The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

Special Report

Will the Sequester Reduce Economic Growth?

By on 3.4.13 @ 6:09AM

Only in a Keynesian world is that a possibility.

Just about every article I’ve read on the sequester says that the $85 billion in mandated cuts from discretionary spending in the federal government’s fiscal year 2013 budget will decrease GDP by about 0.6%. But is this true? As is the case with much of what has been written about the sequester, the answer is, “not exactly.”

The 0.6% number comes from the Congressional Budget Office, though many economists have come up with similar estimates. The fact that government spending has an affect on GDP is not controversial. The definition of GDP, after all, includes government expenditures. The big question is what is the multiplier — how much does every dollar of government spending increase GDP, or conversely, how much does every dollar of reduced government spending reduce GDP? The CBO has estimated that the sequester cuts, on average, have a multiplier of about 1.1. That is to say, $85 billion in cuts will result in about $93 billion in reduced GDP. The $85 billion in cuts, however, pertains to budget authority and the real cuts to take place in fiscal 2013 are only about $44 billion, so using the CBO multiplier of 1.1 the actual calculation would be more like $48 billion of GDP, or about 0.3% of a $16 trillion economy.

Therefore, if the CBO is right, the sequester, if left in place, will reduce GDP in 2013 not by 0.6% but by 0.3%. But there is still a big problem with this calculation. That problem is that the proper multiplier is not 1.1, but something far closer to zero. But surely, some will say, if government spending is part of the calculation of GDP, then a decrease in government spending must decrease GDP by a similar amount. Well, not exactly. If this were really true after all, all we’d need to do to usher in prosperity would be to increase government spending (and we just tried that).

Let’s look at a little history. In 1990-91, similar to 2008-09, we had a financially induced recession (the savings and loan debacle). Over the 13 quarters after the end of the 1990-91 recession, per capita GDP increased by 7.2%. Compare this to the current recovery in which per capita GDP increased by only 4.44% over 13 quarters. From fiscal year 2009 through fiscal 2011, however, the Obama administration doled out additional special “stimulus” funds totaling $494 billion and billions more were spent through the first half of fiscal 2012 (not including the Trouble Asset Relief Program’s assistance to financial institutions and the auto bailout). If government spending really did have a 1.1 multiplier (or much higher than that, as argued by President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisors), per capita GDP growth after the 2008-09 recession should have exceeded that of 1990-91 by at least 3.5%. In reality, it was almost 3% less.

John Lott, writing for Investor’s Business Daily, has noted that the countries whose economies performed worst during the time frame 2007 to 2010 were the countries in which per capita government spending increased the most, whereas the countries that performed the best had the slowest rates of per capita government spending increases. The best performers included the Czech Republic, Hungary, Israel, Poland, Sweden and Switzerland, all of which actually experienced reductions in per capita government spending.

It is true that the 1990-91 recession is not completely analogous to 2008-09, and the United States is not the Czech Republic or Switzerland. Nonetheless, these real world examples put the theory of a significant GDP multiplier for government spending into question.

Now let’s take a look at some economic theory. The CBO estimate relies on the Keynesian notion that if government spends money, the recipients in turn spend more, thus creating economic growth. This may by true to some degree under some circumstances. But every dollar the government spends comes from somewhere. In the current case, every marginal dollar the government spends is borrowed and about 60% of new federal government debt is being “bought” by the Federal Reserve. This spending is, therefore, by definition, inflationary. So, if you “create” an extra 0.3% in GDP through government spending, but in the process increase the general price level by 0.3% through an increase in the money supply, at the end of the day you have achieved nothing — real GDP will have remained unchanged. Of course, all of these changes are not instantaneous. At first, the increased spending/increased money supply will likely spur economic activity, but over time the induced inflation of price levels will in essence counteract the value of the stimulus. That is consistent with the observed reality of the current recovery — fitful, uneven, and over the long-term, flat.

It is also important to note that not all spending is equal. Spending that increases economic growth in the medium to long term has to be productive spending. Much of what we saw in the Obama stimulus package was unproductive. Spending $2.5 billion to bring Internet access to a few thousand rural residences at a cost of nearly $350,000 per household, or millions for university social science research grants, or $2 million to build a fire station that had no firemen to house, or $20 million to put up road signs declaring that the stimulus spending is putting Americans to work, to name but a few examples, does nothing to promote actual economic growth. Moreover, given the obvious temporary and unsustainable nature of many of the stimulus projects, the various businesses involved likely avoided as much as possible hiring on new full-time employees, knowing they’d likely need to shed them in the near future. Wasteful spending only serves to divert resources away from more productive activities (both public and private), and so it not only fails to generate real economic growth, it actually impedes it.

