It's only fair to let my critics use this space to point out why I'm so horribly, revealingly wrong. This letter comes from a conservative activist who takes issue with my dead-ender Keynes defenses.
It’s actually kind of funny that you are citing a study from, of all people, Mark Zandi to make the case that cutting spending leads to less jobs.
More recently, The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities released a study that has been cited by the DCCC to attack Cut, Cap and Balance (here: ) It also says that the spending cuts in CCB would equal a cut of 0.7 percent of GDP – which by their logic equates to, again, 700,000 jobs lost.
So to sum up two recent predictions by the Keynesian model:
1) $61 billion in cuts leads to 700,000 jobs lost.
2) $111 billion in cuts, statutory spending caps, and a Balanced Budget Amendment (Cut, Cap, and Balance) would also lead to 700,000 jobs lost.
So in actuality, the Zandi study you cite does an excellent job of illuminating the failures of the Keynesian model.
Amen, Canada! The Canadian Supreme Court, unlike the United States’ Supreme Court, understands that sectarian prayer is sectarian.
Stop Vilifying Almonds Yes, they use up a lot of water in drought-afflicted California. But the story gets a lot more complicated from there.
What Happened at Slate This Week? Chad Lorenz talks about running the home page, writing headlines, and his favorite picks from the magazine this week.
Golden Status The Warriors are the best team since Jordan’s Bulls. Why aren’t they respected as such?