[Azred]

Originally Posted by Timber Loftis President Obama has made it clear that he’s willing to sign on to a deficit-reduction deal that consists overwhelmingly of spending cuts, and includes draconian cuts in key social programs, up to and including a rise in the age of Medicare eligibility. These are extraordinary concessions. As The Times’s Nate Silver points out, the president has offered deals that are far to the right of what the average American voter prefers — in fact, if anything, they’re a bit to the right of what the average Republican voter prefers!

I highly doubt this. The President and his team have not been offering their own comprehensive budget plans, only stating what they will or will not accept. The reason the Administration is so keen on wanting a budget deal is simple--when the budget fails to work whatever magic all the politicians seem to think it will work, the Democrats will loudly cry "look at how awful the Republican budget has made things!" as 2012 elections get into high gear.

There is absolutely no reason for any Republican in the House to be involved in budget negotiations. The budget has to be passed by the House and signed by the President. All the House Republicans have to do is put together whatever budget they want and then send it to Obama's desk, at which point he has three options: sign it, veto it, or let it sit until it becomes law by default. Their best strategy is precisely this--it will make him make a decision.

Originally Posted by Timber Loftis First of all, the modern G.O.P. fundamentally does not accept the legitimacy of a Democratic presidency — any Democratic presidency. We saw that under Bill Clinton, and we saw it again as soon as Mr. Obama took office.

The Republicans didn't run to the Supreme Court crying "it isn't fair--they stole our election".

*************

Mr. Krugman wants to discuss responsibility, hm? Why didn't the Democrat-controlled Congress from 2008-2010 pass budgets that they liked? Answer: they didn't want to take all the blame onto themselves.

Why did they always want "bi-partisan" support? Again, so that they wouldn't have to accept all the responsibility.

Now...I am no fan of Republicans, either--Heaven knows they are just as much to blame for everything as the Democrats--but it is because of articles like this that no rational person considers Mr. Krugman to be anything other than a hack.