Depends what you mean by credible

Talk to any credible economist, wire any serious politician to a polygraph, and you will hear at least 80 percent agreement on what is to be done: investment to goose the lackluster recovery and rebuild our infrastructure, entitlement reforms and spending discipline to lower the debt, and a tax code that lets the government pay its way without stifling business, punishing the middle class or rewarding sleight of hand. (Bill Keller, 7/21/2010)

I'm going to start referring to Krugman as the Incredible Economist.

From the Pulitzer Prize citation for David Leonhardt, NY Times, November 2010.

I'm intrigued by the image of the polygraph: why a serious politician in particular? Does it mean a serious polititican is more inclined to lie than a frivolous one? Or that they're all equally likely to lie but only a serious politician will know what the correct answer is? Watch out, Friedman, looks like you may have some competition!

Still, there's something going on here. Keller doesn't bemoan the absence of a president willing to try to stimulate the economy and balance the budget at the same time, because he knows we already have one, which is a big step forward in awareness, and he (and old Erskine Bowles) have joined what I thought was an entirely leftist crowd—well, starting with Senator Patty Murray last week, and then Matthew Yglesias—urging Democrats to play chicken with those Bush tax cuts, which expire at the end of the year, and also with the ghastly across-the-board spending cuts from the last budget pseudo-agreement, which kick in at the same time.

That is, after Boehner offers his next unacceptable budget, Obama could Just Say No, and then call a lame-duck session after the election to crank something out before January 1. I don't know, though, wouldn't that be affected (1) by what happens during the election, and more important (2) what the congresspersons, victorious and defeated, think happened?