The sequester is not the best way to trim spending, but it is difficult to believe that the federal government operates so efficiently that most agencies will have a hard time functioning if forced to cut their budgets by a few percentage points. The Defense Department, which is hit the hardest by the sequester, has announced that it may need to reduce aircraft training flight time and shorten naval deployments. This may be undesirable from a national security standpoint, but spending less on fuel (much of which is imported) and having sailors spending a little more time at their U.S. home bases rather than at sea or at foreign locations will not harm the economy. On the contrary, those cost reductions might actually have a net positive impact. Given the across-the-board nature of the sequester cuts, some cutbacks will be truly regrettable. But the sequester will force government agencies to do something they rarely are compelled to do — take a hard look at how they operate and identify inefficiencies and unnecessary expenditures. No doubt many bureaucrats will not be up to the task, but it is still something taxpayers have a right to demand.

The only way the sequester reductions can have a meaningful negative impact on growth and employment is for consumers and businesses to cut back on spending simply due to the fear that the sequester cuts will bring hard times. Ironically (or not so ironically, depending on your view of the Obama administration), President Obama has been doing his best to stir up fear. Certainly, the sequester cuts will come in handy as an excuse should all his other initiatives that actually will curtail economic growth — tax increases, costly Obamacare mandates, the regulatory swamp that is Dodd-Frank — cause continued weakness, or even recession in 2013 and 2014.

As demonstrated by his schedule in the weeks leading up to the March 1st sequester deadline, the President had no intention of negotiating a deal with Republicans. Despite his calls for a “balanced” approach to deficit reduction during the 2012 campaign, he will continue to oppose any plan to reduce in any meaningful way domestic spending because he is ideologically committed to the idea of big government and using the power of government to redistribute wealth. Furthermore, he appears to have an overriding political interest in trying to show the cuts as being as damaging as possible so he can advance the argument that spending cuts need to be replaced by more tax increases. Controlling the growth of government spending, however, is the key to sustainable strong future economic growth. Unfortunately, all the argument over the sequester misses the point that the real threat to our long-term national solvency is not so much discretionary spending, but entitlements. If the Obama administration is declaring that cutting discretionary domestic spending by a few percentage points is going to end life as we know it, just wait until we start debating meaningful entitlement reform.

Photo: UPI

About the Author

Brandon Crocker is the chief financial officer of a commercial real estate development and management company in San Diego.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (62) |

Von Mises Jr| 3.4.13 @ 8:02AM

Keynesian economics is false since its theory has been disproven and because it ignores several fundamental true economic principles.
Keynesian economics theory is that too much demand causes inflation. Allegedly too little demand results in unemployment and low GDP growth.
But under Carter, and today if the BLS reported real statistics, we have had stagflation that is by definition impossible. Carter had 11-12% for inflation and unemployment at the same time. Our real U6 is about 15% and our real inflation is 6% per Peter Schiff, so we have a 21% Misery Index that is close to Carter's all time high of 23%. By definition, you cannot have too much and too little demand at the same time. If a theory is proved wrong, the scientific method tells us that the theory must be incorrect.

TLP| 3.4.13 @ 1:41PM

Kinda like the "Theory" that says: Democrats are Strong on Defense, Tough on Crime, and Patriotic.

Purp| 3.4.13 @ 4:47PM

Au contraire - that isn't Keynesian economic policy. It's not that simple.
Moreover, no system has ever implemented F.A. Hayek's simpleton policies and we see the result of Milton Friedman's and Reagan's policies - we are living THAT dream. Supply side is Voodoo economics - in that, GHW Bush was right.
Keynesian economics have been employed for every recession, including Republican Presidents, since Keynes came on the scene.
And Keynesian works, puts people back to work and reverses the downward spiral of confidence during a recession.
Only in the textbooks and minds of idiot economic philosophers is there a challenge that Keynes doesn't work.
I challenge you to prove otherwise, bonehead. Since when do you prescribe to the Scientific Method? Interesting how you bury your inept theory with statistics meant to lend credence to your fallacious argument.

