In Friday’s New York Times. Paul Krugman argued that Starbucks billionaire Howard Schultz was not qualified to be President. This, he suggested, should not be surprising. Running a company does not suggest that the executive understands public policy, let alone that the policy he would recommend is well considered. Krugman argues that Schultz’ understanding of the importance of the national debt is seriously flawed. Moreover, Schultz proposes to deal with the debt in typical billionaire fashion – cutting social security rather than requiring the rich to pay their fair share.
Schultz maintains that Medicare for all is not American and the country could not afford it. But, as Krugman observes, Medicare already covers a third of Americans and universal care has not bankrupted Canada or other countries of the west.
On the same editorial page, David Brooks praises Medicare for all advocate Kamala Harris. According to Brooks, she is the “toughest and most hard-nosed progressive [actually her record is more mixed than Brooks supposes] on the scene right now.” She is canny, smart, and telegenic. On the other hand, she is a first term Senator with service as the California State Attorney General. One might argue that she could use more seasoning for a Presidential run. On the other hand, Obama had less experience, and I voted for him (though his lack of experience showed early in his Presidency). We will not have a perfect candidate. But it is too early to settle. Nonetheless, we could do worse than Harris.
Comments