More on Units and the Economic Cost of Spending Cuts
There is a new estimate of the effect of $ 60 billion spending cut on GDP and employment. Since this estimate was made by brilliant economist* Ben Bernanke aided by the staff of the Federal Reserve Board, it will get a lot of attention.
Bernanke said that a $60 billion cut along the lines being pursued by Republicans in the House of Representatives would likely trim growth by around two-tenths of a percentage point in the first year and one-tenth in the next year.
“That would translate into a couple of hundred thousand jobs. So it’s not trivial,” he said in response to questions from members of the House Financial Services Committee.
This sure seems to be completely different from Mark Zandi’s estimate of 700,000 jobs. I think there is some confusion about units of measure and, in particular about the unit the “job.”
How can that be ? Well the effect of a policy shock changes over time and so one can discuss the effect on person-years of unemployment. One can also discuss the maximum effect on unemployment, which, in practice means the effect measured in the month with the largest effect.
Bernanke explained his calculation. He calculated the effect on yearly GDP in 2012 then applied Okun’s law. Thus he calculated the effect on average employment in 2012. His estimate of job-years lost is around 200,000 in 2012 after 133,000 in 2011 and presumably some in 2013. There is no way to calculate the largest monthly difference between employment given Obama’s budget proposal and employment given the House Republicans budget from yearly growth rates.
I’m sure Zandi is talking about the largest monthly difference which I would guess he forecasts for late 2011 or early 2012.
I can do an Okun’s law calculation for Phillips et al. (the Goldman Sachs team). They predict that the cuts will cause third quarter GDP to be 0.75% lower. By Okuns law, that corresponds to roughly 500,000 fewer jobs (three eighth’s of one percent of the labor force).
They forecast that second quarter GDP will be 0.375% lower. That means that they forecast that growth from fiscal year 2010 to fiscal year 2011 will be reduced by
9/32 percent, that is roughly 0.3%. This is a larger effect than the Fed’s estimated effect on growth (I can’t tell how much larger as Phillips et al didn’t report a forecast for the 4th quarter). But 0.3% is 0.3%. I describe Phillips et al’s estimate as implying the loss of 500,000 job-quarters in the quarter of maximum impact. Using the same Okun’s law and the same Phillips et al forecast, Bernanke would say 200,000 job-years in fiscal 2011. The 2.5 fold difference is a matter of units of measure.
* This is not at all ironic. I think he is brilliant. Also and much more important, he is reality based. There are smart mathematicians who present themselves as economists but really study formal systems. Bernanke has brilliant thoughts about what really happened in the real world *and* he confronts them with the data.
The Economic Cost of Democrat Spending Cuts
On a related matter:
$60 billion in deficit reduction? Let’s pull the other curtain back. Try $41 billion and more in promised deficit reduction for FY2011 from the Senate Democrats.
Where are the job loss estimates for ANY of the Democrat plans for deficit reduction?
I do not recall an outcry last October when President Obama and OMB announced that the FY2010 budget gap was $177 billion less at the end of the fiscal year than OMB estimated in July 2010. How many jobs did any economists say that reduction in deficit spending over a period of six months cost the nation? Where were the concerns then?
Where were the economists’ concerns when President Obama and OMB outlined $33 billion in program reductions and terminations when the FY2012 Federal Budget proposal was introduced? How many jobs did any economists state that would cost the nation?
Where are the economists’ concerns over the Senate Democrat leadership support to now accelerate some of the $33 billion in
program cuts and eliminations that President Obama has identified in the FY2012 Federal Budget proposal? Why is there no mention of this? How many jobs did any economists state that would cost the nation?
Where are the economists’ concerns over the $41 billion in FY2011 program reductions and terminations that the Senate Democrat leadership has already agreed to support and says it is willing to go further, according to Senator Durbin on February 24, 2011? Why is there no mention of this? How many jobs did any economists state that would cost the nation?
Why is there no mention that the Senate Budget Chairman Kent Conrad Democrat stated on February 14 that “substantially more than $1 trillion worth of deficit reduction” must occur in the next decade?
The Economic Cost of Democrat Spending Cuts
On a related matter:
$60 billion in deficit reduction? Let’s pull the other curtain back. Try $41 billion and more in promised deficit reduction for FY2011 from the Senate Democrats.
Where are the job loss estimates for ANY of the Democrat plans for deficit reduction?
