Liberal Heroes Miss the Mark in Today's Times Columns

New York Times columnist Charles Blow sure blew one this morning and, for good measure, so did Paul Krugman—our two most reliably liberal and intelligent columnists!

Blow’s subject was the do-nothing Congress. Ordinarily thoughtful and original, this time Blow fell into the media cliché of assigning symmetrical partisan blame for Congressional inaction, as if the two parties were equally culpable.

The piece was full of Blow’s signature: accurate statistics. This Congress has passed only 108 pieces of substantive legislation, the lowest in decades, he reports. It was in session an average of only 28 hours a week.

Citing the usual cause of “polarization,” Blow indignantly concluded: “Legislating is only a hobby for members of this Congress. Their full time job is raising hell, raising money and lowering the bar of acceptable behavior.”

Excuse me, but the problem is not “Congress.” One party—the Democratic Party— behaves quite normally, seeking to do the public’s business. The other party has become radically obstructionist, effectively demanding: Give us what we want or we shut down the government.

Today’s average Democratic legislator is actually a little more centrist ideologically than the Democrats of the eras of Bill Clinton or Lyndon Johnson. To report this as a symmetrical problem of institutional dysfunction is to miss the point and to mislead the reader.

Even Paul Krugman, a national treasure, got it wrong today. In addition to functioning as a truth squad on a whole range of economic issues, Krugman bends over backwards to find nice things to say about the Obama administration. That’s fine; Obama is getting pummeled and it’s kind of Krugman to be a good doobie.

Today, however, his subject was the administration’s financial reform,“derided by the right as anti-business,” he writes, “and by the left as hopelessly inadequate.” Uh-oh, another case of false symmetry. The fact that both sides criticize it doesn’t mean that the truth is somewhere in the middle.

Krugman goes on to declare that “financial reform is working a lot better than anyone listening to the news media would imagine.” His two cases in point are the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and reform of too-big-to-fail banks.

Well, the CFPB is a great institution, but it only scratches the surface of the systemic ills that still afflict the financial system. And the last time I checked, too-big-to-fail banks were bigger, with more concentrated market share, than ever.

Contrary to Krugman’s assertions, it’s by no means clear that the government could avoid bailing out one of these behemoths if it went down. And that doesn’t even address all of the other unreformed abuses: high-speed trading that rips off ordinary investors and puts the system at risk, hedge funds and private equity firms exempt from the usual disclosures, derivatives that can evade regulations by being traded offshore, settlements of mortgage abuses that let big banks off far too easily and fail to help enough struggling underwater homeowners, a shadow banking system that still operates outside regulatory sunlight, bond-rating firms that were never called to account for their conflicts of interest, investment bankers who were still borrowing in short-term markets to underwrite risky bonds—and lots more.

The Dodd-Frank financial reform package supported by the administration was a start, but financial engineering still puts the real economy at risk. Hey, nobody’s perfect, and it’s August. But these heroes should know better.


Remind me: how many House passed bills has Harry Reid blocked in the Senate?

Remind me: how many filibusters has Mitch McConnell supported to block bills and appointments in the Senate?
Remind me: how many Senate-initiated bills has John Boehner blocked in the House?
Remind me: how many times has John Boehner allowed the House to vote to repeal Obamacare when it was clear the Senate wouldn't support it?

"Contrary to Krugman's assertion, it's by no means clear that the government could avoid bailing out one of these behemoths if it went down." Uh, Krugman isn't asserting that at all. He's asserting that if a behemoth did go down, the government might indeed have to step in to save it--but under Dodd-Frank, it would do so by nationalizing said behemoth. Shareholders of the delinquent bank would be wiped out just as if the bank had gone into liquidation.

I don't know if he's right, but that's what he's saying.

Guess I should have read all the comments before writing my own - I just echoed yours, a few comments down.

Why is it wrong for Krugman to show what may be good about some of the major issues completed by Obama?? Is it that the only good news is no news--to reverse the old saying? When readers and TV watchers hear only what the Republican Congress says about what's going on in DC since Boehner is head of House and more seldom one may hear from Reed but not very likely, someone needs to remind the readers of the Times and possibly a few others that all is not bad; there has been some good. So take these. Krugman was quite critical of Obama in O's early years but has had to come around to say all is not as bad as he anticipated. Give him credit for admitting he was wrong. Very few writers of any persuasion do that ever And he is right about his first two items. Let's just hope no one has to nationalize any bank because it misused its funds.

Reinstate Glass-Steagall before the economy crashes again! Repealing it is a huge mark on the Clinton legacy and gives me real concern about Hillary in 2016.

While we are looking at too friendly evaluations, "Today’s average Democratic legislator is actually a little more centrist ideologically than the Democrats of the eras of Bill Clinton or Lyndon Johnson" falls under the category of "Oh Really?"

Clinton gave us NAFTA, DOMA, DADT, the WTO, the destruction of Glass-Steagall. While LBJ waged the war in Vietnam, he also pushed through the National Endowment for the Humanities and the National Endowment for the Arts, Head Start, food stamps, Work Study, Medicare and Medicaid.

Today's Dems are basically a continuation of corporate puppet Clinton with a little more awareness on LGBT rights. That's not more centrist than Clinton and it's way more to the right than LBJ.

It seems you say Krugman is using false symetry by falsely(?) saying the left thinks financial reform is hopelessly inadequate. Then you go on to list how it's hopelessly inadequate? You're either funny or confusing.

"Contrary to Krugman’s assertions, it’s by no means clear that the government could avoid bailing out one of these behemoths if it went down."

The problem is that the above was NOT Krugman's assertion. What he DID say in his piece was that if another bailout of a TBTF bank becomes necessary, that bank may now be nationalized. This would amount to saving the BANK, but abandoning the BANKSTERS, as well as the shareholders (who have done so well lately that they can well afford to take the short end).

You need to be logged in to comment.
(If there's one thing we know about comment trolls, it's that they're lazy)