Unofficial Paul Krugman Archive Comments
http://
economistsview.typepad.co...krugman_th.html
February 5, 2007
Paul Krugman: Green-Zoning of America
Edited by Mark Thoma
Paul Krugman describes the administration's creation of a "supersized version of the 19th-century spoils system":
NY Times: One of the best of the many recent books about the Iraq debacle is Rajiv Chandrasekaran’s “Imperial Life in the Emerald City.” The book tells a tale of hopes squandered in the name of politicization and privatization: key jobs in Baghdad’s Green Zone were assigned on the basis of loyalty rather than know-how, while key functions were outsourced to private contractors.
Two recent reports in The New York Times serve as a reminder that the Bush administration has brought the same corruption of governance to the home front. Call it the Green-Zoning of America.
In the first article, The Times reported that a new executive order requires that each agency contain a “regulatory policy office run by a political appointee,” a change that “strengthens the hand of the White House in shaping rules that have, in the past, often been generated by civil servants and scientific experts.” Yesterday, The Times turned to the rapid growth of federal contracting, fed “by a philosophy that encourages outsourcing almost everything government does.”
These are two different pieces of the same story: under the guise of promoting a conservative agenda, the Bush administration has created a supersized version of the 19th-century spoils system.
The blueprint for Bush-era governance was laid out in a January 2001 manifesto from the Heritage Foundation, titled “Taking Charge of Federal Personnel.” The manifesto’s message, in brief, was that the professional civil service should be regarded as the enemy of the new administration’s conservative agenda. ...
How should the civil service be defeated? First and foremost, Heritage demanded that politics take precedence...: the new administration “must make appointment decisions based on loyalty first and expertise second.”
Second, Heritage called for a big increase in outsourcing... This would supposedly reduce costs, but it would also have the desirable effect of reducing the total number of civil servants.
The Bush administration energetically put these recommendations into effect. ... The ostensible reason for politicizing and privatizing was to promote the conservative ideal of smaller, more efficient government. But the small-government rhetoric was never sincere: from Day 1, the administration set out to create a vast new patronage machine.
Those political appointees chosen for their loyalty, not their expertise, aren’t very good at doing their proper jobs — as all the world learned after Hurricane Katrina struck. But they have been very good at rewarding campaign contributors...
And the executive order described by The Times will make it even easier for political appointees to ... tailor... government regulations to suit the interests of companies that support the G.O.P. — or to give lucrative contracts to people with the right connections.
Meanwhile, never mind the idea that outsourcing of government functions should be used to promote competition and save money. The Times reports that “fewer than half of all ... new contracts and payments against existing contracts — are now subject to full and open competition,” down from 79 percent in 2001. And many contractors are paid far more than it would cost to do the job with government employees...
What’s truly amazing is how far back we’ve slid in such a short time. The modern civil service system dates back more than a century; in just six years the Bush administration has managed to undo many of that system’s achievements. And the administration still has two years to go.
Ask yourselves this: are these the actions of politicians who see themselves leaving Washington in January 2009?
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/0...on/
l01bush.html
When Regulation Met Politics
To the Editor:
"Bush Directive Increases Sway on Regulation":
While the Bush administration continues its quixotic mission to bring democracy to Iraq, it continues to find innovative ways to limit democracy here at home.
Under the pretext of shedding more light on the regulations and guidance documents issued by regulatory agencies, the White House, you report, is requiring federal agencies to have "a regulatory policy office run by a political appointee, to supervise the development of rules and documents providing guidance to regulated industries."
This effort has but one purpose: to subvert the traditional regulatory process under which "civil servants and scientific experts" have taken the lead in shaping rules interpreting laws passed by Congress....
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/3...serland&
emc=rss
January 30, 2007
Bush Directive Increases Sway on Regulation
By ROBERT PEAR
WASHINGTON — President Bush has signed a directive that gives the White House much greater control over the rules and policy statements that the government develops to protect public health, safety, the environment, civil rights and privacy....
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/0...serland&
emc=rss
February 4, 2007
In Washington, Contractors Take on Biggest Role Ever
By SCOTT SHANE and RON NIXON
WASHINGTON — In June, short of people to process cases of incompetence and fraud by federal contractors, officials at the General Services Administration responded with what has become the government's reflexive answer to almost every problem.
They hired another contractor....
I read that article too Emma, and it makes me want to scream... contractors! .....it seems capitali$m always trumps true patriotism and they are proud of it!
