And offsetting spending cuts provides no safety valve.

Nor is Romney s promise to enact immediate cuts in federal discretionary spending by an additional 5 likely to boost job growth, as he asserts. When an economy is suffering from high unemployment and weak aggregate demand, spending cuts are contractionary.

So, in Bush's eyes, tax cuts reduce the federal deficit.

Nor is Romney s promise to enact immediate cuts in federal discretionary spending by an additional 5 likely to boost job growth, as he asserts.

Fiscal policy should ideally focus on tax cuts and infrastructure spending.

In places like rural El Paso County, on the eastern plains of Colorado, far from the federal budget debate s epicenter, spending cuts are the order of the day.

Unfortunately for the Tories, neither case for stimulative spending cuts fits Britain s predicament today.

All of the spending cuts come from the discretionary part of the federal budget, which excludes Social Security, Medicare, the Medicaid program for the poor, and interest on the national debt.

By holding out, Republicans wish to force President Barack Obama s administration into massive spending cuts.

Little did they appreciate that American voters, having never actually supported spending cuts, would resist.

These Conservatives also pressed for sharp cuts in government spending that would hurt the poor.

Overall spending is still dwarfed by US federal research and development spending, which will total 137 billion in the 2007 fiscal year.

Cuts in European defense spending, moreover, are starting to cause serious tensions within the Atlantic Alliance.

Ronald Reagan also came to office promising massive tax cuts and large increases in military spending.

When an economy is suffering from high unemployment and weak aggregate demand, spending cuts are contractionary.

Only then should the Government pledge a responsible path of budget spending, but not extreme cuts.

Some argue that the choice between spending money on carbon cuts and on direct policies is unfair.

So, even as economic conservatives demand spending cuts, there are strong forces pushing in the other direction.

There is a long history of legislating such spending cuts, only to reverse them in subsequent years.

Today, the right wants tax cuts and the left, now reconstituting itself, may push for higher spending.

So, the argument goes, a courageous Tory government that cuts spending today spares citizens that future pain.

The third and most damaging flaw, however, is that the spending cuts come in the wrong places.

Third, the fiscal cliff would amount to a 4.5 of GDP drag on growth in 2013 if all tax cuts and transfer payments were allowed to expire and draconian spending cuts were triggered. Of course, the drag will be much smaller, as tax increases and spending cuts will be much milder.

Thus, they appear unable to explain their new rationale for the spending cuts that they are now announcing.

Of course, the drag will be much smaller, as tax increases and spending cuts will be much milder.

Romney acknowledges that large spending cuts, along with the scheduled expiration of tax cuts at the end of this year, could throw the economy back into recession in 2013.

Then along came President George Bush Jr. to replay Reagan large tax cuts, a big increase in military spending, and continuation or even expansion of popular spending programs.

These areas account for less than 8 of federal spending, and their share has been declining steadily.

A battle between the president and legislature over control of federal spending has not been fully resolved.

To pay back the debt without strain, we need a booming economy. Talk of government spending cuts is premature.

They expected tax cuts to be followed by a fangs bared attack on social welfare spending once deficits reemerged.

Meanwhile, cuts in social and welfare spending are only making things worse, as employment and consumer demand fall further.

Meanwhile, faced with a large federal budget deficit, many American voters would welcome reduced spending on nuclear weapons.

Indeed, the Obama administration and the Federal Reserve are doing all they can to pump up US spending.

If not reversed, it will cause further cuts in production, employment, and earnings, leading to further reductions in consumer spending.

McCain s solution seems to be more of Bush s policies tax cuts for the rich plus promises to curb public spending.

Any semblance of fiscal prudence would go out the window, with cuts in health, welfare, and education spending being reversed.

Moreover, Republicans belief that only tax cuts, not public spending, will delivery recovery is a sad example of blinkered ideology.

Never mind that Cavallo promised a zero deficit policy, spending only what the government took in. Budget cuts reduced demand and output, which caused revenue to collapse, making additional budget cuts inevitable.

In 1985, the US Congress passed the Gramm Rudman Act, which provided for automatic spending cuts in the case of deficits.

When weak aggregate demand causes the economy to operate far below its potential, cuts in government spending enlarge the jobs deficit.

Others believe that deficits will force major cuts in domestic government spending, thus shrinking the state, which is their heart's desire.

Others believe that deficits will force major cuts in domestic government spending, thus shrinking the state, which is their heart's desire.

The problem with this latter view is that most taxpayers like domestic programs, and will not readily support major spending cuts.

Third, the fiscal cliff would amount to a 4.5 of GDP drag on growth in 2013 if all tax cuts and transfer payments were allowed to expire and draconian spending cuts were triggered.