[PEN-L:3951] getting out of hand

[Doug Henwood <dhenwood@xxxxxxxxx>]

Max Sawicky wrote:

>Deficit/debt hawks like to discount the probability of
>surpluses with assorted canards[...]

Such canards as: over the last 130 years, there's only one historical
instance of U.S. running substantial surpluses (defined as >1% of GDP) for
three consecutive years, and just two instances of two consecutive years -
yet Clinton is projecting 40+ years of surpluses in the 2-3% of GDP range.
And a quick perusal of International Financial Statistics shows that no G7
country has consistently run surpluses since its numbers begin in 1950. Are
these surplus projections just another symptom of the American bubble?

>My own view is that any objections I have to whatever
>CBO says the projection is will be ignored, so I need
>to premise policy recommendations on whatever they
>say is going to happen.  Right now, the projections
>could not be more favorable to proposals for
>new domestic initiatives.  We're swimming in
>money and could not be better positioned to
>make a case for an expansion of the public
>sector.

I love this quote from today's NYT article on breaking the spending caps:

<quote>
"The caps have been a good thing because we haven't had to start each year
debating how much to spend, only how to divide it up," said Martha
Phillips, executive director of the Concord Coalition, a fiscal watchdog
group. "If we go back to fighting over how much to spend, and people are
saying that we have $4.8 trillion in surpluses, this could really get out
of hand. If you don't have the caps it just makes it harder for politicians
to do the right thing."
</quote>

Doug