Well, that's how Krugman would like to justify it. But, on the other hand, when it comes to politics, Krugman is a complete ass. (and I think I can say that in a completely objective manner)

There is no reasonable definition of austerity that can be satisfied in these conditions. The US (and various European govt's that Krugman has been blathering about) were already spending a lot of money. For the most part (a few very limited examples exist), their spending has kept pace with, and generally even exceeded, inflation.

When the government is taking at least as much of the country's pie as it always had, and generally even a growing share, it is simply absurd to call that austerity.

That change is positive, if you include the transfer payments that Krugman has excluded.