<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Never have so many voted for so much for so few
Review: Almost as many people voted for Bush as voted for Gore -- and Bush ran on his tax-cut plan. In a slim volume (I read it in two sittings with no problem) Krugman very clearly spells out how the Bush campaign and administration hoodwinked the public into thinking his tax cut was for the middle class.The fact is that 45% of the tax cut goes to the wealthiest 1% of families. Even "working stiffs" earning $400,000 per year get it bad. The truth is revealed in the Treasury departments own released numbers (see Table 7 on page 111) which are cleverly packaged in such a way that they SEEM to say the exact opposite. But Paul Krugman is not fooled, and he explains why you should not be either. Favorite line: (on last page) "But there's a special reason to oppose the Bush plan, quite aside from its actual merits or lack thereof. This is the utter dishonesty of the sales campaign. At every stage of the debate Bush and his people have tried to obscure what they were really proposing." For your own good, you must read this book.
Rating: 
Summary: Bush, Krugman, and the Market
Review: by Steven Piraino. You are probably familiar with the recently passed Bush tax bill. You may also be familiar with Paul Krugman of Princeton University (formerly of M.I.T.), whose "New Keynesian" musings appear regularly on The New York Times editorial page. Recently, Krugman published his own critique of the Bush tax cut in a short, popular book entitled Fuzzy Math. To the author's credit, this book is brief, well-organized and tightly argued. Instead of aggressively pushing his own left-of-center political views onto the reader, Krugman spends most of the book exposing inconsistencies in the Bush administration's tax-cut sales pitch. He summarizes his own conclusions rather nicely: "Bush and his people . . . are radically understating the cost of their plan while overstating the money available to pay that cost. They have pretended that a plan that mainly cuts taxes for the extremely well off is basically a middle-class tax cut . . . And they have falsely sold the plan as an appropriate answer to a short run economic slowdown, when it is almost perfectly designed not to deal with that sort of problem." Much of this book is difficult to criticize on its own terms, as all of Krugman's claims have some merit. The Bush tax cut probably is less progressive and more "costly" than the Bush administration would have us believe. And, if anything, Krugman is not skeptical enough about the antirecessionary merits of using a tax cut to put money into consumers' pockets. This does not mean, however, that there is not a legitimate case for reducing taxes. As Krugman himself says, ". . . there is a case for tax cuts . . . though it is not the case the Bush administration is making." Unfortunately, the "legitimate case" that Krugman makes (and rejects) is weak and incomplete. The "correct" case for tax cuts, Krugman argues, is that tax cuts are a way to "induce people to work harder, save more, and take bigger risks." He then goes on to dismiss this case on the grounds that these benefits are unlikely to be dramatic. While superficially plausible, this analysis obscures the very essence of taxation and its costs. It is true that heavy taxation causes a variety of behavioral distortions, such as discouraging work, innovation, and investment. However, these distortions are not the costs of taxation, as Krugman suggests. They are the means that individuals employ to reduce the costs of taxation as much as possible. Furthermore, taxes are not costly because they reduce production; taxes are costly because they force individuals to consume a mix of goods that is less desirable from the standpoint of their own subjective preferences. This happens for two reasons. First, individuals behave differently in order to avoid paying a certain tax. As a result, goods that are taxed are underproduced. It is irrelevant whether or not the resulting mix of goods involves less labor, risk-taking, and investment than the mix of goods that would be produced on the free market. The important point is that the new mix is inferior to the old mix in relation to individual wants. Second, taxes transfer the command over resources from the private sector to the public sector. This is costly from the standpoint of individual wants. In the private sector, waste is minimized through the discipline of profits and losses. In the public sector, however, politicians acquire resources based on their ability to speak in public, smear opponents, and reward well-organized pressure groups. As a result, the spending projects financed by taxation generally bear little, if any, relation to the desires of consumers. Value-productive private ventures are starved of capital so that a whole host of useless or nearly useless "public goods" can be (over)produced. Consider, for example, the state of Massachusetts's infamous Big Dig transportation project (now running some $12 billion over budget), or the interstate highway splurge of the 1950s, or the pork-laden federal space program. Private investors would never pony up the extravagant sums that were necessary to fund these dubious projects, yet the list of public boondoggles goes on and on. Krugman's book makes essentially no attempt to defend politics as a means of resource allocation, making only the blithe assertion that "it's a value judgment, but I don't accept the idea that our government is too big and should be made much smaller." Krugman has the right to his own value judgments, but economics does have something positive to say about the market system-and that is that all parties necessarily benefit from the rights to voluntary exchange and association. This system stands in sharp contrast with the current political system, wherein resources are allocated with almost boundless disregard for consumers' wants. Whatever else can be said for such a system, the science of economics offers little or nothing to recommend it. If the Bush tax cuts bring us miles, yards, or even inches further from this system, a sound understanding of economics clearly strengthens, not weakens, their appeal.
