money made in derivatives requires something from which a derivative can be derived. The managerial class need a surplus from which to derive their income. Laywers don't only argue over their own assets. New York City is an important port for more than New York City. Chances are somewhere in the chain of events that led to the income of each person on the coast is at the very least a large open and continuous market that spans from the east coast to the west and the protected conduits and favorable trade status that permit it.
3
Add California to the donor states, and know that California was racking up serious deficits, was headed to bankruptcy a few years ago when it's citizens put an initiative on the ballot to raise taxes by 1% to get California moving again. The initiative measure was approved by voters, California now has a budget surplus, and our economy is booming.
Government works, and government can be efficient. Almost every transaction you need to have with California government you can handle on-line. In my county the government is just like Amazon, ....one day delivery and smiles all around. You get what you pay for.
12
You need to add that California’s Medical system has not bankrupted the state.
3
Krugman hits the "right" notes in this piece. The trouble is that as a Times columnist he preaches to the choir. The Right controls these states with messaging which impels its citizens to vote against economic interests. And we have an expert carnival barker and grifter in the WH who has fooled millions into thinking he's a working class hero. Add this to the gerrymandering, voter suppression, and the flow of dark money into campaigns it is not difficult to see the anomalous voting trends. So...the issue is how to message the truth to the masses, many who end up decrying what is in their interests because it smacks of that dreaded word "socialism." Perhaps it's time to educate the public on what this word actually means, and to point out all the "socialistic" support that goes to corporations, and those which benefit our entire society, like power grids, roads, the internet, medical and scientific research etc.
2
With luck, Progressives will believe Mr. Krugman's rosy recipe and continue to put all their eggs in the Progressive cake batter of higher taxes, reparations, forgiving of student loans (hey, here's a woke thought: why not also forgive all mortgages?), and identity politics. Bake for 15 months and see what they get in November 2020. I don't think they'll like the taste of defeat.
4
I didn’t know this was a cookbook. Here Krugman offers an interpretation, not a solution.
@Jo Lynne Lockley Call it an interpretation, if you like. What matters is that the Dems appear taken with the Progressive nostrums that I listed above, and, in my view, those nostrums will prove not to be very popular with the voters in 2020.
On the topic of redistribution of the money in and out of the states, it would be interesting to see state by state listing, along with the reps and senators from each of those states, and what levers each of those in Congress can pull in regards to those transfers. Is it a coincidence that Kentucky benefits from this imbalance, and that Sen McConnell, the lead GOP in the senate, is from Kentucky? Who runs and sits in the Ways and Means committees? The armed Services committees? What reps in Congress are patting each other on the backs to curry favor for their states?
2
Most Republicans and, in particular, the avid Trump-voting ones, just love government largess, in all its forms. They just don't call them entitlements; that's a "Socialist" word. Firstly, they believe they have "earned them." I've lost count of the number of times I've been told that "fact." Secondly, they believe only Christian white folks deserve them. Of course, they don't actually say that out loud, but it's coded in their pronouncements nonetheless. These same people consider Fox News to be political gospel for Christian white folks. There is no easy way to overcome this color bias, which is learned in the home, honed in the workplace and has been used effectively by this president, to inflame perceived grievances.
Up until the end of President Obama's second term, I was still hearing him called an Arab, a Socialist, a Muslim and worse, by people who thought that I was in their camp and so is was fine to say these things. I am not optimistic.
5
I, a Republican, who has just not yet taken the trouble to leave the party officially, am committed to the government largesse when it is applied to keeping farms afloat, people fed, children educated and Americans, legally or otherwise, healthy and alive.
The use of my taxes to form the greatest military in the world, on the other hand, is less delightful.
Understanding the insurance nature of taxes does not make one a wide eyed liberal. It makes one a mensch.
1
I keep reading in several of these comment remarks, that people in other than the eastern parts of the USA don’t read the NYTimes. Well, we do; many of us do and are thankful for it. So, it does give us news and simultaneously influence our thinking. However, other factors may be more powerful that influence our voting. It is hard to ‘walk in the other person’s shoes’. The Democratic candidates need to try to educate themselves more.
6
It is time to refigure the numbers. "Donor" states are also states that dodged huge amounts of federal taxes on deductions for their jumbo mortgages and state and local taxes. Since red-lining and housing prices and codes keep the privileged in their nice homes and keep neighborhoods and schools stratified in favor of white wealth, the poor, especially African-American poor, have been systematically denied access to the intergenerational wealth that home-ownership provides. State tax deductions have also favored the wealthy disproportionately. The rest of us, until very recently, have subsidized these regressive policies and they don't get figured in . Since California and NY have the highest number of billionaires in the country, and since they control Wall Street and investment capital, especially tech investing, taking the first dollar of profits from the rest of us, who really are the givers and takers? NY and CA, the bluest of the blue with the bluest and wealthiest zip codes in the world, are netting out pretty well, Mr. Krugman.
5
Yet California and New York are controlled by Democrats who want to redistribute their wealth while receiver states are controlled by Republicans who pass tax laws that favor the rich. Republicans pass laws that worsen the income divide and worsen our national debt (notice the silence of the current administration on those two facts). New York has 41 billionaires asking to be taxed more. California continues to pass legislation designed to lessen the income gap. Do you see these trends or not?
3
Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt and IKE would all be incredibly distressed about what has happened to the Republican party.
4
I was at a gathering of chefs last night. This was not the Thomas Keller group but those who work in hospitals, schools and big restaurants specialized in burgers and breakfasts, blue collar California in white jackets. The conversation turned to the inevitable and we all deplored. At one point one said, “and I’m a Republican.” Like falling dominoes the rest of the round table followed with so am i’s and me too’s.
There was a time when Republican was not synonymous with Monster. None of of us, we discovered, sees the slightest chance of that returning.
We need Equilibrium Distribution of Funding for federal dollars. What a state puts in, the state gets back. If they need money for a big project, they get it, but must average it out over the next ten years. I am tired of being a net contributor. I live in Chicago, which is a net contributor to Illinois, and IL is a net contributor to the US. We have bad bridges here as well, and LA gets 40% of their state budget from federal funds. Make the Republican politicians pull themselves up by their own bootstraps.
4
The "Fox News" viewer thinks they worked for what they got. It wasn't easy for most of them but they made it. They also gave there bosses a days worth of work. Working hard takes pride even when the law of diminishing returns takes effect. They don't like having to work hard and give their money to who don't.
Who's going to give up their excellent benefits? The "Democrats", Union members, Civil Servants, and those with great jobs and golden parachutes? "Democrats" like Obama who cut Social Security and Medicare. We're supposed to vote for them?
We know the medical drug "Caravan" to Canada was a staged political stunt. We know we pay twice as much as the rest of the world for medicine. We know "Fox News" viewers don't want the value of their retirement plan, 401K's and stock investments to go down or their taxes to go up.
Yup, those "Fox News" viewers clinging to their "God and Guns" ruin it for the rest of us.
1
Mr krugman is, I can only assume, over looking on purpose, the one issue that will likely sink the dems if they don't come to their senses. Immigration. What came thru the other night was open borders are good, there is no such thing as illegal immigrants and they are entitled to every benefit the American tax payer can provide. I'm one of the middle class. I pay the top rate. I'm all for over hauling the tax code to be more fair. I'm not for mass immigration and adding millions more people that will contribute to environmental problems here, slow our progress towards a sustainable economy and add to all the problems of over population that we and the planet are suffering from. You cannot be for mass immigration (or population growth from ANY source) and call yourself an environmentalist). Ex since ~1980 our GW emissions have gone down ~25%. At the same time our population has grown by...25%. Canceling out progress. It's time to face facts. There are too many people on the planet and especially here in the developed west. If I have to choose between "progressive" policies with its ever escalating population growth thru immigration here, I'll have to consider trump even though he is otherwise a bad choice.
9
Based on your rationale, you should support a woman’s right to abortion, euthanasia, survival of the fittest (no healthcare), no treatment for opiate or crack addiction, death penalty, no fertility treatments, etc.
For me it’s hard to believe the way the Democratic presidential candidates are unfolding.
