Paul Krugman goes all wonky on us again, writing a couple of pieces in the past few days to prove that the government spent more money at all levels under Reagan than under Obama. I have no idea why we care about that, nor do I have the faintest idea what state and local government tax revenues has to do with either Reagan or Obama.
He is, of course, providing graphs, one of them even using a logarithmic scale for added drama, but all of them proving, as far as I can tell, that his pet theory of Keynesian government spending works to boost the economy only for so long as the spending continues. As soon as the government quits spending money, and sometimes even before it quits doing so, the economy collapses again.
It’s sort of like if I prop up my front porch with a stick and expect it not to collapse when I pull the stick away. Or, if you’ve ever been camping, do you expect the tent to stay up when you remove the tent poles? I thought so.
He is remarking about how much spending has declined under Obama, which is doubtless why the Obama team is bragging about Obama having created 4.5 million jobs; the best jobs creation record, they claim, since, I don’t know, Attila The Hun or somebody. Or perhaps government spending and jobs creation are unrelated. No, no, wait…