Potomac Fever is the blog of the Hamilton College Semester in Washington Program.
The part where he cut funding from assistance to impoverished families?
I was referring to the part where he balances the budget by making the tough choices. Yes, that would be the one.
I know. I was pointing out that once people confront him on how exactly he balanced the budget, it's a much less rosy scenario.A balanced budget for its own sake isn't a virtuous thing. Good government isn't just in-the-black government.
Maybe not, but a presidential contender who can demonstrate his commitment to fiscal sanity is going to look real good to voters if our current trajectory of federal borrowing-and-spend craziness continues.
I would also add that balancing the budget is not going to be a "rosy scenario" under any circumstances, which is why it's so difficult to do. People are going to lose out. Personally, I would be just as willing to cut military spending as I would spending for social programs for the sake of satiating both sides of the spectrum. But it is a sad fact that people will be unhappy, because they will no longer get free (not really free, but you know what I mean) stuff. Governing is all about choices, and I think right now we need to choose fiscal sustainability over federal handouts, be they to impoverished families or Northrop Grumman.
It's economically irresponsible to cut government spending during a recession. Now is the best possible time for a government to run deficits; borrowing is cheap, because interest rates are low, and government spending replaces consumer hoarding.I do agree that we need much more fiscal sanity in how we operate government over the long term, but we won't reach a point where it'll be safe to start cutting government spending until probably 2012-2014.
I don't agree with the premises of that statement, but my point, and your question, had more to do with why I think this is good publicity for T-Paw. According to the WSJ,"Deficit reduction and reining in spending are critically important priorities for the vast majority of the electorate. Indeed, according to a Rasmussen Reports Poll conducted at the end of last month, voters say deficit reduction is most important and health care is a distant second."Voters don't like it when politicians tell them they need to spend the people's money so it's not "hoarded." Say what you will about the policy, but it's not going to win elections.
Post a Comment