I do know it’s imperative we get rid of the ones in power currently. However, I may not vote in the upcoming election if the Democratic candidates are Warren, Harris or such progressives! I do not want and cannot tolerate their ‘free education’, Medicare-for-all, and ‘all are welcome, anytime’ immigration policy’. It must be impossible for the progressive candidates to realize the other areas of our country
(who also vote and count), don’t generally have their same values and more radical ideals. Or, possibly, they are saying and promoting whatever it takes to get votes from anyone that can vote.
6
The prespective provided by this op-ed is a much needed corrective to the Republican narrative broadcasted by Fox News and repeated by Trump apparatchiks.
The case of Kentucky receivng more from the federal government than it paid in taxes is a story that holds true on the state level, also, where many of the wealthier urban and blue areas of a state--my state, Virginia being a good example--see their state tax dollars going to rural areas that strongly supports Republicans on the state and national level.
4
Well, Mr. Krugman, at least you admit that "we already do a lot of redistribution in this country." My distrust of the left, and especially the extreme left comes, not from academic research or idealism but from real life experience in both inner city teaching and property management. The left doesn't see how inefficient and destructive their programs are, and there is no voice or common political language to voice what I have seen. Of course I live in CA, so again I point to my real life experience. The blind spots on the left are just as large and fixed as those on right, and I don't find their political stars progressive, but rather regressive. We need some kind of moderate who can (peacefully!) reach out to both sides to analyze generational poverty and income inequality without bias and with a truthful heart. That's simply not what I see or feel from the Harris, Warren, Sanders bunch. If one of those "progressives" wins the Democratic nomination, I won't punch the chad for a presidential candidate in 2020, but I will vote down the ballot. In CA, there's no need for one more blue vote for president, and I have just seen too much of the craziness the left create. Notice, how, by reading your piece, the reality of the current administration has momentarily disappeared from my well of feeling. The progressives on the left will lessen the disgust for Trump for many, many voters. And by the way, you just insulted Middle America. That won't work either.
9
The Republican battle cry is going to be dishonest and simplistic. Dems are for "open borders," Dems want to "government run healthcare," Dems want to "give free healthcare to illegal immigrants," etc.
The challenge for the Democrats is to counter this with honest and simple (not the same as "simplistic") messaging that turns the tables on the Republican arguments. As examples:
Dems are not for "open borders," they are in favor of humane treatment of migrants under our asylum "rules of law." If the Republicans had wanted to change the rules and the laws, they have had ample opportunity.
Dems want universal healthcare for all Americans, while Republicans have been and continue to attack the ACA with no replacement plan. Republicans want to maintain the status quo of private health insurance, with premiums and costs skyrocketing.
Dems don't want to give "free" healthcare to immigrants, they want to make coverage an "obligation." This benefits taxpaying citizens in that immigrants will not go the route of any other uninsured person in this country -- showing up at the ER without coverage and an inability to pay.
3
There's another absurd aspect to this argument about "Democrats moving left". After LBJ, in fact, Democrats moved to the right, tracking what was perceived to be a rightward move of the electorate that, to a larger and larger extent, embraced the republican party's traditional right-wing economic agenda (anti-union, anti-tax). Since 1980, the republicans have surged FAR to the right - and that move has coincided with the final transformation of the republican party into a party of the south and rural America, representing repressive and intolerant social and religious values as well as extreme anti-government, anti-minority/immigrant, anti-science/intellectual and anti-tax sentiments. The Republicans are defined more by what they are against than by what they are for.
The Democrats may have moved back a bit to the left - more to the traditional values of 20th century Democrats - of FDR and LBJ - the New Deal and the Great Society, but it is the sharp rightward move of the Republican party that has dragged the center far to the right. There is just no justification for the Democratic party to follow the Republicans in their lurch towards right-wing extremism. Democrats need to embrace fair capitalism, social justice, social economics and tolerance.
6
"But polling overwhelmingly shows the opposite: Voters want to raise taxes on the rich and expand government social programs." OK, so that'll get you the popular vote. But to win the presidency you need those key Midwestern states, and for that, I believe you need a moderate....
5
As the famous poet Rumi says: "fear is the cheapest room in the house, I'd like to see you living in better conditions".
THAT is the basis upon which each and every democratic government is founded. Its purpose is to come together as a people, and see how, when we work together, fear becomes less and less a part of our daily lives.
Fear of a violent foreign invasion - which is why we ask the government to create a military and then together fund it.
Fear of some of our fellow citizens, who might try to steal what is ours or murder us - which is why we ask the government to create a police force, and to fight against the causes of what turns individuals into criminals, and then fund it.
Fear of dying when sooner or later we too get sick - which is why we ask the government to create affordable health insurance systems, and then fund them.
Fear of remaining ignorant of all the meaningful things that knowledge has to offer - which is why we ask the government to make sure that every child and citizen have access to the best possible education out there, and then fund it.
Fear of an incompetent, corrupt, and/or violent government - which is why we ask the government to guarantee freedom of expression and freedom of the press.
Fear of being discriminated against because of religion, color of skin, origin, gender etc. - which is why we ask the government to fight against racism, and so on and so forth.
The GOP, however, want people to fear ANY government, and LIVE in fear..
5
@Ana Luisa Agreed. Well said.
Mr Krugman,
While I fully agree with your point in this article, it's important to note that the more progressive wing of the Democratic party has decided that allowing illegal immigration and providing them with health care is a higher priority for them.
In doing so they will not only forgo the opportunities you point out, but will also forgo any opportunity to implement reasonable immigration reform.
6
@AnejoDiego
I don't see anybody claiming that providing health insurance to 11 million undocumented immigrants (not healthcare, that our ER already provide, remember?) would somehow today be more important and more urgent than what Krugman is talking about (Medicare for all)?
Democrats (moderates and progressives together) FIRST passed Obamacare, which insures 20 million more LEGAL Americans, and saves an additional half a million American lives a decade, all while NOT covering undocumented people AT ALL.
And "decriminalizing" illegal immigration doesn't mean allowing it - let alone legalizing it. It simply means that the TYPE of punishment you get when you illegally cross the border, is no longer the same as for people who commit what officially corresponds to a "crime".
What you seem to ignore is that criminal law is only part of US law?
Decriminalizing illegal immigration doesn't turn it legal at all ... !
6
@Ana Luisa Please note the way that we are handling marijuana these days. Decriminalization is as you point out not legalization, however, it is a signal to "users" that they are safe to use so long as they don't deal drugs.
Alerting potential immigrants the their health care will be taken care of and they will get a speeding ticket for illegally immigrating to the USA will be de facto open boarders.
The American people will clearly see this and will not vote for the democratic candidate because of it.
We will give up the ability to accomplish what we most need to get done in this country including addressing the deplorable state of our health care, addressing the growing costs of education and supporting the rights of ALL of our citizens.
Are you willing to give all of that up for a loosing argument on illegal immigration?
3
Re: point three:
When Republicans complain that Democrats stand for "wealth redistribution," it should be made clear that those who support redistribution of wealth are actually the GOP. The real redistribution started 30 years ago when Republicans managed to bamboozle people into thinking that taxation was evil and started cutting taxes — but almost exclusively for the wealthy. With the lowering of capital gains taxes, and tricks like the carried interest tax deduction and increasing numbers of loopholes that only rich people can use, the result has been that between 1983 and 2010 the top 5 percent of income earners increased their share of the pie by 74.2 percent, while the bottom 60 percent of us had our share of national income decrease. This is the actual income redistribution that has been going on right under our noses for 30 years. It is a triumph of the right's propaganda machine that "redistribution" is seen as some sort of socialist agenda on the part of the left.
Democratic candidates need to shout it from the rooftops — we are opposed to wealth redistribution, and we want it to stop, because it has been hurting the middle class for decades.
