niasou2
04-13-2010, 04:51 AM
The next day, the economic team gathered around the dining-room table in the Governor’s Mansion to discuss our dilemma and explore which policy choices would produce the most growth. According to traditional Keynesian economic theory, governments should run deficin bad economic times and balancedPainting From Photo (http://www.oilpaintingscn.com/)budgets or surpluses in good times. Therefore, the combination of tough spending cuts and tax increases necessary to halve the deficit seemed tobe the wrong medicine for the present moment. That’s why FDR, after being electedpeople back to work and stimulate the private economy. The problem with applying the traditional analysis to current conditions was that under Reagan and Bush, we had built in a large structural deficit that persisted in good times and bad. When President Reagan took office, the national debt was $1 trillion. It tripled during his eight years, thanks to the big tax cuts in 1981 and increases in spending. Under President Bush, the debt continued to increase again, by one-third, in just four years. Nowoil painting wholesale (http://www.oilpaintingscn.com) it totaled $trillion. Annual interest payments on the debt were the third-largest item in the federThe deficit was the inevitable result of so-called supply-side economics, the theory that the more you cut taxes, the more the economy will grow, with the growth producing more tax revenue at lower rates than previously had been collected at higher ones. Of course it didn’t work, and the deficits exploded throughout the recovery of the 1980s. Though supply-sidetheory was bad arithmetic and lousy economics, the Republicans stayed with it because of their ideological aversion to taxes, and because, in the short run, supply-side was good politics. “Spend more, tax less” sounded good and felt good, but it had put ourCoupled with our large tradewholesale oil painting (http://www.oilpaintingscn.com) deficit, the budget deficit required us to import tremendous amounts of capital every year to finance our overspending. To attract that kind of moneyavoid a precipitous drop in the value of the dollar, we had to keep interest rates far higher than they should have been during the economic downturn that preceded my election. Those higinterest rates inhibited economic growth and amounted to a huge indirect tax on middlAmericans who paid more for home mortgages, car payments, and all other purchases financed through borrowing.first. Leon said the deficit had gotten worse because tax revenues were down in the slugeconomy, while spending was up, as more people qualified for government assistance and health-care costs soared. Laura Tyson said that if current conditions continued, the economy would probably grow at a rate of 2.5 to 3 percent over the next years, not enough to lower unemployment much or to ensure a sustained recovery. Then we got down to the meat of thcoconut, as Alan Blinder, another of my economic advisors, was asked to analyze whether strong deficit-reduction packageMichael Jackson painting (http://www.oilpaintingscn.com/michael-jackson-oil-painting-946_949.html), would spur growth and new jobs by bringing down interest rates, since the government wouldn’t provide as much competition with the private sectoborrowing money. Blinder said that would happen, but that the positive effects would be offset for a couple of years by the negative economic impact of less government spending or higher taxes, unless the Federal Reserve and the bond market responded to our plan by lowering interest rates substantially. Blinder thought that after so many false promises on deficit reduction over the last few years, a strong positive response by the bond market was unlikely. Larry