History dictates cuts
Contrary to Keynesian theory and what Nobel Prize-winning economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman said recently on “Charlie Rose” — that even wasteful government spending shouldn't be cut, because it would undermine job creation and economic recovery — government spending absolutely should be reduced.
Spending on other than what is constitutional should cease. At the very least, wasteful spending should be cut drastically. Doing so would free capital to flow where it is needed — the private sector — thereby creating jobs, increasing revenue and creating wealth.
The business cycle's booms and busts are normal and necessary to a vibrant economy. The Fed has altered this cycle in the belief that recessions can be controlled or eliminated. Recessions drive growth; businesses downsize, reorganize and become more efficient. With efficiency come increases in productivity, leading to hires that reduce unemployment, increasing business and individual tax revenue.
This system has worked over and over again. President Coolidge knew the best thing for government to do was get out of the way and allow free markets to work. His laissez-faire approach created the conditions for the “Roaring Twenties.”
If President Obama and Congress desire to turn around the economy and reduce the deficit, they should review history, especially the 1920s and 1980s.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Inconsistent Wolf
- Corbett is the honest choice
- Corbett over Wolf I
- Corbett over Wolf II
- Gross in 45th
- Watson in 33rd
- Barbour sentence shameful
- Embrace domestic energy production
- U.S. Steel worthy of grant
- Making it special
- An Obama clone