Well, it has finally happened: The temperature of Hell has dropped below 32 degrees Fahrenheit, pigs have full command of the skies, and I have found a sentence uttered by Paul Krugman with which I agree. Of course, while his words made sense, and I am inclined to agree with his overall point, we should keep in mind how the statement illustrates Krugman’s incoherence.
In addition to the IRS scandal, the DOJ targeting reporters, and the Benghazi cover-up, the White House is now dealing with the NSA collecting mountains of data on average American citizens.
While talking about the NSA surveillance of Americans, Krugman let slip an accidental gem of brilliance. (Well, “brilliance” might be a strong word.) In an obvious illustration of just how far beyond their bounds the Obama Administration has gone, the ueber liberal stated that the NSA’s data mining operation “PRISM” was “authoritarian.”
Indeed, the year is 1984. In his brief moment of coherence, the Nobel Prize winning economist demonstrated an astounding level of hypocrisy. Krugman has fought for an expansive government for most of his career. Government intrusion on otherwise private affairs (both economic and otherwise) is encouraged by Krugman at nearly every opportunity. His progressive sensibilities have been behind years of campaigning for higher taxes, more spending, increased government regulation, and more intrusive bureaucratic agencies.
With passage of the Affordable Care Act, the most powerful authoritarian institution in the USA (The Internal Revenue Service) will be in charge of determining private citizen’s health coverage, eligibility for various healthcare benefits, and even their ability to pay out-of-pocket. And, the Paul Krugman we all know and love, saw virtually no problem with such an invasive government program.
And yet, this champion of increased government seems surprised, and possibly even indignant, about the NSA’s actions. As if government would, even for a minute, hesitate to use its “authoritarian” nature that has been supported by lefties like Krugman for the past century. Krugman’s incompatability with himself is no different than many other half focused “progressive” genius of the 20th Century. Their love for government is unwavering so long as government does exactly what they want.
While the income tax might have seemed like a reasonable way to raise revenue for legitimate government functions, it quickly morphed into a tool through which government could engineer “social justice.” Within years the rates skyrocket; not for want of federal revenue, but as a tool to implement a socially “fair” burden on success and wealth. I have talked at length about how the most recent IRS scandal is nothing more than a product of government’s bureaucratic largess and progressive tendencies. The NSA “scandal” is more of the same. This is not a matter of those in charge unwisely wielding power – although that is a part of it – but simply the consequence of massive government. . . Exactly the kind of massive government Paul Krugman wants us to let micro-manage the economy.
Maybe this is part of our trouble here in America: A fundamental misunderstanding of what increased government leads to. So often is the term “Big Government” used as a pejorative that liberals have abandoned the phrase. And the reason is really quite simple: Government expansion is incompatible with the preservation of individual rights. The NSA infringement on individual privacy is merely the national security dimension of progressive-liberal ideology and practice.
For some reason, Krugman can correctly identify PRISM as being “authoritarian” in nature. . . Yet, he fails to see anything “authoritarian” about punitive tax rates on the wealthy, government oversight of private health insurance accounts, or the nearly unlimited regulatory powers in Dodd-Frank.
Then again, maybe he does see the authoritarian nature of Keynesian economics; and they’re just not a problem for him. Remember, the progressive geniuses of the early 20th Century loved Mussolini, Stalin, and Franco.
Paul Krugman, despite his recent statement like most champions of Progressive notions, are nothing more than supporters of Big Brother.