Reuters — White House to offer balanced budget plan by mid-May: Mulvaney

A detailed version of President Donald Trump's budget to be released in May will lay out plans to eventually erase U.S. deficits, White House budget director Mick Mulvaney said on Sunday.

"We're getting into that now. By May, I think it's mid-May we're shooting for right now, we'll have that larger budget..." Mulvaney said on NBC's "Meet the Press" program.

Mulvaney acknowledged that the budget would not be balanced in the upcoming 2018 fiscal year but said the administration wants to put the country on a path toward eventually wiping out annual deficits.... 

Reuters
White House to offer balanced budget plan by mid-May: Mulvaney

Kasich balanced the budget. So what?

It's one thing for politicians to talk about turning around their state or municipality's finances, it's another to explain how they did it. If they turned deficits into surpluses by doing so on the backs of workers and the poor that is, frankly, not something to brag about.

So I am speaking about John Kasich, here, the state of Ohio's governor since 2011. In last night's debate Kasich, an arch conservative, bragged about how he brought his state from an $8 billion hole to a $2 billion surplus since he has been Governor.

First of all  it was never in an $8 billion hole. Second of all you should not brag about putting your state in surplus if you end up putting the people of your state into deficit. Ohio's labor participation rate is the worst in 40 years and it has been declining under Kasich. So, while some have gotten jobs (as he claims) many more have just given up.

Furthermore, did Kasich tell us how he turned  around the state's finances? Was it done by raising taxes on the rich and growing the economy faster than the national economy? Did he educate and train the state's workers so that they were more productive and innovative than the rest of the nation?

Well, check it out.

Kasich did it the old fashioned way: by cutting spending and raising taxes on workers and the poor and giving tax cuts to the wealthy.

The bottom line is, don't brag about surpluses just for the sake of surpluses. If residents are left with less, how does that help?

John T. Harvey — Why We Cannot Afford The Republican Budget

Early this morning, the Senate approved a Republican-authored budget that features deep cuts in spending, no new taxes, and hopes of a balanced budget within the next decade. However, not only could their plan never achieve what they hope, it would be an absolute economic catastrophe. Let’s hope it never sees the light of day. 

The level of ignorance regarding federal government budgeting is horrifying. I don’t just mean among lay people or the general public, but right up the both houses of Congress and the White House-–you know, the people who actually make the decisions. Nor is it limited to one party. While the Republicans have been far more rabid about it, the 

Democrats, too, are anxious to see the day when the budget deficit is not only smaller, but eliminated entirely. Best of all, they say, we might even reach the point of having surpluses that can cut into our massive national debt. While they may prioritize these goals differently, it appears that just about every single politician in Washington shares these sentiments. 

God help us.....

Taking the moron fest to task.

Forbes — Pragmatic Economics
Why We Cannot Afford The Republican Budget
John T. Harvey | Professor of Economics, Texas Christian University

Statement of Mark Blyth Before the Committee on the Budget United States Senate Hearing on “The Benefits of a Balanced Budget”

Video

Statement of Mark Blyth Professor of Political Economy
Brown University Before the Committee on the Budget
United States Senate Hearing on “The Benefits of a Balanced Budget”
March 11th 2015


Transcript (PDF)

Statement of Mark Blyth
Eastman Professor of Political Economy
The Watson Institute for International Studies and Brown University
Before the Committee on the Budget
United States Senate
Hearing on “The Benefits of a Balanced Budget”
March 11th 2015

ht Jan Milch

Monday: the Debt Ceiling is back on.

Well, the time is here. We've finally arrived. I've been talking about this since the midterm elections last November. Congress has to do something aobut the debt ceiling because as of Monday, the government is operating under this hard constraint.

Jack Lew at Treasury can jiggle things for a while, but the debt ceiling will have to be raised or kept in a state of suspension or else the government goes to "balance budget" mode of operation. And if that happens the economy and stock market (and possibly the dollar) will take a nosedive.

Are you prepared for this? Are your investments prepared? Are you ready to trade the currency markets and make some money off of this?

One day left to sign up for my course. It's all next week, March 16-20.

Click below to enroll.

Matias Vernengo — "The Question of Confidence" According to Marriner Eccles

Great quote from Marinner Eccles. It's a keeper.

