The lost...three weeks?

As I wrote earlier this week, Professor Krugman seems to think that the Obama administration can wave a wand and, in the politics-free environment of serious Washington D.C., unilaterally determine how to save us from economic ruin.

By any normal political standards, this week’s Congressional agreement on an economic stimulus package was a great victory for President Obama. He got more or less what he asked for: almost $800 billion to rescue the economy, with most of the money allocated to spending rather than tax cuts. Break out the Champagne!

Or maybe not. These aren’t normal times, so normal political standards don’t apply: Mr. Obama’s victory feels more than a bit like defeat. The stimulus bill looks helpful but inadequate, especially when combined with a disappointing plan for rescuing the banks. And the politics of the stimulus fight have made nonsense of Mr. Obama’s postpartisan dreams.

Impeachment. Now.

Officially, the administration insists that the plan is adequate to the economy’s need. But few economists agree. And it’s widely believed that political considerations led to a plan that was weaker and contains more tax cuts than it should have — that Mr. Obama compromised in advance in the hope of gaining broad bipartisan support. We’ve just seen how well that worked.

True enough, few economists seem to agree on anything.

He goes on to write that the administration's reaction seems reminiscent of Japan, but Japan didn't respond to the crisis until 10 years after their housing bubble burst. In fact, this was an incredible accomplishment by an administration that many continue to claim is still wet behind its ears.

Justin Fox also finds himself a little baffled by Krugman's invective.

First of all, Obama has been in office for all of three weeks. In that time he has gotten a stimulus package of a size that would have been pretty much unimaginable (except maybe to Krugman) a couple of months ago almost all the way through the legislative process, filled his cabinet and top advisory ranks at dizzying speed but made a few missteps along the way, and has yet to unveil a definitive plan for fixing a banking system embroiled in a once-in-a-century crisis. So yeah, the guy should probably just admit his utter failure and resign right now. Seriously, has the news cycle really sped up so much that a presidency is to be judged on its first three weeks, against a standard that I really don't think any previous White House would have met?

Meanwhile, on a different but somehow related note, it appears that the Left is being accused of giving Obama a pass on "entitlements."

Social Security defenders were surprised again last week, when Obama named a leading voice for reining in entitlement spending, New Hampshire Sen. Judd Gregg, to his Cabinet.

But despite some grumbling in the ranks, the powerful, organized movement that effectively defended the Social Security status quo from Bush’s ambitious reform effort in 2005 has been one of the key dogs that haven’t yet barked at Obama.

The relative silence of liberal activists who smashed Bush’s hopes of slowing entitlement spending is a mark of the deep trust Obama enjoys from the left of his party — and it’s also giving hope to those who would like to see major shifts in the way Social Security and other programs are funded and managed.

Obama is “in a honeymoon phase, and many liberals are afraid to express concerns,” said Rep. Jim Cooper, a Tennessee Democrat and deficit hawk who sees the current economic crisis as an opportunity to reform entitlement spending.

First off, does anyone believe that, in the wake of the greatest financial unravelling since the Great Depression, Obama will unveil a plan to privatize social security, as Ben Smith seems to be indicating here, by comparing it with Bush's efforts.

Secondly, we didn't "smash Bush's hopes of slowing entitlement," we smashed his hopes of killing off the most popular government program in history, Social Security, by privatizing it.

Finally, "the relative silence of liberal activists" may be due to the fact that Obama hasn't indicated what his plans are. As for me, I'm pretty sure that when Obama talks about reining in "entitlement spending," he's talking about Medicaid. And when he talks about reforming that, he's talking about reforming health care spending in this country.

But if those who want to privatize SS think that the Left would silently and fawningly accept destroying Social Security on Obama's say-so, they're in for a surprise.