8
When societies and their governments become top heavy individual rights suffer. What Mr. Krugman did not address is how far we have departed from the founders vision of governing. What began as a noble endeavor has morphed into a central governing with limited state involvement, one that strips individuals of self sustainability, emotional well being and in general the ability to see beyond their individual perspectives. Individual rights and interdependence are not mutually exclusive nor do there perceived differences prevent progress. We are at a cross roads in the future of the United States just ask Russia. The USSR did not fail because our government was greater. The USSR failed because there was no incentive for the majority of citizens to take care of themselves and be individually, not collectively, productive coupled with the militaries consumption of the majority of what income existed. Yes music, blue jeans and other western trends once introduced were to never go away and contribute to the downfall of the USSR. Communism's or its intent to destroy the western economies never left. So this morning while you lament the demise of the two party system you might want to consider who that really benefits and what do Betsy Ross sneakers have to do with anything except the past. Best get past the past and keep you eye on the here and now. Otherwise the future may never come as many are stuck in the past.
2
I have no idea what you just said; I suspect I’m not the only one.
Morning, Dr. Krugman:
Thank you, your posts save my sanity. The trouble is the folks that really need to hear from you probably don't read the NY Times. To be fair, subscriptions to real news sources are nearly out of my financial reach also. So here's a suggestion for NY Times readers: why don't a few of the very wealthy start up an Economics Channel for television? I'd love to be able to see a Talk Show that specialized in construction workers, farmers, health workers, secretaries and such talking about their personal economies. Truth is never as popular as Fox-baloney, so the very wealthy creators might not make much money, but they might help save the country.
12
Interesting that Mr Krugman forgets the immigration issue. Interesting because that issue played a major role in the last election and because Democratic candidates are taking stands on that issue which are far to the left of the median voter.
And reparations? Not a popular proposal, but one supported by several high-profile Dems.
And what about the elimination of private health insurance?
Really odd that Mr Krugman neglects these issues in favor of the ones he ultimately discusses.
7
@Michael
I'd rather say: really odd that after reading an op-ed about three key objections of the GOP against what Democrats proposed during the debates, op-ed that carefully refutes all three of them, you all of a sudden don't want to talk about these fundamental issues anymore, and hope to switch the debate to a totally different issue.
I suppose that means that you're admitting that on the issues discussed in this op-ed, there's nothing more to say, Krugman is simply right ... ?
1
Meanwhile, 45's tax bill penalizes blue states by allowing less deduction for local taxes, local taxes spent to maintain a better living standard for the residents in that state.
So, blue states should continue to prop up red state, which continually diss blue states, yet blue states are penalized for supporting their own citizens.
AND, under the electoral college, a vote from a rural red state may carry 3x the weight as a vote from more densely populated blue state.
And we call this a democracy?
17
I’ve always wondered why the put welfare people to work was so highly popular but retired people who don’t need social security but feel entitled because they paid into it, don’t get asked to work for their social benefits. Social security should be there for the really old or infirmed. In fact, if you did well you should be proud not to take it.
If the Dems want to cover some political ground they should go after the filthy rich social security recipients along with the literal welfare states Krugman mentions in this article.
As much as Dems complain about Trump taking us back to the ‘50’s, the Dems are holding back the Progressive movement by touting Biden, Pelosi and even Bernie to an extent, as the future. This movement needs to be unleashed so it can override the Trump era.
1
I usually agree with Krugman, but I think he misses the mark here. Those who think Dems should stay in the centre and reject the left do so because they believe the best way for the Dems to hold the House, win the Presidency, and flip the Senate is to win over more White voters. Looking at the polls from past elections, I believe about 50% of White voters are solidly Republican and about 35% are solidly Democratic. About 15% could go either way, though even in that 15% the bias is toward the GOP. Still, given the Dems' overwhelming strength with nonWhites, they do well if they can get about a third of the White swing voters to vote for Dems. Going all the way back to Bill Clinton, the Democratic strategy has been to portray themselves as centrists in an attempt to win over this roughly 5% of White voters who might swing to the Dems.
That strategy does produce some wins for the Dems, particularly when the GOP candidate is weak. The downside, though, is it hasn't built a strong and durable Democratic majority and may have actually weakened the Democrats' ability to secure such a majority. There are two reasons for this: one it muddles the Democrats' brand making them seem like watered-down Republicans while actually reinforcing the idea that the Republicans are "right" on the issues. Second, it depresses turnout among actual Dems and drives some to third parties. For Dems, chasing unreliable White voters comes at the expense of building a stronger and more durable base.
5
Prof. Krugman’s article is not so much wrong as irrelevant. Politics are not about a rational debate over issues. In such a debate, incidentally, many of the Democratic left’s ideas will be shown to be impractical through what’s called natural experiment: they have been tried in other countries and did not work. But in any case, politics is about symbols and emotions. The label of D is now toxic in many parts of the country because of the narratives of virtue-signaling, intolerance, Puritanism, and racial divisiveness attached to them. One story of a mural destroyed in San Francisco does more to bring swing voters back to the Republican side than a whole slew of wonky debates. One story of Oberlin college students hounding a small store’s owners for alleged “racism” will excite middle America more than a whole folder of spreadsheets and calculations. Democrats should go back to telling stories - and it better not be stories of illegal immigrants, sad though they may be.
7
@Mor
I don't know why you even read Mr. Krugman's essay. You don't seem to be understanding it at all. Politics may be about symbols and emotions, but it's also how we work with the real world in a practical, rational manner. Let's take care of everyone, as more sensible nations do.
3
@Mor
"what’s called natural experiment: they have been tried in other countries and did not work"
Can you provide examples for us?
3
@wanderer the USSR had exclusively government-controlled medical care. It was free. Life expectancy was about 45 years. Nowadays every country with universal healthcare has supplementary private insurance that Bernie’s program would outlaw. No country in the world has anything like his Medicare for All in which no private insurance is allowed. Why do think that is? France tried wealth tax - and abolished it because it did not bring in the desired revenue and caused the rich to flee the country. Germany accepted millions of immigrants and asylum seekers and faced a political backlash that has strengthened the far right. Do you want more examples? I suggest a trip to Europe.
2
The Democrats appear to be radically left because the other party has moved so far to the right it has fallen off the edge of the earth.
Democrats are often derided as “tax and spend”. Perhaps, but it indicates the more responsible approach of first HAVING money BEFORE you spend it. Republicans regard “tax” as a four-letter word and adopt a “borrow and spend” philosophy. They leave their red ink fiscal mess for the next guy to clean up. With the deficit now headed for the stratosphere, the next president’s administration will have insufficient revenue to fix things and will be forced to raise taxes. But perhaps that is the end game, break the government and then claim only private industry will save us, just like it did in the Great Depression and the Great Recession. Oh, wait, it was the federal government - under Democratic presidents in both instances - that saved our economy, imperfect as the rescues may have been.
Our population has been gaslighted if it still regards Republicans as the more fiscally responsible party.
10
In my home state of Washington, the same economic rules apply. Western Washington, the coast, is very blue in it's politics. Eastern Washington is quite the opposite, with Republicans fully in charge.
On the Eastern side of the State, only one county pays its way, and it is at break even. For instance, Stevens county receives in state monies, $1.95 for each dollar paid to the state coffers. KIng County on the West side, gets back 67 cents for every dollar paid to the State.
But of one were to listen to the politicians from the East side, all of the states woes are the result of legislation passed by the Seattle liberals.
9
I earn $230,000 a year and I struggled in the workplace to get a good paying management position. I am opposed to having a Democrat redistribute my hard-earned income so someone (not me) can get their student debt waived or have subsidized child care . You borrowed the money, you pay it back! You have kids, you pay for them. I have not had any historical benefit nor have I been the beneficiary of some phantom Trump tax cut, which actually increased my annual tax burden by nearly $7000 due to the SALT limitation. I wish the Obama tax code would be reinstated. As for removing the cap on Social Security earnings, my taxes would go up another $7,000 if Democrats get their way. I simply cannot afford this. I am torn between voting for Trump who I immensely dislike or a Democrat who will tear away at my earnings.
4
Wow. I thought I was doing well in life, but not that well. I will tell you I feel the opposite - paying taxes is what I can do to contribute to this world since I have been so fortunate.
And yes, I work hard.
8
It was definitely the Republicans who took away your SALT deduction to further redistribute to Republican rural states where SALT is lower. Democrats will change that since undoubtedly NY and CA are hurt by it. Also, they want people making over $1 million to pay more, not $230k which is just enough to buy a small house in CA if you’re lucky.