You might be interested in this article too;
http://www.zmag.org/content/show...fm?
ItemID=10014
excerpt;
.......the famed nuclear laboratories, Los Alamos, Lawrence Livermore, and Sandia -- where the high priests of nuclear physics are free to explore the outer realms of their craft -- have long been above prosaic bottom-line or board-room considerations. Until this year, that is.
At Los Alamos, the University of California has already been replaced by a "limited liability corporation," says Tyler Przybylek of the Department of Energy's Evaluation Board; and, more generally, the writing is on the containment wall. Nuclear laboratories are no longer to be intellectual institutions devoted to science but part of a corporate-business model where research, design, and ultimately the weapons themselves will become products to be marketed. The new dress code will be suits and ties, not lab coats and safety glasses. Under Bechtel, new management will lead to a "tightly structured organization" that will "drive efficiency," predicts John Browne, who directed the lab at Los Alamos from 1997-2003. "If there is a product the government wants," he concludes, "they will necessarily be focused on that. A lot more money will be at stake."
Los Alamos was the first to go. Now, the management contract for the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, is on the auction block as well.
DJM,
IOW, Los Alamos and Lawerence-Livermore will soon become second-rate, politically subservient facilities emasculated of their sicentific prestige. We're on our way to becoming a second-rate country, but certain corporations and individuals will become staggeringly rich.
http://www.pkarchive.org/column/...umn/
111902.html
November 19, 2002
Victors and Spoils
By Paul Krugman - New York Times
Rule No. 1: Always have a cover story. The ostensible purpose of the Bush administration's plan to open up 850,000 federal jobs to private competition is to promote efficiency. Competitive vigor, we're told, will end bureaucratic sloth; costs will go down, and everyone — except for a handful of overpaid union members — will be better off....
[Paul Krugman suggested reading this article as well.]
In such conditions, rebellions are bred.
Didn't know where to post this comment but just wanted to say THANK YOU for providing this site. I cannot afford to subscribe to Times Select and was disappointed that I could no longer read Krugman. What a great service you've provided.
Helix6:
You may recall that I have more than once asked how it is we can safely presume that Bush and his crew will leave the White House at the end of his term.
I have also pointed out that so much of what defines today's government functionaries is their loyalty to Bush, as opposed to their loyalty to the Constitution.
This crew is one of the biggest crop of gangsters to have come in a while and the sooner Bush and Cheney are impeached the better.
The Libby trial is proving very interesting...will Cheney be able to put a lid on it all ?
Randy Stone
gwu --
In addition to the annotated notes Mark Thomas provides on Prof. Krugman's articles, sometimes truthout.org reprints the complete article as well (presumably with permission).
For example:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_200...6/
020507E.shtml
Didn't the communist party in the USSR insist on a loyal party member be in on all economic and political decisions at all level of gov't and "business"?
arlbyjr,
Well, you have a point, but matters are actually almost exactly reversed here. In the USSR, the government controlled all business activity. In the USA, business controls all government activity.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/0...serland&
emc=rss
February 6, 2007
The Price of Corn
The current price of corn is $3.23 a bushel, more than half again what it was a year ago, and beginning to bring to mind the record $5.545 a bushel set in July 1996.
There are many reasons for this price spurt. The ethanol boom has created a sharp new demand for corn....
Cheap corn and wheat have been of signal importance in America's economic development; corn more so; and I suggest paying close attention to the price of corn from here, if not already, for economic and investment consequences. I always try to notice commodity price relations.
Also, I am concerned about the long term price of corn in Mexico and do not have a sense of what such a higher price may signal in rural Mexico let alone in poorer communities if tortilla-food prices are allowed to increase. There is much Mexican concern, but no sense of what a long term countering policy may be.
Helix6:
You wrote:
"...In the USSR, the government controlled all business activity. In the USA, business controls all government activity..."
Now, what are the real world differences such an approach would suggest ?
Comments, please.
Randy
I know a few people who bought the corn burning stoves....they are not pleased with the increase in the price of their fuel this winter either.
Thousands March Over Tortilla Crisis
Reuters
http://www.truthout.org/issues_0.../
020507LB.shtml
Thursday 01 February 2007
Tens of thousands of demonstrators have marched through Mexico's capital to protest a surge in tortilla prices......