Naked Keynesianism
"The Question of Confidence" According to Marriner Eccles
Matias Vernengo | Associate Professor of Economics, Bucknell University

John T. Harvey — Why Balancing The Budget Means Economic Catastrophe

... there are many–among both policy makers and the general public–who are convinced that one of our short-term priorities must be reducing government spending.... 

This is nothing short of insanity. There is absolutely no question that moves to try to balance the budget will meet with the same success as they did in 1937, when they served to raise unemployment from 14% to 19%. I have already written on this topic many times and so will limit myself to making only three points today:

Forbes — Pragmatic Economics
Why Balancing The Budget Means Economic Catastrophe
John T. Harvey | Professor of Economics, Texas Christian University

Peter Martin — How to Balance the Government Budget

Government Deficit = Savings of the Private Domestic Sector + External Deficit
.... 

So, if government, in its wisdom (or folly?), does decide the deficit does need to be cut in a recessionary period, it should forget about spending cuts and tax rises. What needs to happen is for saving to be discouraged and, of course, having interest rates very low helps do that. Then imports have to be cut and/or exports increased as well. Of course that’s very difficult to do in a free society where individuals wish to purchase goods and services from anywhere in the world. However, if neo-liberals argue that it this is impossible they must also necessarily concede that running a government surplus is sometimes impossible too.

Of course, cutting savings is anathema to neoliberals because savings = financial wealth and they believe that saving causes investment.

Cutting the trade deficit could be done by making imports more expensive either through currency devaluation, but that results in inflation, which they hate, or by imposing tariffs, which violates free trade, a cardinal principle of neoliberalism.

As far as low rates discouraging saving in recession, the evidence doesn't bear that out since liquidity preference increases with economic uncertainty and liquidity preference determines the ratio of saving and investment.

So to be true to principle, neoliberals have to advocate fiscal austerity, which results in larger deficits due to automatic stabilization. The neoliberal answers, again true to principle — reduce or eliminate the automatic stabilizers that increase non-discretionary spending and add to the deficit.

And they don't understand stock-flow consistency anyway and not only think it's possible to have all three sectors in surplus simultaneously but also set this as the goal.

So the neoliberal formula is to increase domestic private savings to drive investment, run a balanced budget or even a fiscal surplus for fiscal responsibility, and run an export economy in emulation of "strong" economies like Germany and America as it used to be.

It's no wonder that the neoliberal countries are economically stagnant.

Modern Monetary Theory: Real Economics

How to Balance the Government Budget

Peter Martin

Stephanie Kelton — How to Talk About Debt and Deficits: Don’t Think of an Elephant*

Many economists (perhaps even those who agree with us) refuse to talk about the national debt and government deficits the way we do on this blog. Instead of boldly challenging the assertion that the U.S. faces a long-run debt (or deficit) problem, headline progressives typically do what Jared Bernstein did in his column today — i.e. they pay “obligatory” tribute to the Balanced Budget Gods, thereby reinforcing the case for austerity at some point in the not-so-distant future when we will be forced to to deal with this very bad thing called the government deficit. Followers of my work here and on Twitter know that I refuse to pay homage to the Balanced Budget Gods. Instead, I prefer to shift the burden of proof onto those who contend that the U.S. faces a long-term debt or deficit problem....

Charles Hayden: "God Bless our Warrior-Queen."

Amen to that.

New Economic Perspective
How to Talk About Debt and Deficits: Don’t Think of an Elephant*
Stephanie Kelton | Associate Professor of Economic and Department Chair, University of Missouri at Kansas City

John T. Harvey — Five Things The Shutdown Taught Us About Trying To Balance The Budget

The government just underwent a reduction in spending for sixteen days. What did we learn about how that affects the economy?

Forbes
Five Things The Shutdown Taught Us About Trying To Balance The Budget
John T. Harvey | Professor of Economics, Texas Christian University

Michael Stephens — What Happens if We Don’t Raise the Debt Ceiling? A Stock-Flow Analysis

What would that kind of radical austerity do to the economy? Michalis Nikiforos uses the Levy Institute’s macroeconomic model to estimate the effects of beginning rapid fiscal consolidation in the last quarter of this year and maintaining a balanced budget through the rest of the 2014 fiscal year (which is to say, through 2014Q3).

Multiplier Effect
What Happens if We Don’t Raise the Debt Ceiling? A Stock-Flow Analysis
Michael Stephens

Warren Mosler paints a dismal picture

So given our current institutional structure, the answer is yes, if we balance the budget and leave it that way, the world as we know it is definitely going to end.
(And with a bang, not a whimper.)