Moe Blotz| 3.4.13 @ 5:05PM

For your evening repast I suggest you resume your coprophagous diet.

Stan Redmond| 3.4.13 @ 6:41PM

You built your multi million dollarfortune 10 business (or whatever this weeks variance is) from government spending? OBama's Keynes worship has done a bang up job. Solyndra, Fiskar, GM, Abound... Wow, stand back. Solar is taking over the world...errr. wait a minute.

Von Mises Jr| 3.4.13 @ 8:03AM

"THE SEEN AND THE UNSEEN" - Bastiat taught over two hundred years ago that for every seen benefit, there is an unseen cost. So if they took the money in taxes and the government spent it, the "unseen" is the loss of the same $44B from the private sector and the only question is where it is better spent.
The government argues that it is better spent on cigarettes and booze by bums than held by greedy rich people. But this is nonsense. Rich people invest. Capital investment in a bulldozer or back hoe allows one man to do the work of dozens. Once a construction company owns the machine; they can get far more done with one operator making $50 per hour than perhaps 50 people making $5 per hour with shovels.
Finally, Obama gave $90B to "green energy." So since we have nothing to show for it, his paying his friends for crony capitalism in reality cost us $90B, not a benefit of $90B times some multiplier effect.

Pecos Pete| 3.4.13 @ 8:26AM

But, Von, it is only fair that the rich pay for the cigs, beer, whiskey, drugs, food, clothing, housing, TV sets, cable connections, telephones, vehicles and medical care that the evil rich capitalists have been enjoying by underpaying laborer serfs of the United States.

Notice please, that I defined the "evil rich" as capitalists, not politicians or entertainers (which includes the MSM). For those folks, it be okay to keep their stuff because they feel the pain of the downtrodden.

TLP| 3.4.13 @ 9:13AM

They not not only Feel their Pain.

They Play Them in the Movies.

Just, don't let one of those Filthy Bums get anywhere near Them, Their Family Members, or their Mansions. Otherwise, their Armed Bodyguards will Beat'em to the Ground, and then some.

Al Adab| 3.4.13 @ 12:12PM

Waitaminute! You mean I can get the rich to buy my Scotch? Where do I sign up?

TLP| 3.4.13 @ 1:39PM

At ACORN.

Al Adab| 3.4.13 @ 2:42PM

Ach of course, danke.

C. Vernon Crisler | 3.4.13 @ 9:37AM

Good points VMJ. The whole idea of the multiplier is a fantasy: the so-called prosperity that results from it is a sham, as Bastiat would have pointed out. The new money is either being redistributed from more productive people to less productive, or else it's being devalued through inflation. Inflation itself is just another form of wealth redistribution: taking money from fixed income people and giving it to those favored by politicians. It is the ability to see the unseen costs that marks one out as an economist. It's what distinguishes those who think like true economists from those who think like socialist mountebanks and liberal politicians.

Von Mises Jr| 3.4.13 @ 10:23AM

Spot on, my friend. The easiest way to think about inflation is that it is a hidden tax. I bought an SUV about 8 years ago that my kid used often. A couple years ago he went to buy a vehicle and when he priced the identical SUV, it rose in price by about 60%.
Socialist love to use inflation to tax since nobody has to write a check as many will do on April 15th. And like the European VAT tax, it becomes disguised in the price.
This makes great fodder for statist to blame "evil" corporations and "profit" when in fact they simply devalued (or inflated) your dollars.
And as Pete mentions, the laborers think that they are being cheated by their employers when the prices at the pump and gas station "necessarily skyrocket" and their wages remain about the same.

JP| 3.4.13 @ 8:45AM

According the federal government our GDP is actually somewhere around $15 trillion. Since 2009 the federal government grew close to $1 trillion over the FY 2007 budget. Most of this growth has been borrowed. Since 2009, the GDP also grew close to $1.4 trillion. In other words, most of our growth is due to the growth of our federal government. You remove that "growth" while keeping everything else equal, and you shrink the GDP.

The federal government is the only growth industry left. And our future children, grand children and great grand children will foot the bill.

TLP| 3.4.13 @ 9:43AM

If anyone thinks that there's a Solution to all of this, they're out of their minds. We're $16 Trillion in Debt, and that's NOT Counting the Trillion$ in Unfunded Liabilities, both at the State Level, as well as the Government Level. And, let's not forget that President Let Them Eat Cake has only just begun to Spend.