3
@Jazzville
I agree Jazzville. You pay too much and should keep more of your money. The issue with SALT is not the federal government, but your state and local governments taxing you too much.
If the cap is removed on SS, then the payout cap should also be removed or SS will become more of a welfare program.
Moved too far left?
"It’s fair to say that far more Kentuckians work in hospitals kept afloat by Medicare and Medicaid, in retail establishments kept going by Social Security and food stamps, than in all traditional occupations like mining and even agriculture combined."
That says it all. Yet there is a glimmer of hope, as even Paulie is starting to use the word "foreigners".
3
While I'm neither rich nor do I live in an area of the country that is statically poor. I can say that this style of statistics doesn't take enough factors into account. These states the fly over states of you will are largely poor due to there being no work there or a large population of elderly in the case of more government aid.
I grew up in the middle of Illinois in a town that you couldn't see in the summer sure to the amount of corn surrounding it. Prior to around 99 it was an affluent town by Midwest standards. Then NAFTA was signed and the factories pretty much disappeared over night and all that was left was your basic services and farming. The young all started to drift away and their parents have since grown elderly and that's about all that's left. This story is played out time and time again throughout the breadbasket portion of the nation.
Our middle class is slowly disappearing. Everyone's congregating in the same areas along the coast. The jobs are all along the coast. If the government wants to do something for middle America, both the class of people and the actual country. Find a way to get middle class jobs back to those areas. Don't just ship them government aid that keeps them locked in a downward spiral.
8
I agree with you, Dr. Krugman, and I despise Trump and his policies. But your record of prediction political outcomes and the economic effects of Trump's policies is not good, as illustrated by your comments in October 2016 and your Nov. 9, 2016 editorial about the effects of Trump's election on the economy. So many Democrats, and the party itself, simply don't understand that the policies being proposed by Senators Warren and Harris, among others, scare a majority of voters in the swing states. Those candidates, like Trump, are appealing to their party's base, which is not where the battle will be won in the general election. Many voters will sit on the sidelines rather than vote for those policies -- no matter how much they dislike Trump.
1
I love your discussion about richer states pay more taxes than poor ones. I’ve always thought rich people pay more taxes than poor ones and was not aware that states pay taxes also. Thanks for correcting my misunderstanding. Seems like the left is all for the “rich, those bad bad people” to pay more taxes. Your thoughts on this seems confused.
3
States don’t pay taxes. He’s referring to people in the states paying taxes to the Federal government. And if states did pay taxes, they’d only get the funds from taxing people in the state...
Anyway, the Left is not against rich people. Many rich people are Democrats. The Left is against people who support consolidation of wealth at the top. Greedy people, like Trump who pretend that if you give it all to them it will trickle down to you. They count on you actually believing that.
2
This piece misses the fact that this election, like many others, was decided more by fear than hope. Trump won by scaring people about a takeover of the country by others—brown, black, Muslim, whatever.
Unless the Democrats can do a better job of articulating what the country stands to lose under more Trump—e.g. risks from a bubble economy and climate change—they’re going to be on the wrong side of fear once again.
6
I recently read that the federal dollars flowing to Kentucky mean that each person in Kentucky receives about $9500 per year. And if you look at the list of top ten states that receive federal money like Kentucky you'll most often find GOP-voting states. So hypocritical. But that seems to fit the GOP well.
9
Ah, the recurring "some states send more/get more" fallacy.
Except states do not send tax dollars to the federal government. People and businesses do. And, for the most part, states do not get federal distributions. People do.
Where people choose to live is somewhat arbitrary, and changes for regions and individuals. If someone lives in NY during their working lives, and pays taxes from there, and after retirement moves to FL, does that make them a moocher? Should they be prohibited from moving? And if in pursuit of career, if someone wants to move from a "taker state" to a "maker state", should that also be restricted?
Given that NY population is declining, and GDP growth has slowed, Krugman might be on the other side of this fallacy in the future.
5
The good Dr. Krugman had a similar opinion in the prior election. And, yet, the horrific DJT is our President. The point being the opinions of intellectuals and academics are not shared in middle and rural america. Should the Democrats not nominate a center left candidate, DJT is likely re-elected. Frightening but true.
4
As a lifelong student of Child Development; and a mother whose 3 sons have turned out better than many, probably most, other Americans, I DO NOT agree with the following statement:
Support for child care, for example, would free more women to enter the paid work force — where they would pay taxes that would offset some of the cost. And the children benefiting from that support would eventually become healthier, more productive adults.
Especially the statement that citizens benefitting from more women in the workplace having their children raised by parents other than themselves will be 'healthier, and more productive adults'. Don't think their is any proof for this!
My sons think having their mother home to take care of them w hen they were growing up was good--and the way it is supposed to be.
Two of my sons have fine jobs with the University of Michigan. The third is an MD internist. His practice is so large, it is NOW closed. He can NOT take any more patients; because if he did, he would NOT have the time to take care of the ones he already has.And, as a victim of Early Childhood Trauma, I can assure you that some caregivers are NOT qualified to take care of children.
3
The GOP for over three decades has systematically redistributed wealth from middle class wants to needs of the very rich. The starving of the public sector has left us to where we are today---broken bridges, health care systems, educational systems...the list goes on...In exchange for a broken public sector, we have a private sector filled with private yachts, jets, and estates the size of some states.
6
I am a Canadian so I think Medicare available to all is the right way to go. But I think private insurance should be left alone. If Medicare is done right, attrition will take care of private insurance. Baby steps. Private insurance will shrink on it's own.
10
Polls will almost always suggest most people want to raise taxes on the wealthy or get more from government. Such statements of preference are irrelevant except for pandering to voters. It is not wrong to raise taxes on the rich, but the popularity of the idea is not useful info.
Anyone can be from any of 48 states with a few days notice, so attachment to statehood is silly. Some rich states started off with enormous government investments and/or natural resources. All of them attract talent and investment from other states. Without other states supplying talent, complementary businesses and customers, rich states would not be so rich. A country is a team effort.
Individuals respond to incentives in ways that states do not. This is no different from suggesting the federal debt functions no differently than personal debt. The federal government picks winners for certain investments, and now that the federal government is huge, those decisions collectively have more impact. Oklahoma will not be getting a new naval base any time soon to balance out investments in places like San Diego. Net transfers are a way to maintain a fairness and to keep poorer states from becoming little more than staging grounds for criminals and natural resource providers.
I think Warren & Harris are too far "left" for the USA, even if we might not regret it until 2022. Most grand proposals will go nowhere in a Republican or nearly 50-50 Senate - even ACA barely survived. We need a plan for that.
1
@Alan
When poll after poll shows that even a majority of today's GOP voters support Medicare for all (something that most European conservative parties not only support too, but continue to implement in a highly competent way), can you please define "too far left for the USA" please ... ?
And then plan is simple: start engaging, as ordinary citizens, and have real, respectful debates with those who have been brainwashed by the GOP's 24/7 propaganda. Because THAT is how "we the people" will thrive, in a democracy.
6
@Ana Luisa
You are so right, Europe is empirical evidence that what Bernie and Elizabeth advocate works.
We, as a nation, must bring back and teach the humanities in our schools and universities.
The Republican ideology, based on Ayn Rand, has justified the brutality of predatory capitalism. Re-education is desperately needed.
Socialism has humanized capitalism in Europe.
We need to cut the military budget and invest in people.
1
Actually the middle class, including those in education, professional and technical jobs, are seeing their tax dollars being sent to the impoverished Southern and mid-Western states. This is already a redistribution of wealth - but from the middle class, not the wealthy. The 1% pays only a small percentage of their income in taxes and the .01% even less. Notwithstanding this, the Trump voters think the hard working professionals and educated people are somehow the problem. We seriously need a reality check.
