Paul Krugman's moment of truthiness

I suffered cognitive dissonance this morning when I read this from Krugman:

We also all know that the reality [of how democracy in America functions] falls far short of the ideal. Voters are often misinformed, and politicians aren’t reliably truthful. Still, we like to imagine that voters generally get it right in the end, and that politicians are eventually held accountable for what they do. 

But is even this modified, more realistic vision of democracy in action still relevant? Or has our political system been so degraded by misinformation and disinformation that it can no longer function? 

He goes on to fulminate about Exhibit A: Americans do not know that the deficit has been dropping throughout the Obama years, as they did not know that the deficit was falling through Clinton's first term.

Why am I disconcerted by Krugman's consternation? Of course I share his frustration at the "outright falsehoods" that Republican leaders routinely mouth about the deficit. I agree, as he laments in this column, that our political discourse is shot through with truthiness.

But unlike Krugman (apparently), I recall what Krugman wrote..yesterday. Reacting to a recent morsel of egregious economic misinformation in a Robert Samuelson column, he opined:

Reminder: chained-CPI means new revenue

Chuck Todd, attempting to flesh out  some talk show chatter from Eric Cantor about budget compromise (GOP-style, i..e., with no new revenue), floats a GOP trial balloon:

Left unsaid by Cantor is what entitlement reform has to look like. There’s been some chatter in GOP circles that it’s about simply taking the president’s offer on chained CPI.  The argument by some Republicans on this strategy is that Republicans would be able to claim victory on stopping the sequester and getting an opening to begin entitlement reform without capitulating to the president’s demand that chained CPI (which would change Social Security benefits among other things) come with some new tax increases. But would the president be open to this? Chained CPI in exchange for turning off sequester? Seems reasonable now… but who knows.

Good riddance to Grand Bargain

As far as I can tell, the Washington Post's blow-by-blow of the disintegration of the "grand bargain" Obama was negotiating with House GOP leadership this summer does not change the basic outline of what we already know.  Obama was getting close to signing off on a horrendous deal with grossly insufficient new tax revenue; the Gang of Six rode in with the outline of legislation closer to the Bowles-Simpson mold than the deal in progress; many GOP senators made approving noises; the $1.5 trillion over ten years in new revenues called for by the Gang of Six outline highlighted the unpalatability of Obama's deal for Democrats; he tried to boost the headline revenue in his deal from $800 billion to $1.2 trillion; Boehner and Cantor recoiled; Obama retracted the new ask and expressed willingness to sign off on the prior deal contours, but Boehner left him at the altar.

The account, in my view, simply highlights old unaswerables:

That sick "Obama's sliding" feeling

Bitterly disappointed as I was in Obama for letting himself be hijacked in the debt ceiling deal, I have been willing to reserve judgment through the next round -- the supercommittee negotiations -- and possibly through the endgame of the Bush tax cut expirations.  But this from Obama today triggered that "there he goes again" reflex:

Last week, we reached an agreement that will make historic cuts to defense and domestic spending.  But there’s not much further we can cut in either of those categories.  What we need to do now is combine those spending cuts with two additional steps:  tax reform that will ask those who can afford it to pay their fair share and modest adjustments to health care programs like Medicare (my emphasis).

Couple that with this warning from Panetta:

Talking points m.o.

Remember this from John Boehner and Eric Cantor, in a letter to Rahm Emanuel dated Feb. 8?

If the President intends to present any kind of legislative proposal at this discussion, will he make it available to members of Congress and the American people at least 72 hours beforehand?Our ability to move forward in a bipartisan way through this discussion rests on openness and transparency.

 Different times, different circumstances, I guess, today:

Appearing on Fox News Sunday, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) criticized the White House's plan to post a health care reform proposal online, just days before the upcoming health care summit. "You know, apparently we're going to be there most of the day and have an opportunity to have a lot of discussion," said McConnell. "But if they're going lay out the plan they want to pass four days in advance, then why are -- what are we discussing on Thursday?"

I realize that these guys are, technically, different people. But a party line is a party line, especially if you're a Republican. They need to get their (bull)shit together.

Related posts:
Calling Boehner Cantor et al
The earth beneath their feet: Obama recasts health care reform
Aghanistan redux: Obama's HCR surge
Obama picks "none of the above" again
A gallon of water at bedtime for bedwetters: Obama's HCR prescription
How Obama will -- and won't -- lead on health care

Calling Boehner Cantor et al...

Remember that demand from the House Republican leadership that the White House put up a health care plan for all to see 72 hours in advance of the health care summit?  Er....

WASHINGTON  [AP]— The White House and congressional leaders are preparing a detailed health care proposal designed to win passage without Republican support if GOP lawmakers fail to embrace bipartisan compromises at President Barack Obama's summit next week.

A senior White House official said Thursday that Democratic negotiators are resolving final differences in House and Senate health bills that passed last year with virtually no Republican help. The White House plans to post the proposals online by Monday morning, three days ahead of the Feb. 25 summit, which GOP leaders are approaching warily

I have struggled, here here and here, with my own tendency to see a coherent strategy in Obama's apparent dithering on health care since the Jan. 19 debacle in Massachusetts.  The wish may be father to the thought. Still, I am holding my breath. The pieces may be clicking into place. The summit certainly has Obama's signature on it.

P.S. I cannot wait to hear Obama answer this:

But Cantor has now made it official: He’s in. “He plans to ask the President why he hasn’t listened to the American people, who have rejected the approach that the President, the Speaker, and Leader Reid have taken,” Dayspring said, adding that Cantor will also “discuss Republican ideas that lower health care costs, which the CBO has confirmed.”