And given the policy of going cold turkey to balance probably does ‘sound like a pretty reasonable idea to the American public,’ it’s looking more and more like both sides are setting up to let it happen.

The Center of the Universe

Rand Paul – “Cold Turkey Balanced Budget is a Good Thing”

Worried about the debt ceiling? Republicans aren’t
Warren Mosler

Ii would also say that if this scenario comes to pass it is likely the end of capitalism as we know it, Then it will be obvious that without government kicking in for accumulated saving of net financial assets, capitalism breaks down. Endogenous credit is not sustainable given profit share relative to labor share typical of managerial capitalism.  The alternative is to ban accumulated saving and rentierism and force productive investment, as Keynes realized in calling for the euthanasia of rentierism.

There is a catch to the proposed balance budge proposal, however. Military spending doesn't count. The agenda is to eliminate social spending and government administration, while expanding the military contribution to G. This can always be expanded as needed by fomenting fear and starting wars if necessary. This is the terminal stage of empire historically.

Many in G.O.P. Offer Theory: Default Wouldn’t Be That Bad

Disturbing report from the NYT via CNBC here.

A surprisingly broad section of the Republican Party is convinced that a threat once taken as economic fact may not exist — or at least may not be so serious.

Some question the Treasury's drop-dead deadline of Oct. 17. Some government services might have to be curtailed, they concede. "But I think the real date, candidly, the date that's highly problematic for our nation, is Nov. 1," said Senator Bob Corker, Republican of Tennessee.

Others say there is no deadline at all — that daily tax receipts would be more than enough to pay off Treasury bonds as they come due.

"It really is irresponsible of the president to try to scare the markets," said Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky.

"If you don't raise your debt ceiling, all you're saying is, 'We're going to be balancing our budget.' So if you put it in those terms, all these scary terms of, 'Oh my goodness, the world's going to end' — if we balance the budget, the world's going to end? Why don't we spend what comes in?" "If you propose it that way," he said of not raising the debt limit, "the American public will say that sounds like a pretty reasonable idea."

What these morons do not realize is that a policy of reducing current federal spending flows in a perpetual asynchronous fashion to that amount received in Treasury deposit flows in the previous ex post time period, will reduce non-government sector income in a time period one, which will foment a continuous asynchronous serial degradation in the deposit flows received by the US Treasury in a time period two, which will result in a further reduction in federal spending flows in time period three, which will again degrade the deposit flows received by the US Treasury in time period four, which will result in a further reduction in federal spending flows in time period five .... rinse and repeat in a convergence to zero until there is literally no income and no federal tax receipts in the US economy at all.

These disgraced morons are simply not qualified to hold positions of authority within the federal government.

Erik Wasson — Conservative groups: Balanced budget plan is price for debt hike

The Club for Growth and Heritage Action said that establishing a path to a balanced budget within 10 years will be their demand in the looming fight between congressional Republicans and President Obama.

The Hill
Conservative groups: Balanced budget plan is price for debt hike
Erik Wasson
(h/t Kevin Fathi via email)

I guess conservatives are tired of US global hegemony and want to cede the field to China, or convert US labor to slave labor to "compete."

Ryan Grim — Chained CPI Only Acceptable As Part Of 'Balanced Package,' White House Says

OMG. What's the superlative of moronic?

The president's move makes him the first Democratic president to propose cutting Social Security.

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) responded to the president's offer on Friday by suggesting that if he wants to cut Social Security, he should just go ahead and do it. “If the president believes these modest entitlement savings are needed to help shore up these programs, there is no reason they should be held hostage for more tax hikes. That’s no way to lead and move the country forward," he said in a statement. 

There it is, folks. President Obama has just dropped a bomb on the Democratic Party. It will be interesting to watch the fall out. This is the moment of truth for Democratic politicians.

The president knows exactly what he is doing. This is a direct strike at the left in an effort to solidify the Democratic Party as the moderate Republican Party in the belief that American politics is center right, ending the Democratic coalition built by FDR in an effort to "capture the center."

Will the base roll over again to prevent the take over of the country by right-wing extremists? I would not be putting any money on that bet. There is already a firestorm rising. Obama Budget Proposal Cuts Are 'Unconscionable,' Says AFL-CIO. Make that moronic and unconscionable.

