Paul Krugman, "Playing Taxes Hold ’Em": Who Are the "Progressives" and Who Are the "Crazies"?

Many years ago, when my brother was well on his way to a Ph.D. in psychology, he invited me visit him one summer at the "funny farm" (probably not politically correct) where he was interning. Curious, I made the drive to this magnificent facility in the hills of New England, and the first challenge he posed to me was to pick out the patients from those treating them. As I soon discovered, this was no simple task. I recall a scene beside a swimming pool where one seemingly "normal" young man pointed at a boy, busy splashing in the water, and informed me that "he's crazy." Moments thereafter, the young man, who had so kindly shared with me his evaluation, was staring into the sky and holding a conversation with the sun.

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Playing Taxes Hold ’Em" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/21/opinion/krugman-playing-taxes-hold-em.html?_r=0), Paul Krugman would have us believe that the fireworks we are witnessing, as the United States approaches another "fiscal cliff," involve a battle between Democratic "progressives" and Republican "crazies":

"Yet earlier this week progressives suddenly had the sinking feeling that it was 2011 all over again, as the Obama administration made a budget offer that, while far better than the disastrous deal it was willing to make the last time around, still involved giving way on issues where it had promised to hold the line — perpetuating a substantial portion of the high-income Bush tax cuts, effectively cutting Social Security benefits by changing the inflation adjustment.

And this was an offer, not a deal. Are we about to see another round of the president negotiating with himself, snatching policy and political defeat from the jaws of victory?

Well, probably not. Once again, the Republican crazies — the people who can’t accept the idea of ever voting to raise taxes on the wealthy, never mind either fiscal or economic reality — have saved the day."

Me? Sure, I think the very rich should pay more in income and estate taxes to prevent the United States from becoming a banana republic, although this is not going to make a dent in the budget deficit. On the other hand, I also am perturbed by the manner in which Washington unsparingly burns funds, which it can never repay, on projects akin to Solyndra.

Who are the "crazies" and who are the "therapists"? Who are the "crazies" and who are the "progressives"? Sometimes it's hard to know.