On Friday, responding to the deeply discouraging jobs report, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) shouted to reporters, "Why don`t they pick up the bills and pass them and help the American people, instead of playing politics over there?"
"They," in this context, was in reference to senators who've largely ignored small and ineffectual policies approved by the House intended to create jobs. As it turns out, however, President Obama could have repeated the exact same words Boehner used in response to the same news.
Indeed, in his weekly address, Obama reminded the political world of an economic package -- the American Jobs Act -- that he presented in September, but which Congress regrettably chose to ignore.
"[M]y message to Congress is, get to work. Right now, Congress should pass a bill to help states prevent more layoffs, so we can put thousands of teachers and firefighters and police officers back on the job. Congress should have passed a bill a long time ago to put thousands of construction workers back on the job rebuilding our roads and our bridges and our runways. Instead of just talking a good game about job creators, Congress should give small business owners a tax break for hiring more workers and paying them higher wages. Let's get that done."
One of the ironies of the GOP message on Friday was the widespread assumption that the White House's "policies" were to blame for the struggling job market. That might have made more sense if, for example, Obama's jobs agenda had been approved but failed to produce.
But it's tougher to blame poor results on policies that weren't tried -- or at least, it should be much tougher.
Is it too late for Congress to act? Actually, no. Independent analysis projected the American Jobs Act, which was fully paid for, could create as many as 2 million jobs in 2012. With the year nearly half over, that's no longer possible, but if the jobs package were approved immediately, we would see a sharp economic improvement fairly quickly.
But therein lies the point: Congress isn't going to "get to work." Republicans don't want to.
Bill Maher joked over the weekend on Twitter, "Is it treason to purposefully block any help for the economy so voters blame the president and turn to the other party? Just asking."
While the "t" word is obviously hyperbolic, there is an underlying point here about the economic debate. In September, Obama presented a credible, serious plan to boost job creation; his policies were popular with the public and the kind of measures that have traditionally enjoyed support from both parties; the agenda was fully paid for; and the president made clear that his plan was sorely needed.
When Republicans killed the Americans Jobs Act, they effectively lost the right to blame Obama for the struggling job market. He produced a plan to improve matters; they didn't produce a plan and they killed the policies that would have helped. With the benefit of hindsight, we know the president was right and the congressional GOP was wrong.
The Republican line of late has been, "Things would be better if we were doing things our way." What they don't seem to realize is that, as Paul Krugman explained yesterday, we already are trying things their way, and no one seems to like the results.
What should be done about the economy? Republicans claim to have the answer: slash spending and cut taxes. What they hope voters won't notice is that that's precisely the policy we've been following the past couple of years. Never mind the Democrat in the White House; for all practical purposes, this is already the economic policy of Republican dreams.
So the Republican electoral strategy is, in effect, a gigantic con game: it depends on convincing voters that the bad economy is the result of big-spending policies that President Obama hasn't followed (in large part because the G.O.P. wouldn't let him), and that our woes can be cured by pursuing more of the same policies that have already failed.
Leave a Comment:
The entire Republican argument over the last three and a half years has been "President Obama and the Democrats are failing to clean up our mess to our satisfaction."
8.2 Unemployment, yeah, that should be to no ones satisfaction.
That 8.2% unemployment rate would be more than a full percentage point lower had the Republicans passed the AJA.
You can't blame Obama for failing to act when the Republicans don't allow him to.
Think of this analogy, Eric. You're at the beach. A friend suddenly gets caught in an undertow and starts to drown. You start towards him, but a group of people grabs you and restrains you--for no apparent reason. He continues to flail around. Based on your logic, if he drowns, it's YOUR fault.
Sure and the Stimulus would cause the rate not to rise above 8%, and we would be back to 5.75 by now, right? How much Stimulus do we need? It isn't working, long recovery.
So your logic is the guy is drowning you throw him a rope, that doesn't work you throw him a raft, that doesn't work you make swimming movements, that doesn't work you you call for a boat, that doesn't work.......
Eric, you're missing the point. The group restraining you isn't allowing you to do anything. Period. You can't throw him anything. You can call for things all you want, but if nobody else is around to do them, or is unable to do them, it really doesn't matter.
I think your response makes my case.