The Huffington Post
Chained CPI Only Acceptable As Part Of 'Balanced Package,' White House Says
Ryan Grim

Lars Syll — There must be discipline in the allocation of resources or you will have anarchistic chaos and inefficiency. And one of the functions of old fashioned religion was to scare people by sometimes what might be regarded as myths into behaving in a way that the long-run civilized life requires

Paul Samuelson: "There must be discipline in the allocation of resources or you will have anarchistic chaos and inefficiency. And one of the functions of old fashioned religion was to scare people by sometimes what might be regarded as myths into behaving in a way that the long-run civilized life requires."

Lars P. Syll's Blog
Paul Samuelson on the necessity of scaring people with the balanced budget myth
Lars P. Syll

This was quoted by Randy Wray in April 2010 in Paul Samuelson On Deficit Myths: Time To Drop That Old-Time Religion. Bears repeating on a regular basis. Same applies to many other economics myths such as those debunked in Steve Keen's Debunking Economics and Warren Mosler's The Seven Deadly Innocent Frauds of Economic Policy.

Warren Mosler — Comments on the Current U.S. Budget Debate (1996)

The assumptions underlying the current budget debate are erroneous. Historical analogies include “the earth is flat” and “the earth is the center of the solar system.” Chicken Little has returned, and the consequences are counter agenda for all parties.

The noble attempt by Congress to balance the budget will result in a weaker economy with a true depression a possibility. Every time there is a drop in the budget deficit, as a percent of GDP, the GDP growth rate drops a few quarters later. It is only after the deficit begins to expand again that the economy recovers. The historical correlation is 100%. Lowering interest rates, in an attempt to boost the economy, is seldom effective. Since the government is a net payer of interest, lower rates reduce spending, thereby increasing fiscal drag.

Governments are monopoly issuers of fiat currency. The incorrect , but prevalent, understanding is that issuers of fiat currency must tax, borrow, or otherwise raise revenue so they can spend it. Taxing and borrowing are considered “funding” operations. Consequently, the discussions revolve around how governments can raise “needed revenue” to fund spending. Revenue shortfalls are of great concern; witness the latest government shutdown.

Contrary to general perception, fiat money is driven by the fact that taxpayers need the government’s money to pay their taxes. By levying a tax, the government creates a need for its fiat currency. It creates this need, presumably, so it can obtain the real goods and services it desires via the spending of its currency.

From inception, the only source of money needed to pay taxes is the issuing government. The government cannot actually collect the tax it has levied, nor borrow any of its fiat currency, until it first spends, or otherwise provides, the funds.

A balanced budget, from inception, is therefore the theoretical minimum that a government can spend. The previous statement represents an accounting identity. If individuals and businesses desire to hold actual cash, that money must be “left over” after taxes are paid. All cash held by the public must be money provided by the government in excess of the need to pay taxes (deficit spending). This is also true for all dollars held by foreign central banks at the Fed. For these, and other structural reasons, the possibility of a balanced budget does not exist, and the current attempt to balance the budget will likely result in severe deflation. When the government does not spend enough to cover the total need for dollars created by taxes, the usual result is a recession and a concurrent shortfall in revenues. A deficit remains. Accounting identities have a way of being satisfied, one way or another.

Likewise, the government can borrow its currency only after it has provided it to the private sector. Government borrowing, therefore, functions to support interest rates, not as a funding operation. Nominal savings is not diminished, nor displaced - it is given a place to earn interest. If the government were to spend more than it subsequently collected in taxes, and did not offer securities for sale, the fed fund rate would immediately fall to 0% bid. Treasury spending is a reserve add. Selling securities, by the Fed or Treasury, is simply a reserve drain, a monetary operation. This underlies the empirical evidence that nations can run any debt ratios they want, in their own fiat currencies, and still “fund the debt.”

For all practical purposes, there is no such thing as a balanced budget. Singapore, for example, shows a budget surplus, but that does not include all government spending in excess of collected taxes. The central bank spends Singapore dollars to buy foreign currencies. This “off balance sheet” spending brings the consolidated spending to about 2% higher than collected taxes. The same happens in Czechoslovakia - fiscal policy is tight enough that the only way to get enough local currency to pay taxes is selling foreign currencies to the central bank. When the central bank makes the taxpayers “beg”, as evidenced by currency appreciation, the economy gets softer (Japan is another good example).

