A vision of presidential power as far-reaching as any the court has seen?
On April 27, 2004, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman asserted that Dick Cheney’s desire to deny access to details about his energy task force meetings was tantamount to a defense of “elected dictatorship.” In light of yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling supporting Cheney’s position by a 7-2 margin, it is worth recalling Krugman’s extraordinary words:
Mr. Cheney’s determination to keep his secrets probably reflects more than an effort to avoid bad publicity. It’s also a matter of principle, based on the administration’s deep belief that it has the right to act as it pleases, and that the public has no right to know what it’s doing.
As Linda Greenhouse recently pointed out in The New York Times, the legal arguments the administration is making for the secrecy of the energy task force are ‘’strikingly similar” to those it makes for its right to detain, without trial, anyone it deems an enemy combatant. In both cases, as Ms. Greenhouse puts it, the administration has put forward ”a vision of presidential power . . . as far-reaching as any the court has seen.”
That same vision is apparent in many other actions. Just to mention one: we learn from Bob Woodward that the administration diverted funds earmarked for Afghanistan to preparations for an invasion of Iraq without asking or even notifying Congress.
What Mr. Cheney is defending, in other words, is a doctrine that makes the United States a sort of elected dictatorship: a system in which the president, once in office, can do whatever he likes, and isn’t obliged to consult or inform either Congress or the public.
Krugman may be an outstanding academic economist but if he buys Greenhouse’s assertion that Cheney’s position amounts to “a vision of presidential power . . . as far-reaching as any the court has seen,” then he needs to sit in on a few introductory history classes.
On a related note, anyone notice how defensive Krugman gets when he has to issue a correction? From his April 6, 2004, column:
A Yawngate update: CNN called me to insist that despite what it first said, the administration really, truly wasn’t responsible for the network’s claim that David Letterman’s embarrassing video of a Bush speech was a fake. I still don’t understand why the network didn’t deny White House involvement until it retracted the charge. But the main point of Friday’s column was to highlight the way CNN facilitated crude administration smears of Richard Clarke.
And from today’s column:
Speaking of numbers: in 1980, middle-income families with children paid 8.7 percent of their income in income taxes, not 8.2 percent, as I reported on June 8. But it’s still true that their combined income and payroll taxes rose under Ronald Reagan.
More on today’s Krugman correction at Donald Luskin’s site.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Paul Krugman
Power Line
» A Prophet Who'd Rather Not Mention It
Babalu Blog
» "October Surprise"Stop The ACLU
» Why Can’t Obama Produce a Birth Certificate?Gateway Pundit
» Talk About Angry Thugs... Philly Leftists Boo Sarah Palin & Her 6 Year-Old Little Girl!Power Line
» Cheers for the FlyersRiehl World View
» Oh, Shut Up!Riehl World View
» Why Won't Obama Release Any Documents?Patterico
» Obama Supporters are an E-clectic BunchStop The ACLU
» Western Journalists Redeploy From IraqPower Line
» The Undeniable Bill AyersRedstate
» So, It's A New Deal You Want, Eh?
Michelle,
I’ve read many of your columns over the past year or so and enjoy them and look forward to them each week. It’s great to hear a like-minded Marylander for a change. You are a brilliant colunmist, and I wish you the best of luck with your blog.
Bill
Krugman:
But it’s still true that their combined income and payroll taxes rose under Ronald Reagan.
i.e. these are the facts, but I can still skew them.
MICHELLE MALKIN: Krugman may be an outstanding academic economist but if he buys Greenhouse’s assertion that Cheney’s position amounts to “a vision of presidential power . . . as far-reaching as any the court has seen,” then he needs to sit in on a few introductory history classes.
I have no doubt but that Krugman sat in on such classes as those which discuss Lincoln’s temporary suspension of habeas corpus for the limited group of persons to which his proclamation applied–namely, draft evaders and those who aided them. It seems to me, however, that Cheney’s assertion of the permanent right of the executive branch to secretly consult only with business leaders who will benefit from subsequently enacted policy that affects everyone is a MORE far-reaching vision of presidential power than any the Court has seen. This is especially true in light of the fact that the Court DID rule that Lincoln’s proclamation violated the Constitution, which was confirmed by the Supreme Court’s reinstatement of full habeas corpus rights following the Civil War.
Keep in mind, though, that while I say (because it affects everyone permanently, versus a limited group temporarily) Cheney’s vision of presidential power is MORE far-reaching than anything seen by the court, Krugman has said only that it AS far-reaching. And you are contending that it is LESS far-reaching?
Still, I’m encouraged by the fact that you even read Krugman; and that, instead of condemning his overall point of Cheney’s wrongful position, you chose to limit your remarks to criticism of his ranking of this particular abuse of power. Could it be that you mostly agree with Krugman regarding this matter, but rather than admit that to your readers you appease them with nit-picking sidebars? Hopefully so.
Of course, it could be that you don’t actually read Krugman, but merely allow Luskin to mis-interpret and psuedo-correct him for you. It’s easier to stay focused that way, I’m sure.
Posted by Steve@JusTalkin: “Krugman: But it’s still true that their combined income and payroll taxes rose under Ronald Reagan. … i.e. these are the facts, but I can still skew them.”
No, he’s saying with his correction that he does NOT want to “skew” them. But, yes, the FACT is that combined taxes DID go up under Reagan. The skew comes from those who said they went down, and who do not correct themselves but continue to say it.
Just months after September 11th, former Enron advisor Paul Krugman wrote the following in the New York Times:
“I predict that in the years ahead Enron, not Sept. 11, will come to be seen as the greater turning point in U.S. society.”
“The Great Divide”
The New York Times
January 29th, 2002
By Paul Krugman
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/29/opinion/29KRUG.html
JayArbee - must be a full time job defending all of Paul Krugman’s errors. I mean, come on…the guy predicted inflation and interest rates to surge as a result of the Reagan tax cuts. He copies his articles from blogs. And he’s employed by The NY Times…not exactly the pillar of ethical reporting these days.
All right, Steve, never mind. I see what I’m dealing with now.
Michelle: Hooray! Thank you for adding Comments to your blog.
Keep up the great work!
Dave from Montana
JayArbee - is it the truth?
Jayarbee, the insult thread is one down. There are some of us here who would regard continued insults to Ms. Malkin on other threads as offensive to our outdated notions of chivalry. Trouble is, most of us also harbor outdated notions of kicking the living @#$!! out of people who offend our outdated notions of chivalry.
So whyn’t we all just play nice on this thread, shall we?
Comments like those of B*d Commie are unfortunate, as they might lead Michelle to drop the comment section of her blog. However, Michelle can always reserve the right to delete truly obnoxious comments from her website.
On the other hand, I like seeing comments like jayarbee’s, wrongheaded as they are. Like Michael Moore’s films, his over-the-top arguments help to illustrate the absurdity of the left’s positions.
Although the Court ruled that Cheney could receive policy ADVICE in private, any regulations or legislation passed as a result of that advice is a matter of public record. If the Congress disagrees, it can take action. If the public disagrees, they can vote the Republicans out.
Yes, some oil companies may benefit from some of the energy task force’s proposals. But if the proposals are not in the public interest, the remedies are there. Sometimes, though, the public interest does coincide with private corporate interest.
In no way does preserving the confidentiality of the energy task force’s consultants remotely compare to the suspension of habeas corpus. It’s not nearly as bad.