NOW I Understand!

A few days ago, in a post about N.J. Governor Christie’s decision to abort a badly needed tunnel linking New Jersey and New York, and his multiple lies about his reasons for doing so, I admitted that I was baffled: there was no scenario I could come up with that made the decision explicable.

Now, Paul Krugman has supplied the answer that eluded me.

I started to quote an excerpt, but his column needs to be read in its entirety. Click through and read it. And ponder.

The degree to which contemporary politicians have substituted delusional ideology and naked self-interest for any lingering allegiance to  the public good is breathtaking. And so very, very depressing.


  1. Paul Krugman is not a person to be relied upon for any economic analysis, particularly given his hatred of anyone with an R behind their name. You must really like Gov. Daniels’ bridge plan with Kentucky that requires Hoosiers to pay more than 70% of the costs of building if you agree with Krugman and not Christie. From Urbanophile:

    “To recap: The two states were able to reduce the cost of the overall project by $1.5 billion, but Indiana gave away $1.7 billion to Kentucky, meaning its share of the costs actually went up by $200 million. Indiana also agreed to built a 1.4 mile approach road and tunnel in Kentucky for $795 million – a staggering $100,000 per foot – that is now the most expensive highway project on Indiana’s books.

    I always knew tolling would be bad for Indiana, but now we know how bad. I wouldn’t mind if Hoosiers were paying for the East End bridge that makes sense (minus the gold plated, fraudulent tunnel on the Kentucky side of the river), but to pay for nearly the entire project is ludicrous.”

  2. Wait. Paul Krugman, winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics, can’t be relied on for economic analysis?

    What issues do you have with his statements in the linked article?

  3. So you’re going to pull out the Nobel Prize card, which lost any credibility after awarding its peace prize to Obama before he spent a day in the White House and before we learned that he was just as likely to prolong undeclared, illegal wars and instigate new ones as his predecessor. Christie made a decision that was best for the taxpayers of his state, not the elitists like Krugman living in Manhattan who think whatever is good for Manhattan is good for New Jersey or any other place in America for that matter.

  4. Krugman pointed out many reasons why the decision Christie made was a poor one. You point out that the decision Christie made was a good one because… he said it was a good one and he must know best. Do you have any qualms with the factual statements that Krugman put forth or is your main problem with his article that he is a liberal who should mind his own business?? If so, what are these qualms?

  5. Apparently you didn’t catch my reference to the Ohio River bridge projects that have Indiana paying more than 70% of the construction contracts as my explanation of why Christie is right and Krugman is wrong. Krugman dismissed Christie’s assertion because the local financing component of the project is being paid from toll revenues. The tolls are being paid primarily by New Jersey residents traveling in and out of Manhattan, not vice versa. That’s the basis for Aaron Renn’s critique of the funding relied upon for the bridge deal with Kentucky. The vast majority of the tolls are being paid by Indiana residents traveling to and from Louisville, not vice versa. The federal funding Krugman claims is being given up is only available because revenues are generated for the project from the tolls primarily paid by New Jersey residents. That doesn’t even consider the fact that the federal government don’t have the money to contribute to the project; it’s just borrowing more money it doesn’t have.

Comments are closed.