I do not recall an outcry last October when President Obama and OMB announced that the FY2010 budget gap was $177 billion less at the end of the fiscal year than OMB estimated in July 2010. How many jobs did any economists say that reduction in deficit spending over a period of six months cost the nation? Where were the concerns then?
Where were the economists’ concerns when President Obama and OMB outlined $33 billion in program reductions and terminations when the FY2012 Federal Budget proposal was introduced? How many jobs did any economists state that would cost the nation?
Where are the economists’ concerns over the Senate Democrat leadership support to now accelerate some of the $33 billion in program cuts and eliminations that President Obama has identified in the FY2012 Federal Budget proposal? Why is there no mention of this? How many jobs did any economists state that would cost the nation?
Where are the economists’ concerns over the $41 billion in FY2011 program reductions and terminations that the Senate Democrat leadership has already agreed to support and says it is willing to go further, according to Senator Durbin on February 24, 2011? Why is there no mention of this? How many jobs did any economists state that would cost the nation?
Why is there no mention that the Senate Budget Chairman Kent Conrad Democrat stated on February 14 that “substantially more than $1 trillion worth of deficit reduction” must occur in the next decade?
The Economic Cost of Democrat Spending Cuts
On a related matter:
$60 billion in deficit reduction? Let’s pull the other curtain back. Try $41 billion and more in promised deficit reduction for FY2011 from the Senate Democrats.
Where are the job loss estimates for ANY of the Democrat plans for deficit reduction?
I do not recall an outcry last October when President Obama and OMB announced that the FY2010 budget gap was $177 billion less at the end of the fiscal year than OMB estimated in July 2010. How many jobs did any economists say that reduction in deficit spending over a period of six months cost the nation? Where were the concerns then?
Where were the economists’ concerns when President Obama and OMB outlined $33 billion in program reductions and terminations when the FY2012 Federal Budget proposal was introduced? How many jobs did any economists state that would cost the nation?
Where are the economists’ concerns over the Senate Democrat leadership support to now accelerate some of the $33 billion in program cuts and eliminations that President Obama has identified in the FY2012 Federal Budget proposal? Why is there no mention of this? How many jobs did any economists state that would cost the nation?
Where are the economists’ concerns over the $41 billion in FY2011 program reductions and terminations that the Senate Democrat leadership has already agreed to support and says it is willing to go further, according to Senator Durbin on February 24, 2011? Why is there no mention of this? How many jobs did any economists state that would cost the nation?
Why is there no mention that the Senate Budget Chairman Kent Conrad stated on February 14 that “substantially more than $1 trillion worth of deficit reduction” must occur in the next decade?
The Economic Cost of Democrat Spending Cuts
On a related matter:
$60 billion in deficit reduction? Let’s pull the other curtain back. Try $41 billion and more in promised deficit reduction for FY2011 from the Senate Democrats.
Where are the job loss estimates for ANY of the Democrat plans for deficit reduction?
I do not recall an outcry last October when President Obama and OMB announced that the FY2010 budget gap was $177 billion less at the end of the fiscal year than OMB estimated in July 2010. How many jobs did any economists say that reduction in deficit spending over a period of six months cost the nation? Where were the concerns then?
Where were the economists’ concerns when President Obama and OMB outlined $33 billion in program reductions and terminations when the FY2012 Federal Budget proposal was introduced? How many jobs did any economists state that would cost the nation?
Where are the economists’ concerns over the Senate Democrat leadership support to now accelerate some of the $33 billion in program cuts and eliminations that President Obama has identified in the FY2012 Federal Budget proposal? Why is there no mention of this? How many jobs did any economists state that would cost the nation?
Where are the economists’ concerns over the $41 billion in FY2011 program reductions and terminations that the Senate Democrat leadership has already agreed to support and says it is willing to go further, according to Senator Durbin on February 24, 2011? Why is there no mention of this? How many jobs did any economists state that would cost the nation?
Why is there no mention that the Senate Budget Chairman Kent Conrad stated on February 14 that “substantially more than $1 trillion worth of deficit reduction” must occur within the next decade?
MG, c’mon man, get into the game! Y’ano it was calculated by some economists, but never have made it into the MSM.
The bottom line still has not changed. We can handle a deficit problem today when it is under some control or we can wait till there are no other options and no control.
