So it seems, if you take Paul Krugman’s word for it.
To wit:
“A second step would be to accelerate the flow of government spending into the economy. One of the lessons of the Asian crisis, declared the I.M.F.'s Stanley Fischer, was that “Keynesianism is alive and well” — increased government spending does help the economy. And the additional spending that will take place as a result of the attack — $45 billion approved so far, much more to come — will eventually give our own economy a significant lift.”
“…Let’s get the government spending underway, please.”
“it’s very important not to respond to the economy’s weakness with a so-called stimulus package that locks in another round of permanent tax cuts.”
“As Mr. Greenspan pointed out, one risk to the economy is that a worsening long-run budget prospect will drive up long-term interest rates; that’s the last thing we need.”
Here’s a hint, Mr. Krugman-- indirect stimulative effects aside, a 1 dollar tax cut reduces the surplus by: 1 dollar.
A 1 dollar increase in spending reduces the surplus by <surprise>, 1 dollar.
Here’s another hint, Krugman: I defy you to show me any friggin’ positive correlation between interest rates and deficits in the last 40 years. If anything, the correlation has been negative. Low deficits tends to coincide with high interest rates.
Here’s another hint, Krugman: when it comes to determining LONG TERM interest rates, expectations of federal deficits are as nothing next to inflationary expectations. And our times of greatest inflation have historically coincided with Keynesian policies.
<<But in terms of immediate action, it may be more important that the money already in the pipeline be spent quickly than that it be spent well.>>
<rolling eyes>
Ok, how about we start with YOUR money, Krugman?