(Also, Obama never said that, with the stimulus, unemployment would never go above 8%. That was an off the cuff remark made by one of his economic advisors, before that person (or anyone else) understood the magnitude of the hole that the Bush Administration's lack of oversight of the investment markets dug for us.)
Ok, how about give a man a fish he eats for a day, teach him to fish, he can feed himself for life. Let's teach them to fish. Obama had two years to save the man in the ocean, with his efforts he wasn't able to.
Eric
Your analogy is bizzare. You would suck as a teacher. And I know a lot of teachers.
Big Government is bad!
So you think the government is too big?
Yup.
So you are against spending on welfare or military or ..
Welfare yes.
Oh, so military expense is okay?How about regulating business?
Hell no!
So you agree that abortion clinics should not be regulated?
I never said that.
Oh so health care should be regulated.
Huh?
>>>>>
Spot on!
I humbly suggest that when talking about the economy that anyone who sees the sham that is being played out by the Republicans uses the phrase "the Republican economy of 2012."
Don't think that will stick. This is Obama's economy and the election will be a referendum on his 4 years learning on the job.
Hank
I think that would analogous to a referendum of Lincoln learning on his four years on "the job". Considering the popular opinnion at the time that he was ill prepared for "the job".
The earth is flat, and 6000 years old, and climate change is God's Will.
Government/Big Food have turned us into an obese, diabetic nation.
Government/Big War have destroyed our moral high ground.
Government/ Wall Street have bankrupted us.
And the two parties are fighting over who gets to re-arrange the deck chairs.
And the band (AKA TeeVee) played on. . .
Yes the band played on as the ship sank but we are left to pay the piper while those who sponsored our politicians fly their jets to private islands built for them by Saudi slaves.
I would say it is a sad song but it has the feel of Timothy Leary in the background.
Yes the band played on as the ship sank but we are left to pay the piper while those who sponsored our politicians fly their jets to private islands built for them by Saudi slaves.
I would say it is a sad song but it has the feel of Timothy Leary in the background.
If you have 1 million dollars of your money to invest, do you give it to Obama or Romney? If people think about that come election time and answer honestly, Romney wins by a landslide.
So you do not think a few million people who give ten or twenty bucks to Obama and the DNC can possibly save us from the GOP's crusade against freedom?
Good thing we have our guns huh?
Ten or twenty is charity. Bloomberg not letting you choose what size drink you want, Unions not allowing you to work a public job without joining the union, yeah, sure GOP is against your rights.
Hey Eric,
do you make it a habit to say silly things?
Bloomberg is just making it tedious, and potentially embarrassing, for you to drink 1000 calories worth of soda in one sitting. You can drink as much soda as you want, if you're willing to buy multiple cups or keep getting refills... large amounts of soda aren't outlawed.
Unions don't stop you from working a public job, but you're not allowed to work a union job without joining. It ruins the pool of union work-- you wouldn't be in favor of a USA loving foreign citizen to grab a machine gun and join our guys in Afghanistan, would you? They need to become eligible to register for the army, they need to follow the same rules as everyone else that wants to do that particular job... how's a union different?
Boo Hoo to your poor sense of freedom, if you want a unionized job you have to join a union, how will you survive? Especially if you don't die of thirst first-- if you exclusively buy your drinks from NYC restaurants.
Screw our rights to have people marry whoever they want, the right for women to do as they see fit with their own uterus, the right of people in poor Michigan towns to expect that their vote matters when it comes to people running your city, forget the right US citizens get to vote-- IF they have the right ID... right? as long as we can have lots of Mountain Dew?
Hey Siamesse,
Spin it how ever you like, why is the Gov't telling me how much or what to drink?
Can I work as a teacher in a public school without joining a union?
Oh and your comparison of Unions to the military should have circus music playing in the background and a laugh track, hilarious.
Cry freedom-robbing wolf as much as you like. the Gov't ISN'T telling you how much or what you can drink.
You just can't buy a 2 liter with a straw in it... from a restaurant, that's it. You can buy as many cups as you want, you can get refills, you can buy as much, in whatever quantity you want at the store. And unless you live in NYC... no one is telling you sh*t.
