Quick Blackmail / Hostage situation update

Paul Krugman says:

Think about it. There’s a significant chance that failing to raise the debt limit could provoke a renewed financial crisis — and Republicans would rather take that chance than allow a reduction in tax breaks on corporate jets.

The rationale is that one of the issues being debated by Republicans and Democrats is whether to alter the tax treatment of corporate jets in the bill that raises the debt limit – Republicans are presumably threatening to not vote for a bill that does contain such an alteration, while Democrats are presumably threatening to not vote for a bill that does not contain such an alteration.

I’ll just point out the symmetry that Krugman is failing to see (or at least mention). He could just as well have written:

Think about it. There’s a significant chance that failing to raise the debt limit could provoke a renewed financial crisis — and Democrats would rather take that chance than allow there to continue to be tax breaks on corporate jets.

Krugman then accuses Republicans of blackmail. Before I says who I think is blackmailing whom (if anyone), I’m going to finish Leo Katz’s book.

One quick point, though: unlike the last time Krugman accused Republicans of being hostage-takers because they demanded tax cuts for the wealthy in order to extend tax cuts for the middle-class, in this case, it is the Republicans who are advocating for the status quo (i.e. no change to the tax code as it relates to corporate jets), and the Democrats who are demanding a change. So if the critical determinant of which party is the hostage-taker / blackmailer is which side is demanding a change (i.e. if that party which demands a change to the status quo in order to vote for something that both sides agree is necessary should be deemed the hostage-taker / blackmailer), it was Republicans last time and Democrats this time. Thus Krugman would be 1 for 2.