Yes and no. There were… interruptions, at least, which caused some deep pain to the Treasury. We seem to be past that for the moment, which is good. However, the worldwide economic situation is uncertain, which is bad. Then again, foreign instability favors us, which is good again.
Worse yet, you can talk to about fifty real economists who can give you all kinds of numbers, none of which have much more meaning than what I just wrote. :smack:
But here’s the problem. If our debt was lower I would be much more lax about peple trying a Keynesian tactic to borrow, even if I didn’t think it likely to do any good. But Keynesian responses have not been very effective historically, hence my deep opposition to the useless stimulus, whose proponents’ own overly-generous measurements say it failed. Yes, we can borrow cheap now. But we’ve got apunishing level of debt already, and we’re not particularly using that money for anything of great long-term value that I can see. Worse yet, what happens a few years down the line when (hopefully) interests rates rise?
You also have to consider the outcome, however. Does NPR really do particular amounts of good which the private sector can’t match? I say no. I don’t care that it exists, but why does it need public backing? Frankly, it pretty narrowly serves a certain arket, same as any other radio station. I even like some of its programs, though I don’t listen to much radio. It is not much of a public good, however.
As for Education… well,
However, when you start comparing programs, consider the outcomes. Education dept failed, period. No matter what we spend through it, education outcomes are not affected. For decades upon decades, we’ve been trying program after expensive program.
It doesn’t work. If anything, it’s harmful. Yet we still keep ponying up the money. This is why I favor a minimal national test (or reasonably equivalent state/local tests), some general grants, and sending the fine folks at the Ed off to other purposes. I believe they believe and work hard. But they are not successful.
On the other hand, the Pentagon is damn good at what it’s put to - which include the political objectives of the nation as expressed through the person of Republican presidents, Democrat presidents, and Congressmen. It works, and while I could tell you a tale or fifty about how I’d reform it (don’t get me started on military appropriations and procurement, systems which seem designed for bad outcomes), it’s not relevant. We need it in the long, and probably the short. Every time the nation has gotten rid of its military, it has come back to bite us with heavy casualties down the line. On the other hand, reasonably aggressive use of a highly skilled and well-armed pro military has reduced worldwide conflict to a manageable level and promotes worthwhile American interests.
So a 38B dollar cut is a start. It is, as of yet, more symbolic than actual. But the fact that people are mnow talking about how big the cuts are is a good start.