Food vs. Fuel
By John Carey and Adrienne Carter, with Assif Shameen
BusinessWeek
Monday 05 February 2007
As energy demands devour crops once meant for sustenance, the economics of agriculture are being rewritten.
also at Truthout
.... Higher corn prices are already rippling though the economy, lifting prices for soybeans and other crops, and products like tortillas. Next could be meat, poultry, and even soft drinks. Chicken producers estimate that the industry's feed costs are already up $1.5 billion per year. "Ultimately, these increases will be passed on to consumers, and we could have a fairly dramatic inflation scenario for food costs.....
The law of unintended consequences, but not unforeseen at this point...
I suppose Mr Krugman will soon write about the US Budget for 2008. I live somewhere in Europe (and am a local) so what I heard about it is on some european TV channel - not necessarily accurate, but frightening all the same:
total 2008 budget = 2,900 billion $, military spending = 700 billion $.
I wonder who is threatening the US to such levels, that such formidable military expense is required.
I also wonder what military, after being allowed such lavish spending, will never be tempted to use its toys. And if to be allowed to use its toys, it needs to invent a pretext, who will stop them ?
In other words: you Americans frighten me. You spend too much on your military toys for the rest of the world's good. Are you that f... rich that you can afford to spend close to 25% of your taxes on military spending ? Why can't you stop that ?
Randy,
Well, it's rather simple, really. Governments are concerned with law, whereas businesses are concerned with profits. So in a soviet-style system, law is used to establish order and manage the production and distribution of goods and services. In an American-style system, businesses are responsible for the production of goods and services, and the law is seen as a tool to maximize profits, meaning ideally that laws will apply to labor, protect property, and provide free access to the common wealth, but will not apply to capital or capitalists. Use of the law to establish order is meaningful only insofar as it assists in the maximization of profits.
Obviously, neither system in its extreme form is good, and so nearly all modern societies are a blend of both approaches. The fundamental problem with either pure form is that control rests in the hands of those few at the top. As time goes on, this almost inevitably gives rise to forms of despotism. The strength of the American system was the balancing of power between the government and the business community, with those weilding power in the government sphere being subject to recall through periodic elections.
The brilliance of Newt Gingrich was in recognizing that the business community could gain the upper hand through control of the media, legalized bribery in the form of well-funded lobby groups, and a spoils system whereby business entities would receive lucrative government contracts, reduced oversight, and favorable tax structuring in return for generous campaign contributions and cozy perks.
Predictably, the result has been a shift in which those at the top heve become increasingly insulated from recall by the general population, with the inevitable drift toward despotism.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/0...serland&
emc=rss
February 7, 2007
Playing Politics With Justice
The Bush administration has pushed out at least seven United States attorneys recently for what appear to be purely political reasons. Senator Charles Schumer, Democrat of New York, has opened an investigation, and not a moment too soon. The American justice system would be seriously damaged if United States attorneys were stripped of their independence.
United States attorneys, the federal prosecutors who work in the states, are supposed to be respected, independent members of the bar. They have extraordinary power: they can file criminal charges and conduct investigations that can destroy reputations. They are supposed to be confirmed by the Senate, and there is a long tradition that they are not removed during the term of the president who appointed them, except for serious cause.
The Bush administration has broken with that tradition in a way that reeks of politics....
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/
0...l07wounded.html
All War Injuries Count
To the Editor:
"Agency Says Higher Casualty Total Was Posted in Error":
What a relief it must be to the thousands of troops wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan by anything other than hostile fire to know that as far as the Pentagon is concerned their injuries don't actually count as war injuries. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are the precondition to the activities that led to their injuries. That is, their injuries are a direct consequence of the war and should be part of the Defense Department's casualty total.
Dismissing their injuries as the Defense Department does is disrespectful of their service in the name of misleading political posturing. To then couch this secondary assault on America's troops and on the truth as a "correction" is mind-boggling.
Jonathan Maskit
Granville, Ohio, Jan. 30, 2007
The writer is an assistant professor of philosophy at Denison University.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/3...serland&
emc=rss
January 30, 2007
Agency Says Higher Casualty Total Was Posted in Error
By DENISE GRADY
For the last few months, anyone who consulted the Veterans Affairs Department's Web site to learn how many American troops had been wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan would have found this number: 50,508.
But on Jan. 10, without explanation, the figure plummeted to 21,649.
Which number is correct? The answer depends on a larger question, the definition of wounded. If the term includes combat or "hostile" injuries inflicted by the enemy, the definition the Pentagon uses, the smaller number would be right.