Rating:
Summary: One of Krugman's best -- brief and informative
Review: Every policy-maker and voter should read this book. After months of Krugman's anti-tac-cut NY Times Op-Eds, I was sick of hearing about this debate. But "Fuzzy Math" literally changed my mind in one night. It is not only a guide to the Bush tax cut but also a layman's guide to general tax policy, tax law, the federal budget, and distributional issues. Not only that, but Krugman provides a novel theory (at least to me) on why anti-big-government ideologues prefer tax cuts for the rich disproportionately over tax cuts for the bottom 99%. Krugman also exposes many statistical and other tricks that policy-makers play on the public in order to promote their programs. In short, this book does so much so thoroughly, and I am amazed that Krugman fit it all into so few pages.
Rating:
Summary: One of Krugman's best -- brief and informative
Review: I recommend this book to anyone, even though the tax cuts Paul Krugman argues against have already come. Krugman, who is a New York Time od-ed writer and also a policy professor at Princeton, presents clear reasons why the Bush tax cuts are not a good idea. Conservatives will find the book biased, which it is since Krugman is pretty democratic. Although conservatives might be able to argue the political philosophy of progressive versus regressive taxes, they will find it very difficult to challenge the numbers that Krugman presents. The end conclusion is that Bush has used "fuzzy math" to propose a tax cut and that the money is just not there for such a huge cut. Krugman is right. Even though the cuts have already come, this book is a great (and quick) read because it gives a clear explanation of social security, medicare, and other issues related to the national budget. Clear, concise, and easy to understand.
Rating: 
Summary: Highly recommended
Review: I recommend this book to anyone, even though the tax cuts Paul Krugman argues against have already come. Krugman, who is a New York Time od-ed writer and also a policy professor at Princeton, presents clear reasons why the Bush tax cuts are not a good idea. Conservatives will find the book biased, which it is since Krugman is pretty democratic. Although conservatives might be able to argue the political philosophy of progressive versus regressive taxes, they will find it very difficult to challenge the numbers that Krugman presents. The end conclusion is that Bush has used "fuzzy math" to propose a tax cut and that the money is just not there for such a huge cut. Krugman is right. Even though the cuts have already come, this book is a great (and quick) read because it gives a clear explanation of social security, medicare, and other issues related to the national budget. Clear, concise, and easy to understand.
Rating:
Summary: The value is in the packaging
Review: It's a nice and handy book. However, most of the salient points in this book, which is about the sloppy and rather misleading math behind the Bush Tax cut has already been made in his New York Times Op-Ed articles (which could be read for almost free. I like this book, and as with all Krugman's books, it's highly readable and enjoyable. His arguments are convincing and clear. But, I've read them before. So I'm giving it less stars. The fact that it comes in a handy book form that can be read and marked easily, does create real value, though.
Rating: 
Summary: Somewhat Naive for such a Genius
Review: Paul Krugman is undoubtedly an exceptionally intelligent man. His points are clear, concise and well developed. In fact, virtually everything he writes is entirely correct. Strangely, however, Mr. Krugman seems surprised by the fact that Mr. Bush would market an across the board income tax cut as being for "all Americans". He's a politician for God's sake. Mr. Gore, Mr. Clinton and every other left-leaning politician in the history of the world have done the exact same thing, often much more egregiously. Any across the board tax cut will disproportionately benefit the largest taxpayers. A simple statement, and one Mr. Krugman clearly understands. Krugman's alarmist tone on this point strikes me as overly naive. Maybe a payroll tax reduction would be more "equitable", but that idea wasn't even on the table until very late. Moreover, the idea of Democrats running around trumpeting a payroll tax reduction as the best alternative is comical. More fundamental, however, is the underlying debate about the wisdom (or ability) of running budget surpluses. Mr. Greenspan has always maintained that if the question is tax cuts or spending, he prefers tax cuts. Being from Washington, DC, I can say fairly confidently that the United States Congress is virtually incapable of restraint when budgetary constraints are lifted. Not because they are bad people, but rather because they have every incentive to favor largely wasteful (and ultimately intractable) spending programs (perhaps Mr. Krugman disagrees with the term "wasteful"). Admittedly Mr. Bush is at least slightly disingenuous, but a deep understanding of political realities will often lead to the adoption of signficantly better economic policies. For all of Krugman's brilliance (and he is one of the smartest people on the planet), the level of his naivite is borderline shocking. Or maybe he's just being a little disingenuous too.
Rating:
Summary: This is important. Everybody should read this book.
Review: This book needs to be read by every voting American, even those who support the Bush tax cut. Author Paul Krugman clearly explains the economic and political environments in which this tax plan takes place and concludes, first, that the tax cut is not only a bad idea but might have serious consequences as the Social Security/Medicare system becomes strapped and second, that "at every stage of the debate Bush and his people have tried to obscure what they were really proposing."
"Fuzzy Math" is a book written for intelligent lay people. I personally read it in two sittings (it's only 122 short pages), then, thinking that I must have missed smething, went back and read it again. It turns out I missed nothing. Krugman breaks down complex economic concepts and explains them with great lucidity and a little bit of wit. It's really an easy read.