A briliant economist huh? Then please explain to me why he lied about the Taylor Rule the other day? See WSJ on this:
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2011/03/02/war-of-words-taylor-disputes-bernankes-description-of-interest-rate-rule/
Ben confirmed that $200b of QE is = to 1/4 cut in Fed Funds. We have 2.35T of QE therefore monetary equivalent Fed Funds is now MINUS 4%. We have inflation of 1.5%. therefore short term interest rates are 5.5% below inflation (monetetary equivalent).
This has never happened before in America. It is an insane ploicy in 2011 where GDP growth is back to 3+%. And you find this guy brilliant. Wait two years. You will come to hate him.
Dear MG
Your first example demonstrates that I should have explained a term. I discussed the effects of “a policy shock”. That would be a change in policy. If deficits are lower than forecast that is not a change in policy — the appropriations bills and tax code are the same. The lower than expected deficit was endogenous to the economy. Basically tax revenues were higher than predicted and TARP cost less than predicted. Few economists were dismayed that banks didn’t fail (I don’t know of any but there’s probably a “the worse it is, the better it is” Marxist-Leninist economist longing for the crisis of capitalism somewhere).
Your second example is based on a questionable claim of fact. I think you are right that no one produced numerical estimates of the effects of Obama’s proposed spending cuts. However, economists did vigorously denounce Obama for proposing them. In the models used by Phillips et al, Zandi et al and Bernanke et al, government spending is all alike (they are macro models) and the damage Obama proposed doing to the economy is smaller than the damage proposed by the Republicans but defnitely of the same sign.
I will search only within Paul Krugman’s blog
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/16/the-boehnerization-of-barack-obama/
(also click self link in the post above)
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/14/the-new-obama-budget/
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/14/the-great-abdication/
Look I don’t have all day, but I think it is obvious that the macro models used to forecast the effects of the House Republicans cuts are not partisan Democrats. I note that no one has a model which has confronted data, in which the Republican proposal causes higher GDP or employment. There are famous economists who believe that, but no one with money on the line pays any attention to their forecasts (in Decembe 2008 or November 2009, ed Prescott, a Nobel laureate said the economy was in fine shape — this had no noticible effect on the views of actual business people)
You do understand that you are arguing that an advisor to eh McCain campaign and one of Bush’s chairmen of the council of economic advisors are partisan Democrats.
Robert, you do realize you comepletly missed MG’s point, which was: “Where are the job loss estimates for ANY of the Democrat plans for deficit reduction? ”
You then went into the inevitable hand waving -look over here- mode of deflecting with: “I think it is obvious that the macro models used to forecast the effects of the House Republicans cuts are not partisan Democrats.”
MG called for an equivalent analysis for Democratic cuts.
And who might this be? “(I don’t know of any but there’s probably a “the worse it is, the better it is” Marxist-Leninist economist longing for the crisis of capitalism somewhere).” Just wonderin!
These questions can be posed as questions and not rhetorical flourishes…to add to learning. I know that is your aim MG. Goldman Sachs and Moody’s are not in the palms of Dems in the Senate.
For instance:
Why is there no mention that the Senate Budget Chairman Kent Conrad stated on February 14 that “substantially more than $1 trillion worth of deficit reduction” must occur within the next decade?
That is a question. And there might be statements on such lost in the hubbub. Which would be of interest I believe.
The last part of Robert’s comment about the creds of the people writing ” that an advisor to eh McCain campaign and one of Bush’s chairmen of the council of economic advisors are partisan Democrats. ” limits the impact of asking.
Corev…Yours is not a question. Please link to ‘some economists’. The post is not about the MSM, which is a wholly different question about the supposed political leanings of the MSM and is a diversion.
bkrasting: Is your question about Bernanke’s brilliance or how the official measurement of inflation is inadequate?
No. Everyone (including Bernanke) understands that our definitions of inflation are flawed. You, of all people, understand this. You see how things like COLA have been manipulated. I don’t for a minute think that Ben is dumb. He just chooses a set of numbers that match what he is thinking and doing. He is talking his book. Everyone does that. Little guys, Fed heads and yes, presidents.
History will measure how brilliant BB has been in monetary policy during his tenure. I think the books will say that he pulled out all of the stops in 2009 and should get some credit for saving the system. I think that those same books will say that he erred in a massive way by stepping on the gas in the fall of 2010 (QE2). That has already ignited a fire. It is now global in scope. It is just now starting. Wait till the end of the year to see just how brilliant Ben is.
