Krugman On Mortgage Plans: Obama "Cautious," Clinton "Bold And Progressive"

New York Times columnist Paul Krugman writes on the presidential candidates' mortgage crisis proposals:

Barack Obama's speech on the economy on Thursday followed the cautious pattern of his earlier statements on economic issues.

I was pleased that Mr. Obama came out strongly for broader financial regulation, which might help avert future crises. But his proposals for aid to the victims of the current crisis, though significant, are less sweeping than Mrs. Clinton's: he wants to nudge private lenders into restructuring mortgages rather than having the government simply step in and get the job done.

Mr. Obama also continues to make permanent tax cuts -- middle-class tax cuts, to be sure -- a centerpiece of his economic plan. It's not clear how he would pay both for these tax cuts and for initiatives like health care reform, so his tax-cut promises raise questions about how determined he really is to pursue a strongly progressive agenda.

All in all, the candidates' positions on the mortgage crisis tell the same tale as their positions on health care: a tale that is seriously at odds with the way they're often portrayed. ...

Mrs. Clinton, we're assured by sources right and left, tortures puppies and eats babies. But her policy proposals continue to be surprisingly bold and progressive.

Finally, Mr. Obama is widely portrayed, not least by himself, as a transformational figure who will usher in a new era. But his actual policy proposals, though liberal, tend to be cautious and relatively orthodox.

Read the full column.

Comments

[BrooklynLager]

I've said before that Paul Krugman's analysis of economics is excellent, but his analysis of politics is absolutely dismal. He ends his editorial with by asking, "Do these policy comparisons really tell us what each candidate would be like as president? Not necessarily - but they're the best guide we have". Actually, no.

The best guide we have is their records. Hillary Clinton voted for the infamously punitive bankruptcy bill which, if passed, would have made it harder for families in the situation they're now in much harder to declare bankruptcy and settle their debts. Barack Obama voted against it. The criticism of Hillary Clinton is not, as Paul Krugman says, that she "tortures puppies and eats babies". It's that she's a Wall Street Democrat with a history of promising things she has no intention of delivering on. Her record on that score is unassailable.

And if he had any sense of politics, he'd know this. Everyone else does.

[riverhorse]

There's no doubt Clinton is the true progressive in this race. She's the one who will get the hard jobs done.

[zreeb]

I just read both speeches.

What the hell is Krugman smoking?

[cosmic]

thank you. and the truth is we'll never know, but definitely something

[worldtraveller]

whoever will legalize it gets my vote..

[happycozy]

It's called "I privately (or not so privately) support Hillary Clinton" crack.

[Teritt]

'He' is smoking because if Hillary doesn't win, there goes his appointment.

[linchbell]

Maybe he has PTSD from the same sniper fire that Hillary experienced.

[Alessan]

Problem with Obama, all he has is speeches, not written by him and they don't mean anything,
because he has no idea, what to do about the economy just like McSame has admitted, Obama should admit, he doesn't know what he's doing, period.

[dtd]

Great news for Obama! The more Krugman praises Clinton for being a raging liberal on economics, the more it helps Senator Obama undercut her 's and the right wing's charges that Senator Obama is an extreme liberal. Thanks for the unsolicited help, Krugman!

[comeonnow]

Uh, didn't Hillary accuse Obama of "copying" her plan yesterday? http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/27/clinton-camp-obama-is-mean-and-hes-a-copycat-too/

So one plan is progressive and bold and the other is cautious. Krugman, you are such a transparent sellout - stop damaging your reputation.

[jsinclair]

His reputation IS as a sellout.

[riverhorse]

Clinton's policy proposals are much more bold and progressive than Obama's cautious vague policies. You want my reason for voting for Clinton...there it is.

Thank you Paul Krugman.

[cosmic]

and if that opinion mirrored reality, i'd say you have a point

[2008andbeyond]

You look to Krugman? Haha!!!


Krugman supports Hillary and speaks poorly of Obama. There's a headline! Next thing you know, that "independent" pundit Carville will say something stupid in favor of Hillary and Fox News will slam Barack. That wouldn't be expected to happen now would it?