Let's go to the Video Tape. In his 4 Years and 2 Months, he's done what, exactly?

He's played a lot of Golf. He's taken lots of Vacations. He flies around a lot, making speeches intended to Divide the American People by Race, Creed, Colour, Gender, Sexual Orientation, and Wealth.

He went to Bed, and picked out what he would wear to Fund Raise, and to a Party, while 4 Americans were being Brutalized on his View Screen, and his Defense Secretary was standing there, with his thumb up his @ss.

He Fund Raised for 5 Days, while New Orleans sat in the Rubble of the latest Disaster to hit them.

He Taxes and Regulates Businesses Out of the Country, and Out of Existence.

He Spends us into Oblivion, and willfully Dismantles and Hollows out our Military Forces, even as All of Evildom is Building its Forces and is On the Move.

Does that sound like someone who Loves this Country?

Or, someone who was put on this Earth to Destroy it?

As long as he sits in the Oval Office, this Country, and everyone who lives here, is Doomed.

It's not even debatable.

Purp| 3.4.13 @ 5:04PM

Why don't you jump off a bridge then... and not worry no mo'?

Von Mises Jr| 3.4.13 @ 10:41AM

Spot on JP. There is not only a poor understanding of economics, but also of basic accounting principles.
The Income Statement measures revenue recognition and operating expenses. It is helpful in providing data for profit analysis. But in government, it is a monopoly. So whether a service is profitable or not is obscured by the fact that there is zero competition and your taxes (their revenue) in their minds is limitless.
But what you point out is the utility of the Balance Sheet. It matters greatly whether my Assets are owned as part of Shareholder Equity or if they are a Liability.
If I own my plant and equipment versus simply financing them, it matters as to whether the shareholder (me) or my creditor gets to keep that portion of future profits.
People figure this out on a practical basis as they buy their cars at lease end and keep it for a few more years. But we don't always grasp the same about government. If we are not paying for the benevolence of a statist government, then our kids will be making the payments.
This is the conundrum of "unfunded liabilities" as TLP points out. The best thing our kids could do is to refuse to make the payments and force a repossession of the goodies we demand that we refuse to pay for.

Pecos Pete| 3.4.13 @ 1:56PM

I like the "repossession" of the goodies. I done spent the goodies. They'll have to get them from those I spent it on ... the non-working welfare cheats.

Von Mises Jr| 3.4.13 @ 3:05PM

The "goodies" are Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid that we paid into that the money is gone. We are asking our kids to honor "promises" made by our parent's generation.

Nancy in NC| 3.4.13 @ 9:00AM

obama has already laid the groundwork if things should turn to the worse. No matter what happens the GOP will be responsible.

TLP| 3.4.13 @ 9:54AM

You can only fool all of the people "Some" of the time.

You can only Cry Wolf, so many times.

When the Cities Burn, (and they will) the "Don't blame me. I'm just the President" Schuck and Jive/Step n Fetchit Routine, will come to an abrupt end.

And, if it doesn't? It won't matter, anyway.

We'll already be a Third World Banana Republic, where people push 5 for English.

Bill8472| 3.4.13 @ 9:02AM

The stock market today (early in the day, I might add) is approaching the high it was at just before the recession hit in 2008. Today is March 4, 2013, three days after sequestration kicked in.

So, despite the best efforts of the Obama administration to push our economy into the toilet, commerce continues to struggle to bring in high profits, high productivity, and economic health.

Purp| 3.4.13 @ 4:39PM

Wall Street results today are predictive of expectations of the market 6-9 months from now.
Surprised you didn't know that.

Bill8472| 3.4.13 @ 5:38PM

How does what you say make what I said erroneous or wrong? I'm surprised at your level of reading comprehension.

Of course, these postings are just wool-gathering by folks like you and me and are therefore only momentary diversions; still, I would have thought that if you were interested enough in what I said to respond to it, you would have taken the time to exercise a little reading comprehension.

Purp| 3.4.13 @ 5:44PM

Then why did you connect Wall Street's attainment of the near-record to the Sequester 3 days ago?
Did you miss the connection you made.
The rest of your comment made no sense, because Obama has never tried to push the economy into the toilet.
On the other hand, Bush pushed it into the toilet without even trying to stop it.
Comprehension has nothing to do with it, except an ad hominem attack on me.

