Post by AztecWilliam on Jun 8, 2013 22:38:35 GMT -8
Just what is austerity? Let me put it another way. Are we, in real terms (i.e., allowing for inflation), spending less, year-to-year than we used to? I think the answer to that question is a resounding "NO."
I certainly agree that cutting the federal budget by, let's say, 25% all at once would probably hurt the economy significantly. But that is not what is happening, and that is not even what the deficit hawks are proposing.
How about simply proposing a 5 year plan to cut federal spending by 3-5%? That means, in real, inflation-adjusted dollars, 3-5% fewer bucks spent by D.C.? Are you telling me that there is no way that federal programs cannot stand a cut of 3-5% over a five year span? How about consolidating redundant programs?
There are about 50 federal job training programs (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/may/16/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-said-there-are-49-different-federal-jo/). Do we really need half a hundred such programs? Each with its on staff, its own suite of offices, its own computers, its own supply room, its own legal council, its own news letter and . . . most importantly . . . its own entrenched resistance to change?
Okay, maybe we can't combine them all into one program. Probably can't, in fact. You think maybe we could combine them into, say, a dozen programs? With a savings of hundreds of millions of dollars a year?
Aren't there many economies that could be achieved without harming those whom the programs are meant to held? In other words, is there not a way to cut government, just a bit, without our teeth falling out and our airliners crashing to the ground?
As for Krugman, he has long given up the role of economist and has taken up the role of partisan political operative (or, to be blunt, that of a political hack).
AzWm
I certainly agree that cutting the federal budget by, let's say, 25% all at once would probably hurt the economy significantly. But that is not what is happening, and that is not even what the deficit hawks are proposing.
How about simply proposing a 5 year plan to cut federal spending by 3-5%? That means, in real, inflation-adjusted dollars, 3-5% fewer bucks spent by D.C.? Are you telling me that there is no way that federal programs cannot stand a cut of 3-5% over a five year span? How about consolidating redundant programs?
There are about 50 federal job training programs (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/may/16/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-said-there-are-49-different-federal-jo/). Do we really need half a hundred such programs? Each with its on staff, its own suite of offices, its own computers, its own supply room, its own legal council, its own news letter and . . . most importantly . . . its own entrenched resistance to change?
Okay, maybe we can't combine them all into one program. Probably can't, in fact. You think maybe we could combine them into, say, a dozen programs? With a savings of hundreds of millions of dollars a year?
Aren't there many economies that could be achieved without harming those whom the programs are meant to held? In other words, is there not a way to cut government, just a bit, without our teeth falling out and our airliners crashing to the ground?
As for Krugman, he has long given up the role of economist and has taken up the role of partisan political operative (or, to be blunt, that of a political hack).
AzWm