No, you can't, because like I said, you have to follow the rules of a unionized job. If you aren't in a union, and you take a union job, you taint the pool. If schools have a choice why wouldn't they hire a bunch of un-union workers? Pay them minimum wage, don't offer benefits, fire them if they've been there long enough for a raise... etc. And that's just screwing the worker, but there's the added fact that most union jobs are skills that get better with time. Heavy machinist, teachers, firefighters, cops-- having young people who've been doing it for two years isn't better than having seasoned vets doing it. Having some safeguards that those older, more qualified, more experienced people get paid fairly and don't get pushed out of their jobs is beneficial to all.
I didn't compare unions to the military specifically, I compared the rules in place-- the pre-requisites you need-- to each other. Do you deny that both have rules you have to follow if you want to do the job? If you do, I'll come up with a simpler analogy for you, what kind of job would you like me to use? What can you grasp your mind around? Let me know.
Well, we are seeing in WI people fleeing the unions now that they can opt out. Making it a condition of work for a public job to be forced to pay union dues is wrong. There are plenty of private schools that aren't union, why should you HAVE to join a union? You should be able to opt out.
private schools, not public.
why do you not seem to understand simple sentences?
It taints the pool. You can't have union and non-union workers in the same job-- because again, the employer could opt to go with all non-union employees-- and without the guaranteed protection of being in a union the employer can treat the employee like crap.
Union dues are one thing, and when you have guaranteed decent wages, that get raised, at generally a good pace, you can afford some dues. If you don't have a union you could risk having a minimum wage job, in which they cut your hours, in which they can retaliate, or discriminate without leaving you much recourse to seek justice.
Having a good job with good pay and benefits is worth some union dues, I don't know why you guys want to argue that giving the employer all the power in hiring, wages, work conditions is a good thing... do you guys just ignore the gilded age completely?
Are people opting out? I haven't heard anything about opting out, do you have a story I can read or something? I know the numbers or decreasing, but I think that's because there's less employees, there's less work, the state is slashing jobs and businesses are leaving. The state changed collective bargaining, but I don't think that changes the structure of a union, I don't think you can opt out-- I very much could be wrong, but I'd love a link to some proof.
Finally, your rage on "making it a condition to pay a due is wrong." Where's the outrage of "making it a condition" to have an ID to vote? To wait three days for an abortion? To lie about your sexuality to join the military (I know that's no longer the law, but I'm sure you didn't have a problem with it.)
You guys sure do pick weird things to complain about, especially when millions of other people are suffering real life threats to freedom and pursuit of happiness.
P.S. I feel like I'm adequately answering your questions, addressing your hypotheticals, even though you don't seem to understand my answers, and I'm forced to re-answer the same empty examples you give-- why can't I get any answers to the questions, and the scenarios I posed to you?
why can't I get any answers to the questions, and the scenarios I posed to you?
Becasue as you know that is how the gop disinformation network operates , they really have ZERO answers , they just move onto another subject when they are outed , that is why I never use a question make when dealing with the shlubs
Eric says romney is a better investment than obama and america , we have been investing in the romneys for the last 30 years, and america is going belly up middle class wise , wall st only works for the wealthy , you could give romney $5,000 to invest for you and you might get chump change back , or nothing at all , I'll invest in an honest america over a wall st scammer any day
I have a good paying job, good benefits, always have and would never work a Union job. You keep saying you can't have non-union workers working the same job because they might opt for non-union employees. This is not proving to be true, in WI without the automatic collection of dues, people are not joining. If given a choice in today's market, people will not voluntarily join a Union.
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/347808/20120601/wisconsin-union-membership-plunges.htm
You seem to think if we no longer have Unions people will be treated like crap, that is just not true anymore. Laws have been put in place that were not in place when Unions were created. We did need them at one time, but they are out dated and no longer needed.
Don't have a problem with that, why should anyone? It's telling that the left thinks their constituents are so pathetic they can not obtain an ID. If they care so much, why not help them get them? If would help them so much more in life than just whining about it. The 2008 Election was won by less than 600 votes, with that small a margin, need to make sure all votes are accurate, why does the left have a problem with this?
Don't have issue with any sexuality in military or abortion as long as public money isn't used.
Ok, where did he scam anyone? Bill Clinton even said his record was "sterling". You have an answer Pat?
and why do you think that is? I'll give you some time to mull that over.
You having a good job is irrelevant to unions. And your "this is proving to not be true" is not a real correlation. people not wanting to work for a union has no bearing on how a boss will treat union employees, your "argument" falls quite flat.
