Negative consequences of high deficits?

[Mason Clark <masonc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Brad DeLong sent out a newsletter containing the following paragraphs.
Does this make him a non-post-Keynesian?

     Mason Clark

excerpt:

Last--but most important--comes the deficit and the rate of economic
growth. It had long been clear that whatever supply-side gains in
productivity were produced by the Reagan tax cut were vastly outweighed by
the negative consequences of high deficits that drained the pool of capital
for financing investment and slowed economic growth. Depending on which set
of economists you asked, the four percent of GDP or so that was diverted to
buying government bonds to finance the deficit slowed American growth by
between one-half and one percent per year. It had left America by 1992
between 4 and 8 percent poorer than it might have been had the budget been
balanced.

Outside economists and economic advisors had been making these points for a
decade before Bill Clinton took office. The argument that the economic
health of the nation required spending political capital on deficit
reduction was made in 1993 by Bob Rubin, Lloyd Bentsen, Laura Tyson,
Lawrence Summers, and company. But it had been made back in 1983 by Martin
Feldstein, David Stockman, and company. And it had been made in 1989 by
Richard Darman, Michael Boskin, and company.

end of excerpt