Is Elizabeth Warren the "Keeper of the Secret"? Part I

One of the hallmarks of a politicized society is that people caught up in the mix tend to believe that there is a "keeper of the secret" just over the horizon -- if only we can get this person into office. Lest one think I exaggerate, remember that during the fall of 2008, Barack Obama rode into office on a wave of the worst kind of, frankly, idolatry, as children's choirs literally were singing "Obama's gonna save us" and worse.

(I hope that the Statlers and Walldorfs of this blog will admit that Obama DID run as a Messiah, and his campaign did little to dispel that notion that The Chosen One was going to fix everything. Hmmm. How well is THAT working out today?)

Paul Krugman today has a new "Keeper of the Secret," Elizabeth Warren. Yes, Elizabeth Warren is "gonna save us" if only she can do the job that Dodd-Frank (or, as I like to call it, "FrankenDodd") has declared she will do.

Before addressing some of the specifics of Krugman's column, let me point out that people (like Krugman) who believe that we can have successful centralized government planning of the economy also tend to believe that there is a Special Person, the "Keeper of the Secret" who actually can make socialism or Socialism Lite work without the whole apparatus crashing and burning. Obama was the latest Knight in the White House, and we are told that if only -- if only -- Bobby or Teddy or even John, Jr., Kennedy could have occupied 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, that today we would be living in a socialist heaven.

Now to Elizabeth Warren and Krugman's latest screed about how the Mean and Evil Republicans are picking on Messiah Lite. First, and most important, the position of "director" of FrankenDodd's "consumer protection agency" is supposed to be appointed by the president but approved by...Congress. So, the same people who screamed bloody murder when George W. Bush appointed people to various positions in the government and did an end run around Congress now are screaming bloody murder because Congress doesn't bow down and worship the person Obama appointed in an end run around Congress.

Sorry, people, if you want to have a politicized society, then you have to understand that in politics, truth and fairness simply don't matter. Krugman embraced that principle long ago and now he is enraged when others do the same thing.

Do you remember when the New York Times and people of Krugman's political ilk were going after Charles W. Pickering, calling him a racist and a Klan sympathizer? Yes, this is the same Charles Pickering who testified in 1966 against Sam Bowers, who at the time had a legal license to murder anyone he saw fit (including Goodman, Schwerner and Chaney in 1964). Bowers had the support of Mississippi's political establishment during that time, so going against him literally meant Pickering's life was in danger.

Furthermore, the Mississippi chapter of the NAACP -- the African-Americans who best knew him -- supported his nomination to be a federal appeals court judge, but the people allied with Paul Krugman successfully filibustered his nomination. The great Left-Libertarian Nat Hentoff -- not someone who might be mistaken for a Klan supporter -- called the whole thing reprehensible and excoriated the NYT and Senate Democrats for their outright lies.

I include this because Krugman seems to be of the belief that only Republicans engage in character assassination for political purposes. In fact, Krugman is a willing participant in character assassination -- when it suits his political goals -- so when he claims that only the other side does it is not something I find credible.

In Part II of this post, I will deal with the specifics of Warren and her role in FrankenDodd. Granted, I am sure that Krugman would say that the only reason I am questioning his column is because I want the Banksters to get away with financial crimes and I want people to go bankrupt. After all, only evil people can disagree with Paul Krugman.

Krugman Discovers the Dastardly "Plot" in Wisconsin

No doubt, Paul Krugman makes fun of people who indulge in conspiracy theories, although it seems that he constantly comes up with wild theories of his own. Do you question "stimulus" spending on public works projects? Why, you are a racist who wants to bring back slavery.

Do you have a problem with Ben Bernanke's plan of showering the world with dollars, and with government creating a blizzard of paper money in general? Why, you are a racist who wants to bring back slavery.