13
Yes, Mitch McConnell's state is one of the biggest moochers of federal tax dollar, as are most of the other red states and many farmers who have become the new welfare queens in the Midwest. What staggers me is that American farmers rely heavily on research by the USDA to increase crop yields and the nutritional value of their feeds. Yet none are protesting a decision by Trump's Agriculture Secretary, Sonny Perdue, to move the USDA's two scientific agencies from Washington, D.C. to Kansas City, and fire those agricultural scientists who refuse to move. The USDA is about to lose 90% of them without a peep from the farmers who rely on their research to make their farms more profitable.
22
Since morality and values do not seem to be in vogue let's consider the pragmatic elements "social" programs. Consider U.S. residents as infrastructure. They are the foundation needed for those who achieve wealth. A productive, well educated, healthy infrastructure of employees is more important than roads and bridges. A threat to this infrastructure is desperation and those elements of life that cause desperation, e.g. physical and mental illness, crime, exploitation, lack of job mobility, etc. We currently address desperation reactively through "welfare" while also criticizing those who need help. This is a costly exercise with poor results. Providing preventative programs paid by all based on their ability to contribute will limit desperation, increase productivity and eliminate many of the consequential results including homelessness, crime, active shooter, domestic abuse and more. This pragmatically creates a stronger country able to compete in the world economy. Universal needs require an efficient (no profit/lowest administration) united approach so that responsible capitalism can flourish. You might say that the cooperation that many label socialism is the right hand supporting responsible, competitive capitalism. I guess doing the right thing - values - is good business.
2
Is the purpose of this essay to inflame different segments of the population against each other? Okay, I'll play along. Let's do a comparable analysis on the basis of, say, gender. Any guess which sex pays more in taxes than they get back? How about doing an analysis of the basis of race? Or age, perhaps? Bottom line is we have a progressive income tax. It exempts roughly half the population from paying any income tax at all. Progressive income taxation also means that the top 10% of income earners pays a multiple of that as their share of the federal income tax collected. Krugman's so-called moochers pay less than they receive because they earn less than those who pay more than they receive. It's logically inconsistent to support a progressive income tax and then write essays decrying its predictable results.
7
@Earl W. I guess you missed the point. While Republicans decry "entitlements" their base exists on them. While they accuse "socialist" Democrats of wanting to redistribute wealth, their base is already living off wealth redistribution. Kentucky was one example, but you can easily search for a comparison among the states. Here's a start: https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700/.
7
@MD Perhaps you should peel the onion to see which segments of the so-called moocher states are not pulling their weight as citizens. My guess is they are not overwhelmingly Republican voters.
1
'Support for child care, for example, would free more women to enter the paid work force — where they would pay taxes that would offset some of the cost. And the children benefiting from that support would eventually become healthier, more productive adults.'
Its comments like this from the progressives that scare me. Children are better off in the governments hands then the their mothers? Nanny State?
5
@Brian Interesting. So women should stay at home and be dependent on men, and somehow families in this economy should be able to make do on one salary. Maybe that works in Michigan; try living in an urban environment. And who said anything about children being in the government's hands? No one is proposing government-run child care.
6
Lot of single moms out there struggling. Yes, for them to get help in child care would benefit the kids. The alternative is to keep them at home as a single parent, unemployed. Then we are looking at welfare costs. So it's going to cost us be way of ankther. My vote is to pay to lift the mother and child.
1
@Brian
Children are better off in quality childcare than in unsupervised unqualified care, if any at all, while both their parents work to make ends meet. Professional women don't have that problem, they can afford Montessori type quality childcare.
Women have to work, our nation provides not much of family support at all. Lack of real dependable and professional childcare are some of the root causes of school dropouts and drug-related problems. Incarcerations are destructive and much more expensive, besides quality childcare would create jobs too.
1
What strikes me as interesting in the Rockefeller report is how few states run in the black. It's a bit disingenuous to blame it all on Middle America.
What's interesting is the implication for the EuroZone. Germany and France, take note. To function in the long term, the EU needs to realize that money needs to flow from some of the rich nations to some of the poor ones "automagically". Y'all need to stop lecturing and hectoring poor countries and start letting the money flow, or there may be a lot more BREXITs in the future.
2
Paul, to bad you didn't support Bernie in 2016, you know we would have won. Things would have balanced the government and the people. Now the scale is immensely tilted to the right.
Never would the country have been this destroyed by Bernie programs, and most of Hillary fans would have voted for Bernie.
6
@s.whether
Hypotheticals, should ofs, would ofs - guessing games. Who's Hillary, anyway? Oh... water under the bridge, like Bernie, only he and you don't realize it.
I do wish that the Democrats would be more centrist. I know that to run in the primaries of both parties, you must move to the extremes, then for the general election, move towards the center. But I think if the Democrats propose a "public option" that they would get more support for that. I believe that, when all is said and done, healthcare is a deciding issue for many voters.
4
Re private health insurance: please explain what happens to the dollars I pay into health insurance during my healthy working years. Assume I change jobs 5x and have 5 different insurers. Does it make any sense that each insurer had a chance to make a windfall on my youth/health, but when I retire/age, the government owns all the risk of may potentially costly decline? I would feel much better if someone could explain to me how this makes any sense. With single payor, at least the government is the single entity that holds/benefits from the windfall - using my (and my employer's) contribution to pay for an "administrator" of my benefits. Now if the government payor wanted to buy insurance to cover its overall risk that it may suffer a lose from aggregate illness, that would be okay. Unless someone explains it clearly to me, I will just assume that my insurance contributions in the early years just went into the stockmarket and pockets of shareholders of the insurance companies. And meanwhile the medical industrial complex gets bigger and bigger.
By the way, KY should rest assured the same money flow would occur if they support sustainable energy development - show them the money as we build new clean industries and maybe they would learn to be okay with going green.
7
Will the Northeast have it’s Catalonia moment?
7
Any economist worth his salt knows you can't tax the rich to make all these programs work and be properly funded.
The "Money" is in the middle class.
The problem is that the "middle class" includes those who actually pay federal income taxes and today..that means the middle class begins with the 48% of Americans who actually do pay federal income tax.
So once you exclude the 52% of non federal income tax paying Americans (otherwise known as Democrats)...you have 48% to target for tax increases.
Guess who has to pay the freight. Look at the bell curve Mr. Krugman. Come on..I know you know economics better than what you lead on.
It shows that to raise actual money to fund these radical programs, you have to raise taxes on the middle class (those making $50-$200k HHI) by nearly 30%.
You tell me..when given a choice between Bad Orange Man who's making this economy hum vs. turning it over to a Marxist...who wins? The one promising an adult conversation about how a diverse nation like ours operates...or Santa Claus?
2
@Erica Smythe I'm in the UK and so sorry if I am misunderstanding but do 48% of Americans pay no tax other than sales and local taxation? No income tax at all? That must mean serious amounts of poverty if they are earning so little?
2
@Erica Smythe
A sibling economist told me the same thing long ago. It seems to be a chestnut of "Introduction to Economics" that the middle class bear the brunt of the tax burden.
But surely we can give a nobel laureate the benefit of the doubt and assume that he understands this.
Bernie Sanders was asked recently whether he would raise taxes on the middle class to pay for his universal healthcare program and, after some hemming and hawing, he admitted he would but that it would cost taxpayers less in the long run.
I think ignoring this economic reality is a political maneuver, but there are other factors involved.
Having the middle class bear the tax burden is based on extant tax rates. There is nothing wrong with significantly increasing the tax rate on the highest earners as well as on investment income. This would generate trillions in revenue. Eisenhower's top tax rate was over ninety percent, so there is a historical precedent for Warren's and Sanders's wealth tax proposals.
Whenever a man like Warren Buffett reallocates his holdings and realizes a profit, think how much revenue could be generated if his investment income were taxed at ninety percent.
I am no economist so I do not know if the idea of the middle class bearing the bulk of the tax burden is an economic truth based on demographics or actually suggests something about inequitable tax rates in an era when the wealthy class and wealth have increased exponentially.
4
@Erica Smythe
$50k is middle-class? And which Dem. is a "Marxist'? Does that make Reps. fascists?
"In 2017 [Kentucky] received $40 billion more from the federal government than it paid in taxes."