Bill8472| 3.5.13 @ 8:47AM

You may wish to review your understanding of the definition of "ad hominem."

Stan Redmond| 3.4.13 @ 6:45PM

I should have known Obama's policies were so super duper that stocks are high during a crap economy. I guess the fed pumping in 40 billion per month buying worthless stocks has nothing to do with it.

cicero| 3.4.13 @ 9:03AM

Since 2007, we have seen almost ten trillion dollars disappear down the sinkhole, and have no way of knowing exactly where it went. We have had no budget for the past 5 years, and counting, and have not even had an accounting for that stupid stimulous of nearly one trillion. Our country has been plundered of its wealth by our political class, to the detriment of the citzens, and the benefit of them and their friends.

At what point does the citizenry wake up? 51% of the voters asked for more of this. Can we survive 4 more years of this? God help us, for we have to ask for what we get. I suppose that means that we deserve it.

Purp| 3.4.13 @ 4:40PM

Sure we know - you just have to do your homework and look it up .. it's all online and all available to you. Except Corporate donations that is.

Stan Redmond| 3.4.13 @ 6:48PM

Does your fortune 10 company and multi million dollar high tech company make any "corporate donations" to political campaigns. Maybe perhaps to get favorable tax status?

What am I thinking. Of course you give all your evil profits to the government because they know how to spend the money better then you...Right?

Stan Redmond| 3.4.13 @ 6:46PM

The 51% of the OBamatons don't feel any of this pain. They get everything handed to them almost as if it were free. They were stupid enough to vote for Obama and the'yre stupid enough to believe Obama when everything but Obama is blamed. Look at how people still worship Castro. Really castro? After 50 years of your glorious revolution it's STILL the USAs fault?

TLP| 3.4.13 @ 9:07AM

So.......? How bout that Contest? 651 Comments. 551 Directly Related to the program + 100 futilely trying to teach "Gramps" how to use Bold Type.

As I've noticed a couple of "Excuses" regarding my $50 Checks; People complaining that the whole Sequestration will make such a thing - "Impossible" - let me remind you of something: The Sequestration is only about 2% of the whole Enchilada.

In keeping with that idea, I have decided that I will accept checks of $49.

This needn't get Ugly.

Bill8472| 3.4.13 @ 12:15PM

How DOES one use bold type on this site?

Thanks in advance for your kind assistance.

Gramps

Pecos Pete| 3.4.13 @ 1:57PM

Like this.

Bill8472| 3.4.13 @ 5:39PM

Having trouble articulating an explanation? Even we "Gramps" types can do that.

Goldwater Girl| 3.4.13 @ 10:12AM

now, that's the spirit of compromise!

Al Adab| 3.4.13 @ 12:14PM

They are reporting a story that DHS has bought a couple thousand tanks and APVs. If true, how does that square with letting illegals out of jail and laying off employees? Where are they spending the money and who do they intend to use those tanks against?

Bill8472| 3.4.13 @ 1:09PM

Don't forget DHS buying something like 450 million .40 cal. S&W rounds.

How many 5.56 rounds have they bought?

They're getting ready for an apocalypse.

TLP| 3.4.13 @ 1:46PM

All of the Tanks are aimed at Sherrif Joe Arpaio's Office.

I hope that helps.

Pecos Pete| 3.4.13 @ 1:58PM

Actually, I wouldn't mind having a couple of these in the garage. Maybe I can get a used one?

Al Adab| 3.4.13 @ 2:44PM

Actually TLPs comment makes sense. People like Joe are the real threat after all.

Al Adab| 3.4.13 @ 2:44PM

facetious font required.

JD| 3.4.13 @ 12:14PM

GDP is a cooked statistic that simply adds all government spending to its total. Thus, reducing government spending definitionally reduces GDP. Resulting improvements in the private economy might compensate for this, but not necessarily so, since the private economy is not as directly counted in GDP. Also, in this case, taxes are not being lowered as spending is lowered; we're just staving off tax increases.

The sequester is simply a very tiny austerity measure. Like all austerity measures, it will face criticism from clueless Leftists who allege that it is "bad for the economy". But austerity isn't a policy; it's a consequence of bad policy that got us into this mess.