Indeed, like a good parrot, Krugman recites the Party Line and calls it argument. So, why am I not surprised when he weaves together yet another conspiracy theory about what is happening in Wisconsin. Yes, it seems that Gov. Scott Walker is in league with Paul Bremer and everyone else who was involved with the invasion of Iraq, or maybe he is part of the world-wide cabal that wants to impose the "shock doctrine" on an unsuspecting world.

He also surmises that this whole thing is nothing more than a plot by the Koch Brothers to take over Wisconsin. Wisconsin today! Tomorrow the world!! (The only problem is that George Soros -- who really does bankroll internationalist groups that believe that what we need is One Single Bureaucracy to rule over us all -- gives more money to his "causes" in a year than the Koch Brothers have given in their lifetimes. Does Krugman get any Soros money? Inquiring minds would like to know. And, no, I don't get Koch dollars. Sorry.)

Krugman gives us the following statement, and I will point out afterward just what a howler it really is:

What’s happening in Wisconsin is, instead, a power grab — an attempt to exploit the fiscal crisis to destroy the last major counterweight to the political power of corporations and the wealthy.

First, the notion that public employee unions are a "counterweight" to unwarranted "corporate power" is a very sick joke. Keep in mind that the process which he praises consists of a cabal of politicians who are elected through the efforts of the unions of government employees and the unions themselves then imposing their will upon people who are not in that circle.

In other words, we have something akin to a soviet in which the government employees elect their paymasters. The problem is that the arrangement depends upon the people on the outside being able to pony up the cash to pay for the whole thing, and they no longer are willing and able to do so.

Krugman's academic Keynesian mind claims that this is bad because the party being fleeced consists of the Evil People Who Don't Want More Spending. Don't they know that if they just accede to having their bank accounts cleaned out, that all the spending will create new prosperity? Haven't they heard of circular logic, er, flow?

Here is the crux of the problem: government employee unions cannot cannibalize themselves. Like all parasites, they need a host, and they and Krugman are very, very upset that the current hosts are rebelling. In fact, their rebellion must be part of a plot by the Koch Brothers TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD!

So, in the end, Paul Krugman resorts to conspiracy theories. Now, while I might agree with him about backroom deals and other sorts of cronyism that can occur with privatization, does he really expect us to believe that the current socialistic arrangement is free of such things?

Krugman seems to be one of those folks who believes that union-created socialism is pure, pure, pure. Public employee unions are bravely serving as a counterweight to those evil corporations, and that these unions are the heart and soul of America's middle class. Yes, Paul Krugman really seems to believe that we can have a large and thriving "middle class" that consists of bureaucrats, and the more we expand the bureaucracy, the more we expand our wealth.

And if you are not part of this arrangement, then Krugman instructs that you sit back, let the state insert the needle, and then drain you of your blood. By so doing, you are helping to create prosperity.

Krugman: If You Oppose "Infrastructure Spending," You Support Slavery

Leave it to Paul Krugman to ratchet up the use of the non sequitur in dealing with people who might disagree with him. Here is a guy who takes a stray quote and then implies that anyone who might agree with one part agrees with everything else.

In a recent blog post entitled "Opposition to Infrastructure Spending," Krugman writes:

I’m currently reading Daniel Walker Howe’s What Hath God Wrought, and there’s an interesting discussion of the debate over “internal improvements.” Some southerners were opposed, for an interesting reason. Here’s Nathaniel Macon of North Carolina, in 1818:

If Congress can make canals, they can with more propriety emancipate.

I leave the elucidation of any parallels or lack thereof to modern politics as an exercise for readers.

So, we have the implication from the Nobel winner himself: Oppose the "stimulus" (which is why he is advocating more "infrastructure" spending), and you are a racist, the worst kind of racist, someone who approves of slavery.

Actually, a lot of people opposed the "internal improvements" to be funded by tax dollars because a lot of the money was wasted or ended up in the pockets of people who were less-than-honest. (But, hey, they spent the money, and that is the good thing about any kind of "stimulus.")