http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/08/opinion/08krugman.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha212

What Obama Wants

“But let’s be frank. It’s getting harder and harder to trust Mr. Obama’s motives in the budget fight, given the way his economic rhetoric has veered to the right. In fact, if all you did was listen to his speeches, you might conclude that he basically shares the G.O.P.’s diagnosis of what ails our economy and what should be done to fix it. And maybe that’s not a false impression; maybe it’s the simple truth. “

By Paul Krugman

NY Times Op-Ed: July 8, 2011

On Thursday, President Obama met with Republicans to discuss a debt deal. We don’t know exactly what was proposed, but news reports before the meeting suggested that Mr. Obama is offering huge spending cuts, possibly including cuts to Social Security and an end to Medicare’s status as a program available in full to all Americans, regardless of income.

Obviously, the details matter a lot, but progressives, and Democrats in general, are understandably very worried. Should they be? In a word, yes.

Now, this might just be theater: Mr. Obama may be pulling an anti-Corleone, making Republicans an offer they can’t accept. The reports say that the Obama plan also involves significant new revenues, a notion that remains anathema to the Republican base. So the goal may be to paint the G.O.P. into a corner, making Republicans look like intransigent extremists — which they are.

But let’s be frank. It’s getting harder and harder to trust Mr. Obama’s motives in the budget fight, given the way his economic rhetoric has veered to the right. In fact, if all you did was listen to his speeches, you might conclude that he basically shares the G.O.P.’s diagnosis of what ails our economy and what should be done to fix it. And maybe that’s not a false impression; maybe it’s the simple truth.

One striking example of this rightward shift came in last weekend’s presidential address, in which Mr. Obama had this to say about the economics of the budget: “Government has to start living within its means, just like families do. We have to cut the spending we can’t afford so we can put the economy on sounder footing, and give our businesses the confidence they need to grow and create jobs.”

That’s three of the right’s favorite economic fallacies in just two sentences. No, the government shouldn’t budget the way families do; on the contrary, trying to balance the budget in times of economic distress is a recipe for deepening the slump. Spending cuts right now wouldn’t “put the economy on sounder footing.” They would reduce growth and raise unemployment. And last but not least, businesses aren’t holding back because they lack confidence in government policies; they’re holding back because they don’t have enough customers — a problem that would be made worse, not better, by short-term spending cuts.

In his brief remarks after Thursday’s meeting, by the way, Mr. Obama seemed to reiterate the Herbert Hooveresque view that deficit reduction is what we need to “grow the economy.”

People have asked me why the president’s economic advisers aren’t telling him not to believe in the confidence fairy — that is, not to believe the assertion, popular on the right but overwhelmingly refuted by the evidence, that slashing spending in the face of a depressed economy will magically create jobs. My answer is, what economic advisers? Almost all the high-profile economists who joined the Obama administration early on have either left or are leaving.

Nor have they been replaced. As The Wall Street Journal recently noted, there are a “stunning” number of vacancies in important economic posts. So who’s defining the administration’s economic views?

Some of what we’re hearing is presumably coming from the political team, whose members seem to believe that a move toward Republican positions, reminiscent of former President Bill Clinton’s “triangulation” in the 1990s, is the key to Mr. Obama’s re-election. And Mr. Clinton did, indeed, rebound from a big defeat in the 1994 midterms to win big two years later. But some of us think that the rebound had less to do with his rhetorical move to the center than with the five million jobs the economy added over those two years — an achievement not likely to be repeated this time, especially not in the face of harsh spending cuts.

Anyway, I don’t believe that it’s all political calculation. Watching Mr. Obama and listening to his recent statements, it’s hard not to get the impression that he is now turning for advice to people who really believe that the deficit, not unemployment, is the top issue facing America right now, and who also believe that the great bulk of deficit reduction should come from spending cuts. It’s worth noting that even Republicans weren’t suggesting cuts to Social Security; this is something Mr. Obama and those he listens to apparently want for its own sake.

Which raises the big question: If a debt deal does emerge, and it overwhelmingly reflects conservative priorities and ideology, should Democrats in Congress vote for it?

Mr. Obama’s people will no doubt argue that their fellow party members should trust him, that whatever deal emerges was the best he could get. But it’s hard to see why a president who has gone out of his way to echo Republican rhetoric and endorse false conservative views deserves that kind of trust.

* * *

Borowitz Report

July 10, 2011

A Letter from Rupert Murdoch

Where I Stand on the News Corporation Scandal

Dear Friends,

As details of the scandal surrounding my company, News Corporation, have emerged in recent days – including employees hacking into mobile phones and bribing the police – my defense has been consistent: I had no idea what was going on.

Now, I’m sure many of you are wondering, how could I, Rupert Murdoch, one of the most powerful men in the world, have no idea what is going on? The answer, my friends, is simple: I get all of my information from my own newspapers. If you relied on News of the World, The Sun, and The New York Post for your information, I can assure you that you wouldn’t have a clue what was going on, either.

Some of you aren’t buying this argument. You maintain that a media titan like me would get his information from sources beyond newspapers – like TV, for example. Well, that’s true. But in my case, the only TV I watch is the Fox News Channel. So not only do I not know what is going on around me, I know nothing about the theory of evolution, global warming, or President Obama’s birthplace.

If you still don’t believe that I know nothing, here’s a final piece of evidence: I paid $500 million to acquire MySpace. Case closed.

Now that we’ve established that I know nothing, let me address some of the allegations about News Corp. that have come up in recent days: first and foremost, that our reporters have regularly bribed the police to obtain information. I am shocked and appalled by this charge. News Corporation has a longstanding zero tolerance policy regarding information, both the getting of it and the publishing of it. Going forward, we will be subjecting our employees to a series of random information tests. Any employees found to be possessing even trace amounts of facts will be immediately terminated.

Finally, it has come to my attention that several of my company’s tabloids have featured pictures of women with their shirts off. I am as shocked by this news as you are and I intend to launch a full investigation.

In closing, I want to assure you that I intend to make amends for any and all of the wrongdoing perpetrated by employees of News Corp. in recent years. And to that end, I have plan: I implore the British government to let me own 100% of the satellite broadcasting giant B-Sky-B. I have made some grievous mistakes with the media properties I already control, and the only way I can think of to make things right is by controlling even more.

Your friend,

Rupert

Get a free subscription to Borowitz Report here.