Red State Socialism
17
Ahhh Mitch McConnell, quite the little state you have there in Kentucky. While you are busy with your entitlement rants and cuts to services for everyone else, your state is essentially a beggar with its hand out, both hands out. Excuse me while I run outside to get sick. It is also an indictment on the electorate of Kentucky. How someone like Mitch, from a beggar state like Kentucky, can be the gatekeeper of our national affairs in the Senate, is beyond outrageous and is the best example of how our government is broken.
16
Thanks god for Rachel Maddow, who sheds the light on the latest assault perpetrated by this know-nothing team of dunces on USDA, where 100's of scientist working on a most existential issue of our life time Climate Change, are faced with terrible choice of being fired in two weeks unless they relocate to Kansas City region from D.C.
https://www.axios.com/trump-administration-moving-hundreds-usda-scientists-dc-kansas-city-c53e4520-c37c-4a40-8770-51a584b3d183.html
"Employees, congressional Democrats and a bipartisan coalition of former USDA leaders" have warned that the move "would devastate the two agencies" and this is the point.
These USDA employees face a stark choice: Move to Kansas City or ...
WAPO...
These USDA employees face a stark choice: Move to Kansas City or be .... Moving USDA research agencies is part of Trump's war on science
It's a strike on a scientific global community who is trying to prevent potential unmitigated disaster of losing Planet Earth.
All scientific recent studies are blocked by this Confederacy of Dunces so they can't be release to the mass population. Who's Earth is it anyway...
And meanwhile what do you know...
TRUMP IS PLANNING ANOTHER TAX CUT FOR THE 1%—WITHOUT CONGRESS’S APPROVAL
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/06/trump-capital-gains-tax-cut?utm_source=nl&utm_brand=biz&utm_campaign=aud-dev&utm_mailing=Thematic_Business_07012019&utm_medium=email&bxid=5be9fcab24c17c6adf0f0360&cndid=53532669&utm_term=Thematic_Business
5
Paul Krugman needs to write a new column now and then. His basic worldview is the Democrats are always write and the Republicans are always wrong. That doesn't contribute to the debate.
1
The Democrats are radical. They want to give health care to illegal immigrants at taxpayer's expense. They are going to loose the election big time if this is their position.
2
Mr. Krugman,
An excellent article indeed !
4
Republicans use spite to manipulate American voters to support policies that hurt the average American and the nation.
This is the same tactic the police use to get crooks to rat on each other.
3
@mungomunro Why don't they learn to see through it? What's happened to your education system that it doesn't teach critical thinking?
Re health care. Would someone please point out Obama lie. When he said if you have private insurance and you like your doctor you can keep your doctor. That was wrong.
You can keep your doctor IF your employer keeps the same insurance plan AND your doctor and their network continues to take said insurance plan. If either of those things change by by doc.
However if all doctors and hospitals are forced into Medicare for all—when then you can keep your doctor.
What a radical thought.
Ps Paul. How come no one mentions bigger insurance pools are always better ceteris paribus.
Kentucky. Mitch McConnell.
Yeah, I'd call anything that goes there foreign aid.
7
“Radical or irresponsible”?
Kentucky and Mississippi will always vote for money they didn’t make. Ditto for Kansas, West Virginia, Alabama and both Dakotas.
6
The brilliance of the Republican party has been to convince poor whites that the GOP has their best interests in mind.
Ah, Mitch's state, Kentucky, one of the biggest moochers going. Who would have thought. Just goes to show you how much "good" Mitch does for his constituents. Glad there are states like us (WA) left to support them. Time to cut the bait and let these states look after themselves. Might start with taking away their vote.....
4
The Trump Republicans and their Fox News propaganda arm would call Jesus a socialist.
I mean, their Lord and Savior told the rich man to give up all his riches, and Jesus said if a thief takes your coat, give him your overcoat, too. My goodness, Jesus told his followers to love their neighbor the way they love themselves!
Socialism! These Republicans and their evangelical enablers oppose socialism because they don’t believe what Jesus preached. It’s that simple!
5
@WestHartfordguy
So heavenly minded--no earthly good.
$40 Billion! The next time somebody from Kentucky open his mouth to complain, I'm going to demand a receipt
4
Donald Trump is the perfect Republican leader. Snake oil salesman and marketing genius. Tanks on the promenade, gilded toilets and caviar on everyone's plate except if you are visiting for a national sports title...its burgers and fried chicken then. FOX news and the Republicans play a different game. Dupe the fools and reap the rewards. Keep public schools underfunded and scare the gun nuts. Win at any cost...Oh what about Hillary's 30,000 emails?
3
“I guess facts really do have a liberal bias.”
Touché.
3
Finally Truth!
States like Illinois have the same thing internally
But oh, Southern IL hates Chicago!
I moved from Chicago to Southern IL right after the 2016 election.
For a variety of good reasons.
1
Krugman misses the point entirely. It is not the economic proposals that get the Democrats in trouble with the public; it is the non-economic ones, associated in the public’s mind with the angry, identity politics of the Democratic left, who comprise a small, noisy fraction of the Party.
Impeachment, Medicare-for-all, free college, reparations, Green New Deal, pack the Supreme Court, abolish the Electoral College, abolish ICE, license guns, promote sanctuary cities, immigration and abortion—all are grist for their mill, even when it's explained to them that these non-economic issues so dear their their hearts are divisive, and may drive away the very swing voters and independents whom the Dems need to win the Electoral College.
This point is routinely and conveniently ignored by the more liberal of the Times columnists, but several of their colleagues have stepped forward recently and made the case powerfully:
• "There Are Really Two Distinct White Working Classes," Thomas B. Edsall, June 26, 2019 http://tinyurl.com/y622dkqk
• "Stop the Knee-Jerk Liberalism That Hurts Its Own Cause," Nicholas Kristof, June 29, 2019 http://tinyurl.com/y4fg6aqc
2
Facts and data vs Fox and demagogy.
1
Quoting the sub-head: 'The Democrats aren’t radical, but Republicans are,' will likely cause this post to be flagged "uncivil", but if it winds up getting posted in less than 8 hours, that will be better than last week's time lag.
It doesn't matter whether we voters on the coasts deliver the popular vote in 2020 to the Dem candidate, if that candidate doesn't win the Electoral College - which means a Dem must win Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, or possibly Ohio if all other Electoral College votes are as in 2016.
So, if it's Biden, Warren, Harris, or Bernie or whomever the Dems choose, what matters to us is how likely voters in these 4 states view the Dem candidate.
It won't matter one whit if a Dem wins the popular vote by 25 million in 2020, if the Electoral College is (again) delivered to 'Individual-1', as labeled by his very own Justice Department.
7:13 pm EDT
1
OMG, the Democrats are moving too far left...and the republicans...any movement to far to the right?
"...you should be calling on “donor” states like New Jersey and New York to cut off places like Kentucky and let their economies collapse."
Sounds good to me!
2
The Democrats should propose catastrophic health care coverage for all taxpayers.
1.Give us some value for our taxes. Take the fight to Big Pharma.
2.Take on "the biggest hogs at the trough," including the insulin extortionists.
3.Stop selling hard working Americans into medical debt slavery.
4. Focus!
1
One solution would be to strip military bases from "moocher" Southern states. Fort Campbell (KY) could be moved to Illinois. Camp Lejeune (NC), already threatened by climate change, could be moved to Massachusetts. And just think of all that room in far upstate New York!
(Plus that newly empty federal land could be turned into protected nature sanctuaries named after, say, Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.)
1
Excellent!
The people in Red States should also know that they are poorly protected by Republican governance. See
https://www.fairwarning.org/2017/02/top-traffic-death-states-support-trump/
The move too far left is about open borders, reparations, Medicare for all, free college, tuition loan forgiveness and free everything for illegal aliens. No matter what states this money flows too, it will create a nation of moochers.
1
Sickening, the abysmally disgusting hypocrisy evidenced by the constituents of the old confederacy. Let 'em rot in the dank swamp of their nihilistic tribalism, powered by their beloved coal barons and snake waving extremists.
Where did it all go so wrong?
I suspect I know the answer birthers, may karma prove to be a razor edged boomerang heading your way.
1
So it appears Krugman is all in on redistribution from rich to poor
Unless it’s rich New York to poor Mississippi.
