tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2938311055760665357.post548625668973203578..comments2024-03-27T03:49:12.592-07:00Comments on Ed Dolan's Econ Blog: A Policy Dilemma: Budget Deficit vs. Infrastructure DeficitEd Dolanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08757995049056872214noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2938311055760665357.post-35867449824670824702011-04-15T07:44:26.904-07:002011-04-15T07:44:26.904-07:00Anonymous-- Thanks for the comment, and for the li...Anonymous-- Thanks for the comment, and for the link to the Carl Smith argument, which tells us quite a bit about what would be needed to get us back to the 2000 level of taxes and spending (a bit over 20% of GDP). Just one word of caution: Going back to the 2000 level of taxes and spending would NOT mean going back to the 2000 level of government services. Because of demographic changes, especially the aging population, returning to 2000 levels of spending and taxes would mean accepting a substantially lower level of government services than we had in 2000. See <a href="http://dolanecon.blogspot.com/2011/01/could-federal-spending-be-capped-at-20.html" rel="nofollow">my Jan 13 post</a> for my take on the numbers.Ed Dolanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08757995049056872214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2938311055760665357.post-36649761020031029652011-04-14T20:20:15.577-07:002011-04-14T20:20:15.577-07:00Great article!
I think we should roll back spendi...Great article!<br /><br />I think we should <a href="http://www.financeocean.org/finance_articles/article/21-the-us-budget-from-surplus-to-deficit-and-back" rel="nofollow">roll back spending and taxation to FY 2000 levels</a> as a percent of GDP. That way we'd get back to a fair, balanced budget. If we do it over a long enough time period, it shouldn't cause too much suffering.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2938311055760665357.post-70259244688808833102011-02-13T23:56:21.204-08:002011-02-13T23:56:21.204-08:00Well first and foremost we as a nation already hav...Well first and foremost we as a nation already have a template written down in law and its called the Constitution, specifically Article One, Section Eight that defines federal powers and by implication limits on federal spending...<br /><br />Hence cutting out the future existence of the EPA would be a good place to start...<br /><br />BTW '<i>infrastructure</i>' has morphed into a very nebulous tern now a days so the idea of spending more or cutting spending on '<i>infrastructure</i>' doesn't actually mean very much...<br /><br />All this talk of cutting is '<i>political two step dancing</i>' by many politicos and a serious mission by some...<br /><br />If Congress was serious about cutting these insane levels of spending (<i>buying votes</i>) then they could first make it known that the word '<i>entitlement</i>' doesn't exist in the Constitution and second cut the amount of spending by 50% for this fiscal black hole, the <a href="https://www.cfda.gov/" rel="nofollow"><b>Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance</b></a> and elimanate 25% of the listed agencies per year for the next four years...juandoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01656743466655157652noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2938311055760665357.post-75961362674809694572011-02-13T22:14:15.802-08:002011-02-13T22:14:15.802-08:00Aw, this was a really great post. In theory I'...Aw, this was a really great post. In theory I'd like to write like this also - taking time and real effort to make a good article... but what can I say... I procrastinate a lot and never seem to get something done.bathroom designs with pictureshttp://www-bathroom.blogspot.com/2011/02/bathroom-designs-with-pictures.htmlnoreply@blogger.com