JD:
" . . . This column makes a very simple point, one that I agree with: if one
takes into account inflation, the growth of needs, and the way in which some
government commitments have been "locked in," the government's budget
surplus is smaller than it appears and will shrink drastically in the
future."
Saying the surplus is smaller than it looks is a way of
warning people off of new spending. So the argument implied
by PK is absurd -- you don't have as much to spend as you think
because you're going to spend some.
>>>>
The problem here is that PK is coming at the problem not as an economist
schooled in macroeconomics but as an accountant. This approach implies that
the government budget should be balanced, so that government deficits are
bad, bad, bad. There's nothing in this column that implies otherwise.
>>>
[mbs] His accounting sucks. He, along with the Clintonoids,
is trying to make the surplus look smaller by reclassifying
things in assorted erroneous ways.