BK, I agree with the wait till the EOY. I almost said so on your previous comment: “Wait two years. You will come to hate him.”
How much longer can he wait until he withdraws QE pressure?
Again…help a poster out by finding one or two links of interpretation from reasonable sources. Your question is still on MSM reporting and not evaluative reseach and papers.
Okay. How is an answer of no a response? And yes measurements of inflation, as noted at AB also, have severe problems on a number of levels. Please explain your view of inflation and macro policy.
One can argue Robert’s fondnesses first (which you consider misplaced?) or policy first. Ask a question that is answerable…and suggest a way to write about further discussion as a post.
I do not mean to pick on people in this thread, but I have to start somewhere where people’s attention is current. Rebecca also has expertise, as does Kash and Mike. What is your question?
My presence here is to take us away from the kinds of converations demonstrated in the healthcare post, probably some here are unaware.
The
Please provide a macro response corev.
Dan, of course this article is about the MSM. Unless a reader knows where an economist might publish, then the MSM not offering Democratic cuts estimates is following the article, the thread and MG’s comment.
Since when has commenting required questions to be constructive?
Dan, of course this article is about the MSM. Note Robert’s reference, Reuters. Unless a reader knows where an economist might publish, then the MSM not offering articles on Democratic cuts estimates is following the article, the thread and MG’s comment.
Since when has commenting required questions to be constructive?
Dan, I realize you are trying to keep the comments on subject, but I strongly diasgree with what you think that subject is. What Robert says in the first couple of paragraphs has to do with dueling estimates of job impacts of the Repulican cuts. Not on the side issue of evaluative reseach and papers.
Those words do not appear in the article.
Bkrasting I see we disagree about more than the meaning of the word “briliant”.
I think that QE2 has had almost exactly no effect on anything. I sure don’t see the global fire you are discussing. I assume that you mean that QE2 caused increased oil prices, presumably because of the known close link between US Treasury 7 year notes and public opinion in Benghasi.
I apologise for my inability to embed Fred graphs, but please click this link
https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?graph_id=37641&category_id=0
from an earlier post (I added it as an update)
http://www.angrybearblog.com/2011/02/yellin-at-yellen-ii.html
Please explain to me how QEII can light a global fire (or a local candle) with those effects on the yield (and price) of 7 year notes and those effects on expected inflation measured by the difference in 7 year nominal and TIPS rates.
Last I heard models in which monetary policy affects the real economy through real interest rates fit the data pretty well (certinly better than the quantity theory of money which now has the same scientific standing as the flat earth hypothesis). The real interest rate which should be most directly affected by QE2 is now slightly higher than it was when Bernanke first said QE2 was coming (August 2010) and significantly hgher than it was before the official announcement of QE2.
It is not possible to prove a negative. It is possible that QE2 had some non trivial effect on something. But the evidence against that view is as strong as evidence for a negative view can possibly be.
Dan, since youa re on a reference kick, why not provide the link for your reference: “…from the kinds of converations demonstrated in the healthcare post…”? Such an example of commenting to which you object would be helpful. :-))
The topic was MSM reporting in comments. Some economists might have written on the dems but are not apparent. Let’s find some if the MSM is found wanting.
I know it might be, but you can go look. I haven’t the stamina and do not want to debate particular limits. Of course we will cross lines, but it needs to be few and far between. Here is a link:
http://www.angrybearblog.com/2011/02/medical-costs-are-going-up-we-have-to.html#comments
I think that Bernanke is honest, but the question of whether he lied or not has nothing to do with the question of whether he is brilliant.
The nominal interest rate is a market price. It is currently slightly greater than zero. Communication is impossible if we don’t agree on the meaning of words.
I note that you describe *all* of the liabilities of the Fed as QE. The E stands for “easing”. It refers to a change (check the definition in a dictionary). You are off by
“$869 billion on August 8, 2007”
http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/bst_recenttrends.htm
Making an $869 billion error should give you pause.
I add that, while I think that Bernanke is brilliant, I totally disagree with him about QE (see Yellin’ at Yellen). I think QE2 had almost exactly no effect on anything. I noted that to argue otherwise brilliant economist Janet Yellen had to tell us to ignore the data
http://www.angrybearblog.com/2011/02/yellin-at-yellen-ii.html
I don’t know what he said which you paraphrase as “$200b of QE is = to 1/4 cut in Fed Funds” (I will click the link but haven’t yet). If that were true then it must be that it doesn’t matter which assets the Fed buys. You assert that if the Fed bought $200b of 3 month T-bill that this would “= 1/4 cut in Fed Funds” and the exact identical same effect occurs if the Fed loans money to AIG or buys commercial paper during a run on money market funds. Obviously Bernanke believes no such thing. He paid attention to both sides of the balance sheet. I think that’s why we avoided a second great depression.