That just wouldn’t be right
1
His point wasn’t that he opposed it. His point was that people in the poorer states should see that policies supported by Democrats have benefits for them.
@Doug Brockman Maybe if the residents of "poor" Mississippi didn't resent it and didn't keep trying to destroy your country by voting Republican in vast numbers, then the residents of "rich" New York would resent it....
The sooner we get rid of ripe-off Medical-Industrial-Insurance complex the better off th ecountry.
Why does the US spend 2X of any other country on healthcare and get WORSE outcomes. Just how stupid do you think the people will be ....and for how long.
Private insurance is fine ...but Medicare for All is the future....cheaper and better!
3
Just wait until Kentucky’s public pension system runs out of money. The last time I saw statistics indicated that Kentucky was either last or next-to-last among all States in funding of its system. Then Mitch will somehow get even more money to Kentucky. Believe it or not, New York is among the best-funded among the States. This only happens when the State government is disciplined enough to make the periodic contributions needed to keep the system in good shape.
3
@Alex Kent
What about NJ, IL, CT, CA public pensions--IL is the worst or is it NJ?
Redistribution of wealth from rich states to poorer states is an inevitable result of a progressive income tax and a robust federal spending program. Much of what the federal government spends money on could be better handled at the state level, eliminating some of the criticism from residents of the wealthy (often blue) states that the poor (often red) states should pay their own way.
And many of us would agree that’s OK. The issue is the myth creating by the modern Republican Party, starting with Ronald Reagan, that city/ urban residents (meaning people of color, not white rural Americans) are the takers and the red state residents get nothing in return.
4
For this 4th of July it is fitting , as Paul Krugman points out, to consider how one of our fundamental freedoms has become a freedom from facts. The country has become tethered to a mythical conception of itself, and any peak at actual conditions is taken to be unjust criticism. Democrats have tried hard to address the cruel realities of poverty, illness, racism and immigration, only to be told by republicans that these problems are imaginary.
Republicans think that just because fifty percent of americans have less than 500$ in the bank this does not translate into poorer housing choices, poorer food choices and less availability of heath care. Republicans believe that racial bias is fine for the sake of gerrymandering voting districts, in effect making certain that their party wins elections , yet refuse to admit that racial bias is at the root of inequality of opportunity.
Republicans want americas to enter into a hallucinatory state of mind that celebrates a healthcare system that is broken and inaccessible to the poor, the rural, the uneducated and the undocumented ! It is clear that the selling of the Republican myth is big business , and that their fear is that the american people will one day wake up...at the polls, where it counts ! For now Trump wants a 4th of july military parade with tanks...If only George Washington could see us now !
3
Dr. Krugman, I think you are right on all the points you made, but you did not touch immigration. That is the issue that keeps me awake at night. I believe there are a lot of moderates in this country who would be OK with granting citizenship to DACA individuals and providing a path to citizenship to undocumented residents who have been here a long time - IF they feel assured that the inflow and absorption of more "illegals" will stop. What they see and what they hear from Democrats does not assure them - just the opposite. There seems to be no reasonable policy, which leaves people to vote based on emotion. I think Trump will win this one if the Dems don't get a more centrist handle on things.
3
Maybe I am just confused or biased but it appears to me after many years of observation that the main goal of the Republican Party is to keep taxes low for the benefit of wealthy people and corporations. They tend to lower taxes on such individuals and businesses at every opportunity. They seem more than willing to accomplish their goal at the expense of valuable entitlement programs. If all this is true. people of average means are voting against their own best interests by supporting such a party.
6
Add to that the fact that Kentucky has onerous restrictions on birth control.
Not surprisingly, Kentucky has the 8th highest rate for teen births.
That's a lot of moms and babies the other states have to take care of and a lot of young moms who will have trouble contributing to Kentucky's economy.
Some of that $40 billion should go to sex education in high school and college in general.
3
I have to laugh when people accuse us Democrats of being "radical" or grieve over how our Party is journeying too far to the Left. That is hogwash. I have been around a long time, and believe it or not when it comes to the economy the Democratic philosophy is right where it should be. My dad was a union man, the son of Sicilian immigrants, and a life-long Democrat. That is what I grew up with. "Back in the day" FDR was a hero; my father's pay check put my brother and me through college and provided his family with affordable health insurance. I expect the Democratic Party to be left-of-center. I expect it to provide us with the safety net that is its mandate. Yet when I compare the Republican Party of yesteryear with today, how can we deny that the Party of Lincoln is un-recognizable. It is all about bigotry, racism, greed, and evangelical Christianity. I can not acknowledge one redeeming trait of this group that has gone astray. Trump is an amoral and corrupt narcissist in and of himself. But he is also a reflection of too many Americans within politics and at large.
10
The Democratic Party establishment has been consistently out of touch with their base offering milquetoast centrists like Walter Mondale, Al Gore, John Kerry, and Hillary Clinton. And, they're at it again with Joe Biden. Meanwhile, income inequality and health care are the two biggest domestic issues and progressives have as Warren says, "a plan for that." And, as the debates have dramatically demonstrated, race or more specifically the racism of Donald Trump is a major issue along with the immoral policies he's pursuing. Just as Hillary Clinton couldn't attack Trump on his scandalous sexual predation with the albatross of Bill around her neck, Kamala Harris skillfully demonstrated that Biden will be equally impotent on Trump's racism. The party needs to listen to it most astute political leader, Nancy Pelosi, and nominate a "center-left" candidate . Sen. Harris has moved to occupy that spot, and appears to be emerging along with Elizabeth Warren as the strongest candidates.
3
The Democrats have a good story to tell but they are really bad at communicating. Obama policies saved the economy but they seemed incapable of getting the story out. They thought the average person would understand but they clearly did not. They instead believed the lies of a known con man and the culture war nonsense of Republican propaganda. If they do not support the Democrats in the next election because candidates are not pure enough for Bernie supporters we lose.
3
Statements like "No one who endorsed the 2017 tax cut has any right to criticize Democrat proposals" don't make a whole lot of sense in primary season.
I'm a Democrat. I thought the 2017 tax cuts were dumb and irresponsible. I also think promising free healthcare and free college and free everything else is fiscally irresponsible. Many people feel the same way - including my mother, a Florida Republican who will vote for either party in Presidential elections. It's really a shame that "Centrist" is such a dirty word in Democratic circles these days.
2
For all those worried about the collapse of the “health care industry”, it would actually be the collapse, or realignment, of the “insurance-care” industry. And about time. The world won’t collapse; it will just be one of those periodic adjustments the economy must evolve to, like the demise of the horse-drawn carriage industry, or steam boating to Europe, or any of a number of industries that have had to evolve or disappear over time.
And good riddance to some of the biggest blood-suckers ever.
1
God, as a New Yorker who pays up to the eyeballs in federal taxes, I wish I could cut out Trump states from getting my hard-earned taxes. If these Trumpists are all about heartless "bootstrapping," then they should put their money where their mouth is. I can be as heartless, cold and unsympathetic to them as they are to anyone that is not like them.
Alas, that cannot happen. Because if we New Yorkers and Californians could pick and choose who we could help with our taxes, we'd be no better than the Germans not wanting to pay for the errors of the feckless Greeks. And in the early 2010s that almost led to a run and total collapse of the Euro as a currency.
The last thing we need in this world is for a massive run and collapse of the U.S. dollar. So to keep the world economy afloat, we New Yorkers and Californians have to cough up our dough and give them over to these Trumpist moochers and ingrates.
2
I agree with Dr. Krugman about most of his analysis save one. If Kamala Harris is the nominee, the Democrats will go down to defeat. She injected race as an issue, exposing a fault line in the party where race was considered a platform advantage. She did this over a failed policy, attempted some 40 years ago, against a man who had a generally exemplary civil rights record. It was a foolish, self-promoting ploy that will surely splinter the suburban white vote, which was moving to the Democratic camp. It may have felt good to vent her spleen on a National stage, but I fear she greatly miscalculated it’s effect.