Purp| 3.4.13 @ 4:38PM

So the 3 million jobs that the Federal government pays people to do mean nothing?
Whether this is austerity or just stupid policy followed by Republicans we'll see. Just another nail in the Republican coffin as the cuts are felt.

JD| 3.4.13 @ 11:04PM

Give me your wallet, right now. I will spend the money. That will stimulate the economy. If you complain that I took your money to do it, I will post a response just like yours - that you're a fool who doesn't appreciate the economic benefits of my actions!

Only production creates value. Government takes resources from more efficient uses and uses it in less efficient ways.

Lyneuss Fields | 3.4.13 @ 12:53PM

To make an effective argument that may work with liberals, republicans should drop the nagging for a reduction in government spending and use sequester as a control lever for tax cuts and deregulation. Economists on both sides of the isle can agree that with the loss of America's business cycle, economic variables—once predictable—are no longer easy to control. For example, many business owners find it damn near impossible to control inventories. This is because the business cycles (booms and busts) have flattened or disappeared. Before America was in a world economy, in a boom managers could replace inventories, and in down economy they could drawdown on their inventories. Therefore, the inability to control inventory and other business variables is driving business entrepreneurs into frenzy.

Lyneuss Fields | 3.4.13 @ 12:54PM

The problem with tax cuts for many liberal economists is, in theory, they have never been a part of Keynesianism. For them, Arthur Laffer is responsible for postulating (with his curve) a phony theorem that tax cuts could increase revenue. Unfortunately for Art, while his tax cut theory was dubious at best when analyzed in the economic environment of traditional business cycles. The sale to liberals and America—for republicans—is that in a world economy the tax rate on businesses become more relevant (and so does Dr. Laffer) to maintaining competition. Stifling regulations also impede entrepreneurs in their quest for an adequate return to their investment worldwide. Therefore, give liberals a short-term spending package to reduce unemployment, increase payroll tax revenue into the U.S. Treasury and pay-down long-term national debt. Again, republicans should argue tax cuts and deregulation are a relevant part of economic growth in America’s current position in a world economy.

C. Vernon Crisler | 3.4.13 @ 3:24PM

The boom-bust cycle is not a naturally occuring cycle. It is a product of government inflationary policies. The only reason we don't have mass inflation right now is because the banks are still too afraid to lend, leaving "V" or velocity low.

Busts follow inflationary booms, which are illusions of prosperity, not real prosperity.

Purp| 3.4.13 @ 4:36PM

That's ridiculous - there were far more boom and bust cycles and deeper before the Federal Reserve was created. the Fed has reduced the number and severity of those cycles ... this is historical fact - not hysterical right-wing mythology.

Lyneuss Fields | 3.4.13 @ 4:49PM

The FED claims they're able to "smooth" America's business cycle with fiscal and monetary policy. The problem is America's economic system is on the world's playground. So now we have to play with their economies too.

Purp| 3.4.13 @ 5:45PM

Not so - The Fed controls monetary policy, not fiscal policy. That's why we are still not recovering fast enough.
Republicants in the House want us to fail.

Lyneuss Fields | 3.4.13 @ 9:45PM

My mistake! So change my statement above to, "Congress, working together with “The FED", claim they are able to ''smooth" America's business cycle with fiscal and monetary policy. So, together they are now on a world playground with economies around the world.

Now my original argument above still stands; that is, Republicans should stop their nagging (although it's legitimate) for further spending cuts and use sequester as a lever for more tax cuts and deregulation.

C. Vernon Crisler | 3.4.13 @ 6:43PM

Perp, only someone with your lack of historical and economic knowledge would think that inflationary policies only started with the Federal Reserve.

JD| 3.4.13 @ 11:16PM

Wow. That is some ignorance on display right there.

Ronsch| 3.4.13 @ 4:38PM

Purpie the Village Idiot posted:
1. "Hurricane Sandy and Chris Christie was the Lord's way of pressing his thumb on the scale to tilt in the direction of President Obama. It was His punishment of Republicans for their lying and trying to cheat (Voter Suppression) their way to political victory, while espousing faith, freedom and constitutional credentials."
2. purpie believes God killed over 100 persons and destroyed millions of dollars of property to help Obama win.
3. In Sept Purpie wrote that Amassador Stevens was at fault and caused his death.
4. Purpie also wrote that the unborn are biological entities not deserving of protection until God allows them to be born.
5. purpie believes that a 20% cut in the tax rate will INCREASE his 0% rate to 8%.
6. purpie also posted one of the female bloggers here should just lay back and enjoy the rape.
7. purpie is a racist who posted that "You can't even beat a black man....haha," implying blacks are inferior.
Purp-arnie represents the Loon Left that should be mocked and ridiculed, and not engaged in debate.

