spending cuts Archives - the patient investor

January 2, 2013

Rogoff: The Unstarvable Beast | Business Insider

Kenneth Rogoff, professor of economics at Harvard University, writes:

As US President in the 1980’s, the conservative icon Ronald Reagan described his approach to fiscal policy as “starve the beast”: cutting taxes will eventually force people to accept less government spending. In many ways, his approach was a great success. But government spending has continued to grow, because voters still want the services that government provides. Today, it is clear that reining in government also means finding ways to shape incentives so that innovation in government keeps pace with innovation in other service sectors….

September 19, 2012

Canada’s Budget-Cut Veteran Has Warning for U.S. – Real Time Economics – WSJ

By Paul Vieira

Speaking at an event sponsored by the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative-leaning think tank, [former Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin] said whoever wins November’s election must address the U.S.’s burgeoning deficit the very next day because the economy is at risk of reaching a “tipping point.”

…….Mr. Martin does have pedigree on the subject. He was Canada’s finance minister in the mid-1990s when the-then Liberal government made deep spending cuts that tamed a spiraling deficit and restored market confidence in [the] country. By fiscal 1998, Canada had returned to a budget surplus — its first in nearly three decades.

via Canada’s Budget-Cut Veteran Has Warning for U.S. – Real Time Economics – WSJ.

July 30, 2012

Federal Spending Cutbacks Slow Recovery – WSJ.com

BEN CASSELMAN and CONOR DOUGHERTY: Recent economic data show that long before the fiscal cliff hits, federal spending already is falling — and taking a toll on the recovery…….State and local governments are projected to receive $20.8 billion in federal stimulus funds in the 2012 fiscal year, ending in September, down from a combined $180.7 billion in fiscal 2010 and 2011, according to the Government Accountability Office……At the same time, military spending has fallen for three straight quarters as wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have wound down and as the Pentagon prepares for further budget cuts.

via Federal Spending Cutbacks Slow Recovery – WSJ.com.

November 23, 2011

Menzie Chinn » “Solving America’s Debt Crisis”

In principle, solving the nation’s debt problems is easy. Almost all experts agree that a combination of reduced spending and increased tax revenues is needed. Cuts in spending and increases in tax revenues equal to about 5 percent of GDP are required to prevent an increase in the debt-to-GDP ratio. If a constant debt-to-GDP ratio were achieved with spending cuts alone, annual non-interest government spending would have to be reduced by about 20 percent. Alternatively, if a constant debt-to-GDP ratio were achieved by relying solely on increased tax revenues, taxes would have to be raised by about 33 percent. It is impossible to imagine that Congress would ever adopt spending cuts or tax increases of these magnitudes.

The logical conclusion is that only a balanced approach to solving our debt crisis, one that includes both spending cuts and increased taxes, is feasible. That being said, neither spending cuts nor tax increases will be politically easy to enact.

via EconoMonitor : EconoMonitor » “Solving America’s Debt Crisis”.

September 7, 2011

$1.2 Trillion Is Not Enough

Budget experts from both political parties warned at a Business Roundtable forum on Tuesday that the congressional Super Committee preparing for its first meeting later this week needs a long-term vision that goes beyond cutting $1.2 trillion from the federal deficit over the next decade.

“These guys have only a 10-year window. They can get $1.2 trillion fairly easily. But don’t think that’s success,” said Alice Rivlin, founding director of the Congressional Budget Office and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. “Success is putting in place longer-term reforms that are going to stabilize the debt… it means a lot more than $1.2 trillion, and it means ultimately what would come out of this would be more like $4 trillion or $5 trillion.”

via Super Committee Told $1.2 Trillion Is Not Enough.