And then we can take it to an open thread. I am more interested on the views of a current hot topic and Robert’s reply below.
I have now clicked the link. I am trying to understand the origin of your crazy obviously false (as explained above) idea that
“$200b of QE is = to 1/4 cut in Fed Funds “. I think you think that this has something to do with
Mr. Bernanke said Tuesday that the Taylor Rule suggested that short-term interest rates, if they could be, should be pushed way below zero. That, in turn, helped to justify the Fed’s $600 billion bond-buying program, he said.
The paraphrase to which you linked to justify your paraphrase is obviously not a quantitative statement. “helped to justify” != “=”. In no way did Bernanke say that QE2 has as large an effect as the hypothetical negative fed funds rate. He just asserted that it pushes in the same direction. A mouse and an elephant push down on the ground. I think the ratio of the weight of a mouse to that of an elephant is greater than the ratio of the effect of QE2 and a 3/4 cut in the Federal funds rate. I’m sure Bernanke disagrees with me, but I see no evidence that he agrees with you. You derived an equation from a paraphrase of Bernanke which wasn’t quantitative at all.
From a poster called ‘blighter’ on Megan McArdle’s site. Its puts this in perspective very clearly – and is funny!
“It is important indeed to, as Megan eloquently puts it, not be ‘hysterical’ about the GOP’s cuts. Rather what is needed is impartial, objective, scientific analysis of what their venal plans will mean for our government, the average American citizen & our society overall.
The detailed studies employing the very latest & greatest economic techniques which Megan so blithely dismisses with an aerie nod towards them not seeming to pass the laugh test even at first glance are, while perhaps not perfect, at least a good faith attempt to create that much needed objective analysis. We disregard their findings at our peril.
In fact, a perhaps more trenchant criticism of these studies would be that in an attempt to avoid unnecessarily alarming the general public they rather dramatically *underplay* the truly horrendous effects we should all expect to see pretty much immediately as a consequence of even *discussing* trimming Federal spending by the amazingly irresponsible amount of nearly 1.6%. The plain truth acknowledged by serious economic thinkers from across the political spectrum is that government spending is the direct cause of literally every good thing in the world now & forever. Literally none of that spending is in any way wasteful or duplicative or fraudulent or totally unnecessary by any conceivable definition of ‘necessary’.
Thus cutting even a single dollar from the Federal budget will inevitably & instantaneously usher in an era of unending suffering for every living thing on Earth — if not the solar system & broader universe more generally. That may sound like fevered crazy-talk, but it’s actually plain, straight-forward economics. Anyone who’s not a febrile moron or a hopeless ideologue can easily see that. And while you can surely just pretend that science’s verdict that cutting spending will result in total societal collapse isn’t true, that won’t save you from the deluge.
It is nothing short of horrifying to those of us inhabiting the sane, sensible center of this country’s political spectrum that our ‘leaders’ are even *contemplating* gutting Federal spending by the gargantuan amount of 1.6%. Can you imagine if someone told you that your household would have to trim its expenses by 1.6% effective immediately? Why, you would no doubt find yourself starving in the street in rags within a week. And unlike your ultimately meaningless existence, the very fabric of reality hinges on the continued functioning of every single one of the many thousands of activities of the Federal government.
So while I genuinely wish I could join Megan in disregarding scientific fact as somehow unrealistic, while I might want to sit back & scold others for their ‘hysterical’ recognition of the dark future the Republicans are threatening to usher in, I somehow find myself confronting the literal end of all extant human civilization and the inauguration of aeons of unrelenting pain & suffering for all living creatures with something less than perfect equanimity. This is no doubt due to some personal failing on my part as all good libertarians, conservatives & Republicans can easily explain why creating an unending hell on Earth is actually just responsible governance and really nothing at all to get worked-up about. “Captures the left’s crazy response to a 1.6% cut in Federal spending. The cuts are in the noise guys…Islam will change
Oops my formating wasn’t graet. The last two sentances are mine.