It's not me "thinking" it, it's me referencing history... it's happened, without unions, without those lose you seem to think we don't need anymore, people were treated like crap, work conditions were awful, wages never rose... it's not a theory, it's a fact.
1. that's not true, Obama got tens of thousands more votes. I can only assume you don't know how electoral college works, because as evidenced by the 2000 election, votes don't always equal wins. Obama won by more than doubling the electoral votes. 2. voter ID laws do nothing to legitimize votes. Non of the voter fraud that's been uncovered (like a dozen cases, nationally) would have been prevented by having an ID.
Being too old to have a birth certificate, being an adopted kid that doesn't have a birth certificate, being a poor person that can't miss work to go wait at the dmv for an ID are not symptoms of being pathetic. Again, these aren't theories, legitimate voters have already lost the ability to vote in the states that have passed voter ID laws, it's already happened, it's not a guess.
Yes, as I said Unions helped get work places and conditions better, we have laws, we don't need unions.
HAPPENED as in history, as in the past, now is different, discrimination and wage laws now exist. Thank you Unions, now go away.
You are right, I meant the 2000 election Gore/Bush the difference in the vote was under 600 in Florida.
Without the threat of your entire workforce, and the possibility of quickly replacing them, and also the threat of all your suppliers and your buyers joining your workforce in solidarity and not buying from you when they strike--
without the protection a union offers why do you think CEO's would just all of a sudden be nice to their employees?
I'm not talking about breaking laws, but hiring at minimum wage, having high turnover and offering no job security. Those aren't illegal, but they suck, and they save money, to keep the wages cheap. And then there's the tons of things they can do that aren't "officially" retaliating or punishing-- things that can't do when you go up against a union as opposed to a person.
"If you have 1 million dollars of your money to invest, do you give it to Obama or Romney? If people think about that come election time and answer honestly, Romney wins by a landslide."
Not unless we're electing a chief hedge fund manager. I'd be happy to trust Romney with a million of my dollars. As long as Obama is President during the time Romney is acting as my investment advisor. Obama's policies and approach will make the country wealthier and more stable in the long run.
"I have a good paying job, good benefits, always have and would never work a Union job. You keep saying you can't have non-union workers working the same job because they might opt for non-union employees."
It isn't that they might decide to hire non-union employees so they can pay them less. It's the classic "fair share" situation. You have union members putting their time, energy, and dues money on the line, bargaining to create a certain level of compensation and work rules, while the non-union folks would be getting the benefit of those sacrifices while paying nothing toward them.
Answer this, Eric: OK, you wouldn't want to be part of a teachers' union at the school at which you would teach. (Fortunately, you aren't teaching, because you're not suited for it, but that's another issue.) Would you be willing to be paid less, have fewer benefits, and be subject to the whim and caprice of school administrators--while doing the same level of work as those who are members of the union? If not, your argument against the union is completely pointless. Sure, lots of people would opt not to pay union dues if it meant they didn't have to sacrifice anything.
Unions are a minority, are we seeing those things happen to non-union jobs every day? Successful, competitive companies do not partake in those practices and we see others that do pay the price. If my company fired everyone and hired Min wage workers they would be out of business in a week. You talk as if you don't have a Union job everyone is working for min wage and lining up for ritual beatings, it's not happening. Sorry, Unions work is done, let's show them the door.
Sure, but why do you assume I would be paid less or get less benefits? Private teachers do it every day, the benefits are established and if I don't HAVE to pay dues to the union that's even more money in my pocket. I should have a choice, if a teacher is a great teacher with experience what do I care or need a Union?
At least you admit you'd give your money to Romney, instead of Obama. I'm betting you do that same if no matter who was in charge.
Eric
I would not give a million dollars to either Obama or Romney. Obama has better things to do like run this country and Romney has the ethics of a slumlord. I'd give to TIAA-CERF which runs my pension account. They have shown themselves to be reliable, ethical and trustworthy. They didn't invest in risky derivatives when everyone else did.
The only other entity I would trust my money with would be USAA where I have my insurance policies. Again reliable, ethical and trustworthy.
Sorry that should be "I would not give a million dollars to neitherObama or Romney" not "either". I hope the grammar police won't cite me. :-)
Maria,
You don't have a third choice. Pick one. Clinton says Romney's record is "sterling", and no ethics violations. BHO has us at 8% unemployment, failed investments, Romney had unemployment under 5%. Answer honestly, your money, 1 million.