But if it also applies to injuries from accidents like vehicle crashes and to mental and physical illnesses that developed in the war zone, the meaning that veterans' groups favor, 50,508 would be accurate.
A spokesman for the veterans' department, Matt Burns, said the change in the count was made simply to correct an error. Mr. Burns said the department posted the higher figure by mistake in November, when an employee who was updating the site inadvertently added noncombat injuries listed by the Defense Department. The Pentagon Web site had the correct total all along....
DJM:
Not unforseen indeed. Ethanol is a red herring. As PK has pointed out, the yeild in the Ethanol production process is ridiculously slim.
What will happen, though, is that Oil companies will sell even more oil, and all those corn states will be gorging on pork.
We'd get a heck of a lot further by paving over those corn fields with silicon. Actually, we'd get a heck of a lot farther by paving over Nevada with silicon and letting those Iowa farmers keep growing their corn. But, of course, that would cut the Oil cartel would be cut out of the action, so it ain't gonna happen.
I'm always amused when I hear that wind farms and solar arrays are objectionable because of their environmental impact, but the environmental impact of plowing over thousands of square miles to grow corn for ethanol production never seems to make it onto the radar.
Helix6, one of the articles I read mentioned the poor pork industry losing out to the ethanol industry ( very much like the tortillas and the people for whom that is a staple food)...it takes a lot of corn to raise those pigs..... and that is where the cost of many of our basics will be going soon. UP, UP and AWAY. Yes, the article also touched on the amount of energy it takes to create the ethanol; "...producing 10 gallons of ethanol consumes the energy equivalent of about 7 gallons of gasoline, and greenhouse gas reductions are minuscule."
that article was Food vs. Fuel at
http://www.truthout.org/issues_0.../ 020507LB.shtml
the original site;
http://www.businessweek.com/maga...06/
b4020093.htm
http://www.calvorn.com/gallery/p...g=eng&
u=84574,0
Gadwall
New York City--Central Park, Harlem Meer.
Interesting comments.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/
0...l08baghdad.html
A Scene in Baghdad
To the Editor:
A front-page photograph illustrating the new security plan for Iraq is eloquent and insightful.
A photograph illustrating the new security plan for Iraq is eloquent and insightful.
An Iraqi woman has collapsed and is being comforted by her clearly frightened adult son. They are surrounded by four United States troops, one of whom has made himself at home in her living room.
What does this photo capture? It brings us the new Bush administration security plan. The mother collapsed after her son "was questioned by American soldiers."
How can anyone, other than Vice President Dick Cheney, make himself believe that we are winning the hearts and minds of the people of Iraq?
Sherry Fyman
New York, Feb. 7, 2007
We must leave Iraq, immediately.
Some heartening news articles for those of us who share your view, Emma:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_200...6/
020807K.shtml
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS...q.ap/
index.html
While the second article is about the somewhat useless no confidence vote, at least the right approach is being taken here: just get the message in, don't bury it in amendments and politics. Really, while I understand that most people say that the resolution is worthless because it is non-binding, I personally say that that if the White House is fighting it vigorously, it must be striking a dissonant chord somewhere in the cabinet, and that's good enough for me. I prefer something binding, but if we can move on two fronts, so much the better.
Even more interesting is this follow up piece of Bush's psychological profile:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_200...6/
020707R.shtml
Should anyone be interested in the original, let me know. I'll dig it up and post it.
quidley,
My take on the "non-binding resolution" is that it is being used by Bush & Co. as an opportunity to put in legislation that will prevent congress from cutting funding for the troop surge. I.e., "We disagree with the President on this troop surge, but we hereby prohibit ourselves from refusing to fund it."
Let's face it. We now live in a military dictatorship. At least I got to live most of my life before the American dream became the world's nightmare.
Nice.
Helix6 et al. - come on guys, don't be so despondant.
You can always migrate to Australia!
We have low unemployment and a skills shortage. If you have any capital, business migrants are welcomed with open arms.
We have a 'California' climate and a national health service (both important if you're of an age when you are on first name terms with your pharmacist!).
We have a conservative government at present (though nothing like as bad as your Republicans) and a strong Labour opposition, who are currently several percent ahead in the polls with an election due later this year.
If Bush only screws up your country and not the whole world (Iran), why not come on down! (I'll put another shrimp on the barbie)
Commenting by HaloScan