But the points are clear: “It’s important to remember what $60 billion dollars represents. It is barely 0.4% of GDP. It is 1% of all government spending in the US, and 1.6% of total federal spending. It is 4% of the budget deficit projected for 2011 by the CBO.”
If the $60B cut is so awesome at destroying jobs then were are the 2 million to 7 million jobs that should have been created by Obama’s order-of-magnitued greater stimulous?
As Mike Kimmel said in his rules list: This guys ideas about job losses don’t pass the laugh test.
Islam will change
Mr. Waldman thinks I make this stuff up. Well here is the link from Cspan. I don’t make up anything. I just quote the chairman:
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/videoLibrary/assets/swf/CSPANPlayer.swf?pid=2…
Now hopefully we can agree that the Fed thinks that $200b of QE is equal to 1/4% cut in Federal Funds.
As we have ZIRP there is no way to lower interest rates further. So Ben does QE. As he describes in his testimony this is the monetary policy equivalent of sending rates below zero. He discusses this at some length. He brings up the Taylor Rule which he feels argues that Fed policy should be negative.
Taylor took issue with this. That was the point of my first comment. Don’t take issue with what I say. I am just aping Ben’s words. Got a problem, tell him.
Just a question for you. We have Zirp and QE. Would you conclude that there is Zero connection to this policy and rising global commodities prices?
I want to hear/read you to say that it is Zero. I await your response.
1.6% out of my total income. No problem. 1.6% of total coming out of my 10% fun budget. Not a real problem. 1.6% of total coming out of my 20% food budget. Problem. Or 1.6% of total coming out of my 15% fuel budget. Problem.
Daniel,
You got it. Its 1.6% of your total income…this is a token cut.
And I’ll wait until something very hot freezes to get an answer to where are the jobs from the stimulous.
Islam will change
On GAO’s 11-394t High Risk watch list is $348B in the major defense acquisition programs (M dapps) “committed” in the 2011 president’s budget yet to be passed. That is $70B odd a year susceptible to waste fraud and abuse.
If you look at the 2011 budget that is about 35% of Obama lines for DoD R&D and procurments.
I have managed both big ones and the little ones which are $650B in the 2011 plans. The little ones are far less well controlled than the big ones. Little ones are even more filled with waste fraud and abuse.
So, let’s just cut $500B from the waste fraud and abuse of the taxpayer over the next 5 years from there.
I am sure all the smart guys working those “successful” projects will be snapped up in the private sector.
ILSM, please get back on topic.
CoRev,
All the waste fraud and abuse in military spending is embarrassing is it not?
I thought the topic of the thread was impacts of spending cuts, on employment.
In addition to Bernanke’s study I would recommend a study by Frederic Bastiat in the 19th century which came up with the opposite conclusion:
Cutting spending on the Maginot Line caused improved employment in France, what is off topic, I said all those smart folks from the trillion bucks in losing defense contracts are good to go in better industries.
Where is buff on this?
I will not move on.
Elephant in the room!
CoRev: “ We can handle a deficit problem today when it is under some control”
Control? A recession or depression or period of high unemployment is hardly a period when the deficit problem is under control. A time when private debt is a pressing burden is hardly a time when the deficit problem is under control.
The time to reduce the deficit is when you have a measure of control, when the economy has recovered and is chugging along, when taxes are less of a burden. Then is when we have some control over the deficit.
Right now we are letting the deficit control us.
Almost, but not quite that bad, yet. We still haqve a few yeara, unless there is another huge economic shock. I hope you are not proposing the do nothing alternative.
Obviously you did not get it. “Token” is relative to where from the total it is taken. Currently it appears that it is not going to come out of the fun money but from the fuel and food budgets.
Yes elephant in the room. The fun money of the total budget.
DoLB, surely you’re not arguing the pointss of one intepretation of a hypothetical????
CoRev: “ I hope you are not proposing the do nothing alternative.”
If that is to me, I certainly am not proposing doing nothing. We have to get the economy going again, for all of us, not just Wall Street. We need to put people back to work, to put money into the hands of customers and potential customers. To give people the wherewithal to pay down their debt burdens. That will give us some control over our deficit situation.
Well, still waiting for an economists evaluation of Democrat spending cuts.
Still waiting for a report….we know it can’t be lack of money. And a post from the loyal opposition with data.
Moody’s and Goldman Sachs are crazy lefties… is that the point.