Consider inflation. Because the taxpayers need the government’s money, the government is able to define its currency by what it pays for goods and services. By changing what it pays, the government redefines its currency. Currently, the government fights inflation by maintaining an economy weak enough for the private sector to be under pressure to sell goods and services. This selling pressure keeps prices from rising.

How large a deficit is prudent? Let the market decide! This option has not even been considered. For example, the government could offer a job to anyone who wanted one, at some minimum rate of pay deemed appropriate, and let the deficit float. This would end unemployment and unemployment compensation, eliminate the need for minimum wage laws, and promote price stability. Employment (rather than unemployment) would define the currency and become the stabilizer. The price of labor would be stable. Private sector wages would be related to the benchmark of government employment. If the government labor force were larger than needed by the government, taxes could be lowered. This would result in fewer government workers and reduced government spending as the private sector hired these workers.

The Fed sets short term rates. Congress has ultimate control over the Fed. Short term rates go up because the Fed, and ultimately Congress, wants them to - not because of market forces. These rates are not determined by market forces. Treasury securities are not necessary unless the government wishes to support higher long term rates. Short term rates could be maintained simply by paying interest on excess reserves held at the Fed.

The Federal debt is all the money spent but not taxed. It was borrowed after it was spent, so the holders of the money might earn interest. The government pays interest, voluntarily, depending on how much it wants savers to be able to earn. Have you ever heard an owner of government securities say, “I wish the government would stop selling securities so I can get my money back!”?

The current budget debate is based on erroneous assumptions. Washington does not understand fiat money. Until it does, efforts to reduce the deficit will continue, and the economy will continue to underperform.

EPIC | A Coalition of Economic Policy Institutions
Comments on the Current U.S. Budget Debate
Warren B. Mosler
 January 1996
(h/t Charles Hayden of MMT DALLAS DEFICIT OWL COMMITTEE, via Facebook)

Right sixteen years ago, and right now.

Columbia U Restricting Public Access to William Vickrey Articles [that should be in the Public Domain]

JSTOR, Springer Verlag & Columbia U all want $10-$40 each, to read ~20 year old William Vickrey articles.

See this list at http://findingaids.cul.columbia.edu/ead/nnc-rb/ldpd_5455879/dsc/3/

Does anyone have links to existing copies of these articles?

It's a complete travesty. How are we supposed to have an "informed electorate" when basic information is subject to this kind of gate keeping?

This problem is biblical in scope, and reminscent of the Prodigal Son story, rephrased as the PARABLE OF THE PRODIGAL INSIGHTS.   In that parable, all of our best minds labor in public service.  Yet when they go away and leave their insights to us, do we distribute those insights far and wide, as fast as possible - so that they can be put to work for the general welfare of the public? NO! We let some idiots lock them up and charge a fee to anyone wanting to access publicly owned knowledge. @#$%^&!  Talk about a cruel, pious fraud!*

It's no surprise that there are so many gold-bugs and Deficit Terrorists in a supposedly educated, 21st Century USA, when such useful information as Vickrey's many essays are so thoroughly banned from public access!

Every highschool kid in the USA - nay, every single voter - should have free & timely access to this and similar papers. They should all be in Wikipedia or similar archives.

Is Columbia University purposely going out of it's way to limit or deny public access to these articles? Does this constitute racketeering between CU and publishers such as JSTOR and Springer-Verlag?  Personally, I think they should all be brought up on charges of High Treason against the USA, for preventing distribution of insights and arguments which would obviously alter public policy.

I called the Columbia U Rare Book Library, and was offered the alternative of having a copy of each paper copied "for my personal use only" for the price of ... get this ... $50 for the first (30?) pages, and $12 for each (10?) pages after that.

Aside from the price, it was the "personal use only" claim that stood out to me.

Was William Vickrey's research funded by US Government grants? Is it a gross perversion of public purpose to purposely shield and otherwise limit a Nobel prize winning economist's published work from public access?

If you feel the same, please register your suggestions with the Columbia U rare book library. http://findingaids.cul.columbia.edu/contact/nnc-rb

ps: Specific articles I'd like to be able to read, at will, whenever needed, are as follows.

All That Anguish Over a Phony Number, letter to editor, 12 Dec. 1995
(which editor, at which journal or news outlet?)