Sorry I am going all Kobiyashi Maru on you. I still stand by who I would handle my money if I had a million to invest. I wouldn't trust Romney with a penny of my money no matter what Bill Clinton said. Personally I think Clinton was having a WTF am I thinking moment. Romney is dishonest and unethical. Obama I trust with running a country and the economy. My city benefited from the stimulus so no matter how failed you think it was, I know it's wasn't.
Another example why you would be a lousy teacher Eric. BTW job creation 47th of 50 states. Some job creator.
...and you are a lousy student. Still can't show me where he was unethical or dishonest. You know BHO would blow and waste your money like a sailor on leave, and Romney has a "sterling" record. As for the spendulus, as long as you "know", that's all that matters. So, given a test with A or B, you pick a non-existent C and fail, it's what I expected.
Romney asunethical. I call unethical a man who destroys companies and employees lives for massive self gain unethical. It may be legal to you. You may consider it "sterling" I call it unethical and brutish.
As to dishonest all you have to do is read through Mendacity I-XX to see that this man is dishonest to the core. As to spending like a sailor on leave, I'd give that title to GWB. He was spending massive of amounts of money on two wars onno bid contracts. Billions disappeared in Iraq. Goodness know where that money went.
I consider that I succeed because I failed your test. It is inherently flawed. Of course it's what you expected. You are so obstinate you can't think beyond your own presupposed ideas.
Good day to you sir.
the word treason is hyperbolic? you've got to be kidding me! that's putting it mildly!
Exactly! It isn't just "help for the economy" the Rape-Public-Con-Men have been blocking, it's everything - large and small, significant and not. Deliberately monkey-wrenching the gears of governance specifically for the sake of obstruction for obstruction's sake - i.e., actively seeking to undermine the Government of the United States.
Even when they agree in principle, they've opposed the President's initiatives as "strategy", as Dr. Maddow has pointed out time and again: examples of policies that had been proposed by Rape-Public-Con-Men, only to be opposed once the President signaled that he was willing to support them. Governmental offices, even vitally important ones, remain vacant because nominees (once again, even ones that Rape-Public-Cons are willing to publicly acknowledge as being well qualified) were "held" by individual Senators simply in order to deny the President a "win". Etc., etc.
No, the word treason is not "hyperbolic" in this context. And I insist that I am not mispronouncing (nor, according to this blog's spell-checker, mis-spelling) "Rape-Public-Cons"!
Let's do our part by creating jobs in the USA one call at a time.
Both sides of our political spectrum need to address all the jobs being outsourced offshore in places like India and the Philippines. A good majority of these jobs are within tech support, product support and customer service. Companies are paying upwards of $32.00 per hour which is still considered a good wage in the USA.
The next time you are on the phone with a call center please if you are talking with someone in the USA. If not, politely ask to be transferred to a USA representative. Chances are you will be transferred to the offshore supervisor trying to keep that center and you may be placed on hold numerous times while they are trying to get you to hand up. This is the trick they use to keep the call offshore so they can be paid so be persistent and you will eventually end up in a USA call center.
By spending a few extra minutes on your next call you will be doing your part in creating jobs in the USA. All companies who have call centers monitor the traffic daily and will realize within a week that they need additional personnel within the USA centers. If everyone in the USA did this for a few months we would create over 80,000 jobs this year domestically.
Ya know, I like being able to fire people that provide a service to me.
For as much as the GOP loves the free market, how dare they take a job that WE pay for and not do it. If I took half of the year off from work, or if I decided that I needed a week off every month, if I only produced 15% of my expected output-- I'd be fired.
Can we fire GOP? Why can't we recall ineffective (in this case, deliberately so) representatives... they don't even represent the 79% of Republicans that favor taxing the rich.
sack 'em already.
Rmoney being anywhere near the White House is so ridiculous that is stings.. I am extraordinarily tired of utter falsehoods, media info-tainment and the Food Network.. The blame for the countries economic well being lies upon the GOP and it's lockstep battalion of stubborn retards.. The experiment has failed ladies and gentlerubes, as "Eric!" puts it so mindlessly above; it's (not) the two parties fighting each other that's the problem, if only the Democrats would bend over some more for the Sociopaths!