2
It is astonishing that the Republicans have been able to have the supposed "Heartland" vote against their own self interest using the tactics of racism, fear and hatred. This has been the case with at least Reagan and now the culmination of Republican insane policies, Trump.
2
I can’t believe Obama was willing to consider Medicare cuts. Shameful.
1
I’m not normally a big Krugman fan but he’s spot on as far as the state-federal deficit of tax dollars that he discusses. One of the big problems in America is that smaller states like Kentucky have outsized influence in our government. We all know why Kentucky is the beneficiary of so much federal money. It’s Mitch McConnell. And he’s proud of his pork barrel antics. It’s an absolute disgrace. An entire country gets held hostage by a few small conservative states that should not wield so much political power.
4
Grift. Entitlement. Laziness. Lack of skills. Under all administrations there has been and increasingly is widespread abuse of disability benefits, particularly veterans benefits to many able bodied and able minded Americans who are "working the system." too many under age 40 not employed or under employed by choice are receiving tax free government payments that would be difficult for them to earn with today's middle class wages for labor.
1
Republicans ain't feeling it. I read that people in Massachusetts paid the highest state taxes yet gave the lowest charitable donations. Paying taxes is just so darn heartless! If Republicans understood the altruism of taxes maybe America would still be a colony ;)
This is nothing new. These middle America red states have habitually voted against their own interests. They do not understand what they are voting for or against. Too many of them blindly follow false Republican edicts with selective hearing and understanding, or just no understanding at all of what they need, what they want, how they benefit, and how they do not benefit. (Living under the oppressive faithlessness and flat out dishonesty of Fox News and the like doesn't help them to say the least) I am tempted to quote the phrase "there are none so blind as those who will not see" but this implies deluded people who choose to ignore what they already know and this doesn't quite fit. These people have no understanding of how any of this works and of how they are reaping the rewards of a system they rail against. it is just so pitiful and pathetic. Once this country is rid of Trump don't think we can then just stop being ashamed of the US - the majority of people in the red states will still give plenty of reason to cringe at the abject ignorance and stupidity of so many in our country. Sad.
Common sense is not common. At the dawn of the Tea Party, I remember one woman screaming "get your Federal hands off of my Medicare!" as if the CMS and the Federal government were not synonymous.
As is usual Dr. Krugman, your comments are spot on but logic and reason are lost on vast swathes of America fed at the teat of a self-serving conservative media sphere.
1
Mr. Krugman,
Am I to assume that you would encourage voters in the “net taker” states to vote Democrat in order to increase their take? That would seem to be your logic or am I missing something?
1
Based on the Balance of Payment report linked in this article.. it is actually the Republicans that are behaving as socialists.. albeit only for their own special interests. They take more money then they give back in the tax/spend federal equation.
Hypocrites.
Last weeks’ debates were an ad for the RNC, all sorts of crazy. Forget all the free stuff that can’t be legislated, now we want to extend free healthcare to people living in other countries, and give them a speeding ticket if they don’t pass the turnstile.
Image that. Not only was it’s Socialism on full display, but it was stupid socialism, how to run out of other peoples money a lot quicker
And yet Krugman plays the spin like a master. By the way Professor there is only one politician who can talk to the ordinary people, and he is President
1
Republicans hate Democrats? The Same Democrats that are saving their lives with Social Security, Public Assistance, and health care? So take it all away from them. No big deal.
1
The problem for the democrats is not that the majority of working and middle class Americans don't recognize that the party's tax and economic policies won't benefit them. Most do. Those who don't are the tail of the electoral bell curve.
The problem for the democrats is that the so-called progressives are determined to take up the banner once again for the social policies that drove white working and middle class citizens into the republican ranks.
Three issues will destroy the democratic party's chances in the next election if the party stays on its course.
1. Resurrecting school busing is the big one. This came out of left field during the debates. It's not going to happen and if the candidates pursue it, it will ensure republican victories in the suburbs and anywhere whites are not willing to make their kids part of someone's social sciences experiment.
2. Not far behind is the issue of reparations. Those same white voters will correctly see this a more of a reprisal at their expense. They will not be convinced that 40+ years of $T in Civil Rights mandated changes don't amount to reparations. They will not buy the logic.
3. Third but volatile is the issue of illegal immigration from Central America. Most Americans, including white working and middle class people, deplore Trump's policies and the thuggery of the border patrols. That said, most do not want open borders and irresponsible chatter about abolishing ICE merely cements democrats as being dumb.
2
A lot of the comments on this article seem to be subtly disparaging to Kentuckians, if not outright calling them stupid, lazy, etc. This is not a good look for coastal liberals. This is why liberals have a reputation for being smug. Ultimately, Krugman is depicting as a red-blue binary what is really a poor-rich one. There are more poor people proportionally in my state of Kentucky than in coastal states, so more people receive Medicaid. The combination of the "brain drain" (myself a participant in it), less immigration from abroad, and less internal migration from other states leaves Kentucky disproportionately an old state, so more people qualify for Medicare and Social Security. Liberals who sneer at my state are letting cultural differences distract them from the original goals of the Great Society. Please do not bash on the poor in order to obtain some cheap partisan schadenfreude. Many people growing up in my state did not have the same access to education, economic mobility, or urban dynamism that coastal states can provide. I read this newspaper because it helps me be more sympathetic to those who are struggling, not less. I don't think Krugman was trying to bash poor people in Ky. in his op-ed—the real enemy is elected Republicans who are bought out by wealthy interests.
4
The GOP today is an extreme right-wing insurgency fueled by billionaires who, together with Putin, have enabled corrupt politicians in Congress and an unhinged, sociopath as president. The billionaires and corporations got their giant tax cut at the cost of the middle-class and poor. Putin got America's foreign policy thrown into chaos and its relationships with defense and trading partners sabotaged by the "stable genius." American democracy as government by and for the people is severely wounded. If the people don't take back government and boot out the corrupt opportunists, America will become even more like Putin's Russia - an oligarchy where a gangster rules by consent of the crooks who rip off everybody else.
The argument isn’t about facts. Or rationality.
This is a propaganda fight.
Democrats risk losing by going at it in a egg-headed way.
They are appealing to blood and soil. What is the retort and campaign against? Kamala taking down Biden over busing as the one big thing will win you obscurity in the general.
Maybe the West is meant to fade.
Close military bases. End farm subsidies.
3
Thank you Dr. Krugman. The elimination of the SALT deduction and giving our NJ children a good education at the same time is the burden we Blue Staters bear. This baby boomer empty nester is paying it forward for the next generation. All the while, Red Staters take my tax dollars and Steve Mnuchin, Trump, Paul Ryan , McConnell and the rest of the Ayn Randers keep America stupid and destroy our country. All the while, they are laughing at us all.
2
You forgot to mention the super hypocrite Sen Rand Paul.
He foams at the mouth re how gov't should stay out of peoples lives but yet accepts all the welfare aid from the federal gov't by some measures greater than any state re money in and out.
Also he rails against ACA or any national health plan like our peer countries have especially Canada but yet when he was injured he wasted no time going to Canada to get quick, quality (the best) health care for his injury.
One super hypocrite.
1
Consumer spending is still holding ...walmart and china and amazon among the big beneficiaries, while corporate investment is down. Spending comes from minimum wage growth ....thank-you Dems! for keeping the economy and so many Americans moving forward.
Dump Trump and his criminal family and destructive corporate accomplices.
1
Does this mean that Mitch McConnell is actually a socialist? Asking for a friend.
It is not clear to me whether the federal expenditures in the cited report include benefits available under the Internal Revenue Code in the form of tax deductions and credits like mortgage interest and the earned income tax credit and the preferential treatment of certain income items like capital gains, dividends and employer provided health insurance. If these items are not included, the report presents an incomplete picture of the federal government's expenditures and revenues by state.
Please see the attached regarding the largest federal tax expenditures for fiscal 2019. I wonder how these break down by state. I would hope this data is available somewhere to help complete the picture.
https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/what-are-largest-tax-expenditures
OFF TOPIC:
Professor Krugman:
How about reading the econmic tea leaves re my 4 week treasury bills paying higher interest rate than all but the two longest duration treasury bonds?
What is wrong with this picture?