Averting Unemployment and Inflation in Transition to Market Economy, paper, 1992

Balanced Budget is Not the Answer, paper, 2 June 1992

Balancing the Budget is a Recipe for Economic Disaster, paper, Feb-May 1995

* Budget Balancing: A Cruel, Pious Fraud, letter to editor, undated

Chock-full Employment without Increased Inflation, paper, Jan. 1991
[For presentation at session entitled "Achieving High Employment without Inflation", New Orleans, 4 Jan. 1991.]

Debt Limits Throttle the Economy, essay, 14 Nov. 1995

Debts, Deficits, and Delusions, paper, 14 Dec. 1990

Effective Fiscal Policy, paper, 23 May 1993

Fifteen Fatal Fallacies of Financial Fundamentalism, paper, 7 Sept. 1995
(note that this one escaped the censors somehow, and is online; http://www.columbia.edu/dlc/wp/econ/vickrey.html)
(Note further: in another ironic twist, I called the CU Economics dept, which displays this page; they had forgotten about it, and said that if anyone knew, they'd probably take it down. So please, copy the text and archive it yourself, while you can.)

 (Meanwhile, the PNAS version is sometimes available here for free.)


A Growing Debt is a Necessity, not a Threat, letter to the editor, 31 May 1995

[Response to letter by Congressman Mark W. Neumann, 24 May 1995.]
(which editor, at which newspaper?)

How Big a "Deficit" Do We Need?, essay, 28 June 1993

How to Get Real Full Employment (Jobs for All), paper, 8 Aug. 1996

Letter to Senator, 1 June 1993
[Discusses government deficit.] (Which Senator?)

Necessary and Optimum Government Debt, paper, March-April 1993
[Discusses optimum government normal economy without capital but with money.]
(only a tease available, here; a very few used print copies at Amzon aren't so expensive, but copyright prevents quick and wide distribution of an electronic copy - go figure!)

Social Pathologies, Unemployment, and the Fatal Obsession with Debt Reduction and Other Fallacies, paper, 14 July 1994

Three Degrees of Separation between Budgets and Reality, paper, 9 March 1996

We Need a Bigger Deficit, paper, Aug-Sept. 1993

Why Balance the Budget?, article, 1959-1960 [Published in Challenge Magazine]

The Balanced Budget: DEFENSE AGAINST INFLATION?

 Challenge, Vol. 8, No. 7 (APRIL, 1960)



This tribute to Vickrey by Rick Arnott mentions Vickrey's use in 1986 of the familiar economic sector equation,
C + S + T = C + I + G , or D[eficit] = G − T = S − I,
and his opposition to a balanced budget amendment.

Finally, yet another review asks of Macroeconomics: Was Vickrey Ten Years Ahead?  David Colander  Challenge, Vol. 41, No. 5 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER 1998)

  (again, $30 from JSTOR)

Fiat Budgets are Extensions of Politics by Other Means

commentary by Roger Erickson

Tea party founder Michael Johns nailed things honestly back in 1997, when he spoke and published at Warren Mosler's Epic Coalition consortium.

"... the balanced-budget debate, rather than seeking the advancement of any specific macroeconomic goal is more a convenient means by advocates for accomplishing other political objectives that otherwise might be less sellable"

That text was published in several places, back in 1996, and recently reposted.

http://www.worldandihomeschool.com/public_articles/1996/april/wis14111.asp

http://www.epicoalition.org/docs/bbnta.html

http://moslereconomics.com/2012/09/06/1996-washington-post-article/


And was even discussed in Turkish (crude translation here)
http://dergi.sayistay.gov.tr/icerik/der50m5.pdf

So far, I haven't found a link to a copy supposedly re-posted to the Washington Post in 1996.


See also, "Balanced budget legislation or bad budget legislation? John Loxley http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-17891126.html


In addition, note several articles positing the same theme, by William Vickrey, plus much more, at the Columbia University Archives.

13 199 Balanced Budget is Not the Answer, Paper, 2 June 1992

13 200 Balancing the Budget is a Recipe for Economic Disaster, Paper, Feb-May 1995

13 201 Budget Balancing: A Cruel, Pious Fraud, letter to editor, undated

David Dayen — The Problem With the Clinton Budget Surpluses

FDL picks up on Joe Weisenthal and Stephanie Kelton, too.

FireDogLake
The Problem With the Clinton Budget Surpluses
David Dayen
(h/t Kevin Fathi via email)