[crazyv]

Do you honestly believe that there are 60 votes in the Senate (even with an enlarged Democratic majority) to get a healthcare plan with mandates passed? If one doesn't want to be held accountable propose bold policies that have no chance of being approved. That way your failure can be blamed on other people. Recognizing that politics is the art of the possible proposing policies that have a chance of being passed is much more dangerous since then the failures are your own. I think it is really disingenuous to propose a plan that you know has no chance of being passed. That is truely hope mongering. As Democrats we have to get real- our political system is not geared towards bold change. The Republicans learned that with trying to privatize Social Security and we learned that with the first Clinton Health care plan. We need to focus less on "ideal plans" and more on getting things done incrementally. In fact if you go back and look at the record that was exactly the lesson that Hillary says she learned from her first fiasco. However, since BO had already staked that ground she had to go for the "bold and progressive". For somebody who claims to have made health care her life's work she was the last of the major candidates to come up with a plan.

[aperezfl]

First off, I was stunned by the objectivity you displayed in your last post, when you actually criticized Clinton's plan to bring back Greenspan and co.

If you think Obama doesn't offer specifics, check out this link:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/Obama_talks_capgains_rate_with_CNBC.html

I don't see a conversation with Clinton about her economic plans reaching its caliber.

[BrooklynLager]

This would all be great if Hillary had any intention of passing her plans.

[NYRalf]

Exactly! She uses subtle qualifiers in every major policy initiative she has offered because, much like her hedge job with her Iraq vote/speech, she has no core set of values. She panders to the hardcore wing of the party in order to garner votes. Its been said many times already, she'll do anything to get elected.

[ragtopdodge]

Also...Clinton is all about bailouts for homeowners.

She doesn't address fundamental issues w/oversight and transparency within the banking industry; WHICH OBAMA does!

Obama thinks LONG-TERM!

Clinton thinks of short-term promises to get votes.

[Demoid]

So Krugman thinks her position papers provide a good clue of what she'll do? Maybe he should consider how the last Clinton administration rubber stamped Greenspan's policies for 8 years. The deeper Krugman gets into this the more of a political lightweight he's revealing himself to be.

[ayc]

Right welcoming back Greenspan is bold and aggressive. He has no moral compass either, no wonder he is Hillary's lapdog.

[Darkbane]

The problem isn't that Hillary's plan's aren't progressive or that she doesn't have some good ideas. She doesn't posses the capacity to get them passed. They are going to be hugely divisive across party lines when time comes to get them passed and her bull through a china shop persona will not have the tact to get it done. It will be like her universal healthcare attempt all over again........those "mean old republicans" and corporations will stop it.
It may be a vast right wing conspiracy even........ A good idea only has value if you can put it into action and her enemies.....which are legion, will not let that happen.

[personalpolitical]

Ahhh, back to being Hillary's lapdog. Welcome back Krug.

Why is he under the impression that people keep asking for his opinion on these things? I'm not asking Bill Clinton or James Carville for commentary on how Hillary and Obama match up, why would I care what hacks like Krugman and Joe Wilson have to say?

[Amminadab]

Hacks? Joe Wilson and Paul Krugman are two of the most outspoken progressives of the last seven years. How quickly you turn on the pillars of the movement.

Shame.

[Whinger]

How's the wrist Mr Krugman, I hope the smack didn't sting too much!

[LoloZ]

Paul, what the hell is it that you hate about Obama??? What about the fact that Obama saw this crisis coming a full year ago and addressed Bernanke about it? Obama had some real insight, some vision there. What do you think about the Clinton administration ending regulation in 1999, regulation that may have prevented this predatory lending. Comparing the candidates' speeches yesterday, Obama stood out head and shoulders above McCain and Hillary Clinton. Your bias is so bothersome.

[MiddleRoad1]

I don't think it is anything personal against Obama. He just sees more prospects with Clinton. For him.

[jade7243]

There comes a point when the criticism has no rational point or purpose and is simply personal.
Obama had the advice and support of Paul Volker, no slouch on the economy, Mike Bloomberg , seems to have done pretty for himself, Warren Buffet' name gets dropped by Obama frequently, and there are other Obama supporters with formidable economic credentials. Obama is also one wno asks for advice and LISTENS.

So you wonder why is Krugman constantly biting Obama? It matters not what Obama says and seems to be more who (or what ) he is. But having discounted everything else, you have to ask -- at least so you can check it off the list -- is this about ... could it be... dare I say it... about race? What else -- if this is not personal (and one or the other would have discounted it as such by now) -- would stir such consistent anger?

Could that be what is at the heart of Krugman's "issue" with Obama?

[berensma]

From what I can tell, he dislikes Obama primarily because some particularly rabid supporters attacked one of his op-ed pieces. He found them offensive, thus so are Obama supporter, and Obama, too? Anyhow, I find it entertaining that a few loudmouths respond to his op-eds and he feels like he has the pulse of the nation.