Purp| 3.4.13 @ 5:49PM

Now you know how Fixed News feeds you "Fair and Balanced" News. Snippets of sentences made to seem like whole thoughts.
It's really a tired, lame way of posting from someone with nothing to say. But....
Mocking and ridiculing means I get to you ... so I shall continue. Thank You.

Lyneuss Fields | 3.4.13 @ 4:39PM

America’s Business Cycle (boom & bust) throughout the 19th and 20th century has been theorized by both Conservative and Liberal economists. Your right that liberal government policies may be inflationary, but conservative may be too (see President Nixon’s stagflation). Regardless, America has always experienced up and down markets; therefore, “business cycles have always occurred naturally throughout America’s economic history”.

JD| 3.4.13 @ 11:21PM

Nixon's economic policies were not conservative.

Lyneuss Fields | 3.4.13 @ 11:40PM

Certainly, neither Nixon and Reagan's economic policies were extreme enough for you Tea Folks. Nixon created work programs (SEDA) for the unemployed worker and Reagan closed tax loopholes (with a plea he made on TV). President Reagan also raised taxes eight (8) times.

Hardcard| 3.4.13 @ 6:43PM

When pot is legalized no one will care about anything and obamao will sell the whole place to Jamaica (the country) he is the bastard son of bob marley sr. one life, one world, let's get together and flucke the night away. slick willie never inhailed but obamao-djingo did and still does. We are screwed, Hey you didn't build that.

Lyneuss Fields | 3.4.13 @ 11:30PM

As far as the Sandra Flucke's credibility goes, she graduated from Cornell University with a major in Feminist, Gender & Sexuality Studies. Not exactly the Conservative's bring home to mommy and daddy girl—huh bonehead. Regardless Hardcard, you need to visit Rachel Maddow's Man Cave and "get a grip".
http://lyneussfields.blogspot......ative.html

homme nike air max BW | 3.5.13 @ 1:16AM

. If government spending really did have a 1.1 multiplier (or much higher than that, as argued by President Obama’s Council of Economic www.shoxinfr.com/nike-shox-nz-c-5.html Advisors), per capita GDP growth after the 2008-09 recession should have exceeded that of 1990-91 by at least 3.5%. In reality, it was almost 3% less.

More Articles by Brandon Crocker

More Articles From Special Report

Disabling American Sovereignty

May 22, 2013 | Iain Murray & Geoffrey McLatchey

IRS Union Chief Stonewalls

May 21, 2013 | Jeffrey Lord

Obama and the IRS: The Smoking Gun?

May 20, 2013 | Jeffrey Lord

Not Ready for Primetime Players

May 17, 2013 | Daniel J. Flynn

The Liberal Union Behind the IRS

May 16, 2013 | Jeffrey Lord

http://spectator.org/archives/2013/03/04/will-the-sequester-reduce-econ

ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Headlines

The Inoperative Jay Carney

Jeffrey Lord

Lerner’s Plea

Ray V. Hartwell, III

Eugenic Abortion 2.0

Daniel Allott|1 comment

Holding AWOL Obama Accountable

Betsy McCaughey

What Are the Risks of Syria Involvement?

Christopher Orlet

Obama’s Imbroglios

R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.

Obama’s Drone War

Jed Babbin

Catholic Culture In America

G. Tracy Mehan, III

The Spectacle Blog

Issa Recovers

Ross Kaminsky | 5.22.13

The Religion of Peace Strikes London Again

Aaron Goldstein | 5.22.13

Not Just the Media: First Amendment Under Attack

Quin Hillyer | 5.22.13

House Judiciary: Constitutional Rights Vital in Wartime

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 5.22.13

U.S. Admits 4 Americans Killed by Drones

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 5.22.13

Colorado Governor Gives “Reprieve” to Murderer

Ross Kaminsky | 5.22.13

Steven Crowder: Jesus vs. Muhammad

Ross Kaminsky | 5.22.13

Kaminsky’s Corollary to I, Pencil

Ross Kaminsky | 5.22.13

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.