A rabid New York Times Liberal columnist has apparently given up on Obama. Paul Krugman is his name.

Krugman writes an editorial column in the New York Times, entitled The Conscience of a Liberal. We include this brief editorial statement because it helps illustrates the totality of displeasure with regard to Mr. Obama. Krugman's bio includes these comments from the Times site:

Paul Krugman joined The New York Times in 1999 as a columnist on the Op-Ed Page and continues as professor of Economics and International Affairs at Princeton University.

Mr. Krugman received his B.A. from Yale University in 1974 and his Ph.D. from MIT in 1977. He has taught at Yale, MIT and Stanford. At MIT he became the Ford International Professor of Economics.

Mr. Krugman is the author or editor of 20 books and more than 200 papers in professional journals and edited volumes. His professional reputation rests largely on work in international trade and finance; he is one of the founders of the "new trade theory," a major rethinking of the theory of international trade. In recognition of that work, in 1991 the American Economic Association awarded him its John Bates Clark medal

January 26, 2010, 9:01 am

Obama Liquidates Himself

A spending freeze? That’s the brilliant response of the Obama team to their first serious political setback?

It’s appalling on every level.

It’s bad economics, depressing demand when the economy is still suffering from mass unemployment. Jonathan Zasloff writes that Obama seems to have decided to fire Tim Geithner and replace him with “the rotting corpse of Andrew Mellon” (Mellon was Herbert Hoover’s Treasury Secretary, who according to Hoover told him to “liquidate the workers, liquidate the farmers, purge the rottenness”.)

It’s bad long-run fiscal policy, shifting attention away from the essential need to reform health care and focusing on small change instead.

And it’s a betrayal of everything Obama’s supporters thought they were working for. Just like that, Obama has embraced and validated the Republican world-view — and more specifically, he has embraced the policy ideas of the man he defeated in 2008. A correspondent writes, “I feel like an idiot for supporting this guy.”

Now, I still cling to a fantasy: maybe, just possibly, Obama is going to tie his spending freeze to something that would actually help the economy, like an employment tax credit. (No, trivial tax breaks don’t count). There has, however, been no hint of anything like that in the reports so far. Right now, this looks like pure disaster.

_________________________________

Midknight Review agrees with Krugman's critical stance versus Obamanomics but we believe that Krugman really does not understand how little Obama's plan will effects anything at all. Obama tells us his suggested "freeze on spending for three years" (sure sounds good, doesn't it) amounts to a 3% spending cut over a period of 10 years. During that same period of time, we will see an additional $6 trillion in debt versus $240 billions. Medicare is not included. Homeland Security will not be included. Military benefit programs not included. Medicaid spending is not included. Social Security deficit spending is not included. Emergency spending for natural disasters such as Katrina is not included; the cost of government is not included -- to name a few categories that will continue to demand money just as before.

Why these cuts if they amount to little and will not effect the economy to ANY degree whatsoever? So that Obama can use the phrase "spending freeze for three years." THAT sounds noteworthy when, in fact, it is laughable. More smoke and mirrors from a man who has no respect for an electorate he serves.

.