The "starve the beast" analogy is typical ham-fisted political recrimination. It's really nothing but a call for the other side in the debate to completely capitulate, which is absurd. Krugman asks if one side is willing to "double down", but the reality is this is a two-sided political game. It's like two guys yelling at each other when as they play chicken. Or prepare for a duel. In practice, that sort of talk is not only shallow and pedantic (cue Family Guy reference), it's counterproductive. Duels, historically, were resolved before coming to violence by the friends of the duelers. They came to violence when these "friends" turned out to be bomb-throwing shit-talkers who instigated trouble rather than avoided it. Krugman has made himself the latter type of friend, making it that much harder for the reasonable folks to reach an agreement.
Is it recrimination if you just quote what the other party's stated strategy has been for 25 years? "Starve the beast" isn't some parody or idiosyncratic fringe of thinking of the political right. It was exactly what they said they wanted to do in the early 1980's, and it's been a major justification of every tax cut proposed by the right ever since. It's a core belief. If somebody says, "I hate tomatoes," and then goes around stomping on tomatoes, is it a "ham-fisted political recrimination" to point out afterward that they always said they hated tomatoes? Krugman is just pointing out that this fundamental strategy has two basic steps: 1. Cut taxes. Make big government completely unaffordable. Starve the beast. 2. Eliminate government programs now that we can't afford them. It's not dishonest or playing political games or being "ham-fisted" to point out that Republicans have largely won the battle on point #1, but have never gotten around to point #2. Krugman isn't demanding they capitulate. The exact opposite. He's (somewhat ironic for a liberal) demanding Republicans actually follow through on step #2. Go ahead and try to eliminate some programs. For decades they've had taken easy road of being the "low tax" party, which was what is required for step #1. We're finally at the point where the much more unpopular road of step #2 has to be faced.
Yes. Just as much as his party's stated strategy for 25 years has been "feed the beast". Sure it is. What you say above can be re-arranged to point out that the Democratic fundamental strategy had two basic steps. 1. Create government programs that foster dependence. 2. Figure out out to pay for them. The Republican and Democratic positions are mirror images. One prioritized increased spending first, believing higher taxes will be necessary later to pay for it. And will become fait accompli. The other has prioritized cutting taxes, believing it will make reduced spending in the future that much more necessary. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that these two positions reinforce and enable each other. Go ahead and try and eliminate some programs... over my dead body. Is what he's saying. Which is one-sided, irresponsible and inflammatory. The reasonable approach, again, is to recognize all parties were playing the game, and that all parties are going to have movement on their issue of choice because the "grand bargain" both sides have been operating under isn't going to last.
You must have missed the poll where they asked "would you pay 50% more taxes to pay for current spending levels on these things?"
The jobs are all overseas now. Should they have to move to the middle east or se asia to work for an American company?