Krugman begins by explaining how Bush arrived at his tax cut as the centerpiece of his campaign, first as an antidote to Steve Forbes' "Flat Tax" crusade and second, to secure the support of the far right elements of the Republican Party. He then describes the efficacy of tax cuts as an economic tool, particularly as they might be used to stimulate a sluggish economy (never an issue for Bush until the economy suddenly turned sour). He concludes that this is best left to the Federal Reserve Board's manipulation of interest rates. He further compares "demand side" tax reductions, aimed primarily at consumers, with "supply side" cuts which are directed toward potential producers and demonstrates that despite the Reagan rhetoric, the economic recovery of the early '80's was demand side driven and that a real supply side expansion occurred during the late '90's happened despite Bill Clinton's upper bracket tax increase.
Nexy Krugman explains the Federal Budget, beginning with where the money goes and then where it comes from. He explains that we've gone from being a "military state" to a "retirement state". He admittedly caricatures that, based on federal spending "the federal government has become a large retirement community that does some military stuff and a bit of humanitarian stuff on the side". He also explains that our national retirement program is not fully funded (as is a private pension plan). Instead the current group of retirees is living off the contributions of the current group of workers and that enormous problems will begin when the number of retirees begins to swell as the number of workers begins to shrink (about 2011). This is aleo why privatization of Social Security/Medicare is a bad idea: it will simply pull the rug out from under the feet of the current group of retirees. He discusses the origins of the recent budget surplus andhow it was tied to the recent economic boom.
He then breaks down the Bush tax cut, explaining who gets what. Using figures from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and Citizens for Tax Justice (stats from conservative think tanks are unavailable) he concludes that about 40% of American families will get nothing or very little while the top 1% will collect about 45% of the benefits. He analyzes the Treasury Department's statistics in light of this data and exposes the hucksterism involved in the official Bush line. Unfortunately this is the only piont at which Krugman cites sources although he uses statistics elsewhere in this book. More citations would have given the book a little more authority.
Finally he proposes an alternative, a "smaller, faster, cheaper, better" cut that will get money into the hands of consumers faster and will be "front loaded" (benefits sooner) as opposed to Bush's "back loaded" (most benefits arrive much later) and so will have an immediate effect on the economy.
Krugman concludes with a swipe at the "utter dishonesty of the sales campaign".
There is no reason why every American citizen should not read this book. It explains what's going on in the tax debate and does so clearly and simply. In fact, bookshelves in any participatory democracy should be full of books like this.
Rating:
Summary: Brilliant, clear and concise
Review: This brilliant, concise, clear, analyis is exceptional for putting the current budget plan in perspective. It helps make clear who currently pays what, where that money goes, and how that would change with the proposed tax cuts, emphasizing the relative sizes of the numbers, and the significance of the proposed changes. Where so much talk and rhetoric abound, it's good to have an approach based on what are the numbers, what are their relative sizes, what are the real implications of all this. To get this communicated so clearly and concisely is invaluable, well worth the price of the book. Any day I would pay more for a short book that communicates clearly and consisely than a longer book with lots of filler and rhetoric. I don't have time for such waste. This book is worth far more for being short and concise. Conservatives might be offended at the accusations of deception on the part of the administration, but isn't it true? And isn't it true that both sides of the political spectrum use "sound-bytes", instead of really looking at the numbers, trying to help people understand their relative sizes, and helping them to think clearly about them? What's great about this book is that although you may find the focus and limited rhetoric somewhat partisan (the author clearly states his own views based on the analysis), the analysis itself is clear, concise, and and stays with the numbers. A conservative could easily create a different case from what's presented (Who is PAYING this surplus? Who is responible for making it happen? Why shouldn't those responsible for making it happen be rewarded with its fruits?) Moderates would have more information and a better understanding to determine how the arguments from both sides accord with their own values. Those of a more liberal persuasion would gain understanding and truly enjoy the rhetoric and focus as well. This book is well worth reading precisely because it presents a concise clear understanding of the numbers, so no matter what your political persuasion, you have a better understanding of the actual case, and can build your own arguments from knowledge rather than ignorance.
Rating:
Summary: an opinionated book, yet objective, fair, and convincing
Review: This is a superb book. Krugman shows the following: (1) that Bush's tax cut is so large that it will lead to significant problems with maintinaing anything close to current government service levels or in financing any kind of meaningful Social Security reform; (2) that the Bush tax cut is overwhelmingly tilted towards the top 1% of the population. In the process of making this case, Krugman also provides a considerable education on the roles of fiscal policy, the composition of federal taxing and spending, and the nature of the Social Security program. At the same time, Krugman's critique is fair. As he shows, one could make a case for the Bush tax cut if one believes the following: (1) large cuts in marginal tax rates on income and estates of the rich will have extremely large supply-side benefits for the economy; (2) federal services should be cut to levels not seen since the 1920s. However, the Bush Administration has not made this case because there is no popular support for these possible arguments for a tax cut. Rather, the Bush Administration has attempted to disguise the true size and distributional effects of the tax cut. As of this writing, they appear likely to succeed. I wish Krugman's book could have been available a few months ago, when it might have had more influence on the politics of the Bush tax cut.
<< 1 >>
|
