The other day on the stump, Mitt Romney said the following words: "“If you just cut,
if all you’re thinking about doing is cutting spending, (CW emphasis) as you cut spending you’ll slow down the economy.” In response,
a giddy Paul Krugman writes the following: "So he believes that cutting government spending hurts growth, other things equal... Almost surely, he is, in fact, a closet Keynesian." This is ridiculous, but then again, we're talking Paul Krugman.
Here's why:
1. A Keynesian would not only argue against CUTTING spending, he'd argue for increasing it. That isn't what Romney said, and it isn't what he means. It is however, what Krugman wants.
2. NO Republican candidate is putting forward a program in which ALL THEY DO is cut spending. Romney is putting forward proposals to broaden the tax base and limit deductions--which he would do at the same time he cuts spending.
Posts
3 comments:
How is it that entitlements and transfer payments are "good" Keyenesean spending while military spending is "bad"?
Seems a soldier/sailor/Marine getting paid, or a worker in an aircraft factory, or shipyard, would have at least as much of a good impact as someone getting a check for breathing.
With the kind of spending cuts we need I can guarantee a pretty nasty two year recession. And I can guarantee the Republicans will be blamed. But we don't have to do it right now. We can opt for the 70's solution and go through 10 years of same old same old and then, if we're smart enough, go back to free market solutions. Of course by then we'll be so damned dumbed down Hugo Chavez will be President.
If you ever wondered what a cat's head on a horse's ass would look like, CW has provided the answer here.
Post a Comment