I can't believe that thinking Americans with morals and values can actually support the GOP. These people are committing economic treason against US all! Where are the JOBS that Bonehead promised would be forthcoming as soon as the GOP got elected to Congress? Liars, traitors to WE the people, bigoted, arrogant and selfish that's what the GOP has lowered itself to.
FIRE THE GOP IN NOVEMBER 2012!!
Let's see Mitt needs a job and millions of Americans need a job. Hiring Mitt feeds an ego trip. Finding jobs for millions of people feeds the economy and the people. What a tough choice!!!
but he doesn't need one... he wants it... for what reason I don't know.
That's the thing. He makes more in a day than the average American makes in a year... he'll be fine without the job.
So, millions of Americans need jobs, and Romney wants a job- a job he's not qualified for. still, tough choice though!
Siammese...he wants the job so he can protect his own wealth. If Obama wins and tax changes are implemented, Romney will have his tax rate go up and estimates so far are that he and his wife will owe 5 million a yr more. He also wants to protect his kids from having any inheritance taxes, although he has done a nice job with the 100 million tax free trust he set up for the 5 boys.
Wow, never comment at the political threads before being fully awake.. (country's, etc..) Of course, even asleep I may still be light years ahead of the crowd that would vote for Rmoney to "lead" the country into prosperity (more prosperity for the already well off, that is..).
Good heavens, I see the Romney/Omni trolls are out if full force to try to derail what the President is saying about the horrendous do-nothing but squat on everything good for the people Congress.
The remark about 'government control" and Bloomberg. I believe he ran for Mayor AS A REPUBLICAN, though now he is switched to Independent. Besides, if the goverment can control the sale of dangerous substances, confining them to certain locales (you can still buy gigantic drinks, just not ready 'to go' from a restaurant) what's wrong with that? Obesity is a public menace.
In my opinion people who are taught early about nutrition (in a way not distorted by big Ag interests -- I recall under Bush that they tried to teach that something like 80% of your calories should come from grains and cereals??) they won't become so obese.
Eric, you do know that only 10 percent of workers are represented by unions, right? So 90 percent of the jobs out there are non union. the whole part of the union stripping efforts by the GOP on this issue has to do with 2 things: 1) Unions are one of the few areas the Dems can compete in with Repubs in raising money for political raises. In 2008 1 of the top 10 funding was unions, the other 9 all Republican organizations. in 2010, unions had 3 of the 10 top 10. 2) the second area is that unions have superior ground skills in getting out the vote. These are the 2 and real reasons the Pubs are trying to crush unions. My father was an a lobbyist who worked against unions, and I have known those 2 things since i was 12 because he complained about it daily. Said once they crushed the unions, we would be a Republican country forever!
Said once they crushed the unions, we would be a Republican country forever!
Sherry - did your dad predict when this will be?
And that is a HUGE problem. If I take a public job as a teacher HAVE to pay a Union, they take my money (paid by tax payers) and use it to push their agenda. I have very little say, I can say I don't want my dues to go toward a specific politiacal candidate or party. Public Unions should not be allowed to do this.
GO WALKER!!!
"While the "t" word is obviously hyperbolic, there is an underlying point here about the economic debate"
AS my kids would say, "REALLY"! Would you prefer the word sedition? What do you call it when the Sen leader of the other party says we will do everything to make sure he(Presidetn Obama) has one term. Are you really as stupid as the President and chalk it up to "politics", when the evidence clearly shows that is Mcconnell's party policy? What do you call it when the American Taliban objects to madatory participation in insurance pools(their idea)? Do you realize you have no credibility when you say things like this?
I understand exactly what it means when you use the word treason. Let's start with the first definition in Merriam-Webster a betrayal of trust. Isn't it a betrayal of trust not to put the economic welfare of the country first?
If Obama wants to improve his own job outlook then he needs to take Congress to task before they adjourn for the summer. He should have a press conference or give an address that lambastes Congress if they adjourn without passing any jobs bill that actually creates jobs. It would be easy for Obama to coordinate with Reid and send bills to the House before they leave for the summer. That allows Dems to say Republicans are more interested in politics that work and that is a message people get. People work every week while Congress takes off 3 months. If Obama can hold Republicans hostage in DC with public opinion, then he can force them to get something done before the election. Republicans would risk voter wrath if they go home instead of working on a bill.
Paul Krugman is a progressive liberal and an Obammy shill for the White House. No one should take him seriously.