In a November 2004 interview, Krugman criticized the "enormous" Bush deficit.Then, Elder goes on to — yeah, I know, shooting fish in a barrel – show how the nature of Krugman's complaints are highly dependent on who is in office.
"We have a world-class budget deficit," [Krugman] said, "not just as in absolute terms, of course — it's the biggest budget deficit in the history of the world — but it's a budget deficit that, as a share of GDP, is right up there."
The deficit in fiscal 2004 was $413 billion, or 3.5% of gross domestic product.
Back then, a disapproving Krugman called the deficit "comparable to the worst we've ever seen in this country. ... The only time postwar that the United States has had anything like these deficits is the middle Reagan years, and that was with unemployment close to 10%."
The projected deficit for fiscal year 2010 is over $1.5 trillion, or more than 10% of GDP. This sets a post-WWII record in both absolute numbers and as a percentage of GDP. And if the Obama administration's optimistic projections of economic growth fall short, things will get much worse.Yet, the winner of the Fauxbel Prize in Economics appears unphased.
"[F]ear-mongering on the deficit may end up doing as much harm as the fear-mongering on weapons of mass destruction."
It goes without saying — or should among this audience — that Bush was a profligate spender to the point of idiocy, not to mention no friend of economic liberty, in general.
Still, it's good to see Krugman being flayed with his own words for his utter hypocrisy, even if hypocrisy is the least of the Progressive's sins. (They're much more dangerous when they're completely sincere.) And, given his perch from the New York Times, it can only help to have the toad's inconsistencies openly revealed.
Sometimes, even the non-cynical among us can enjoy a moment of guilt-free Schadenfreude.