Andrew T Trembley

Here's the thing. All the money borrowed eventually, theoretically, has to be paid back - and interest has to be paid while it's out. So, if you're going to borrow the money, you need to use it in places that will generate positive returns. Preferably, you need to use it on things that generate positive returns that are one-time charges (aka capital expenditures). You need to NOT use it on things that don't generate positive returns. And you REALLY need to not use it on programs that don't generate positive returns, but that also have continuing, multi-year (or endless) draws. Because the deficit spending is a one-time infusion of funds. As such, it needs to be spent in a one-time manner. Educational grants? Building stuff? That's all one-time. Infrastructure is really good, because it's (a) a one-time expense, and (b) something that improves productivity, increasing overall systemic returns.

I'm not saying that's not sound economics. It's grade-a textbook theory with a boatload of evidence to bolster it.

But that doesn't matter.

Do you honestly believe if you took the microphone at a tea party protest and proposed a strong and detailed plan that involved a great deal of deficit spending that the crowd would believe in it? Do you honestly believe that it would be received as anything other than a big-government tax-and-spend initiative?

I don't see that. I see in response a barrage of boos and rotten tomatoes.