What about states and municipalities
Reader comment on: Krugman on Spending
Submitted by ben (United States), Oct 11, 2010 14:04
Krugman's point was not that the federal government did not expand, but that overall government spending did not expand. Washington picked up the spending that had been previously made by city and state government. Perhaps his numbers are false, but I think you misunderstood his argument.
Note: Comments are moderated by the editor and are subject to editing.
The Future of Capitalism replies:
The column seems to me to deal mainly with federal — the word "Obama" appears five times. I think if you look at the 10-year time frame I am talking about, state and local spending has grown, too. And while balanced budget rules mean state and local govts have done more cutting back than federal govt. has over past two years or so, a lot of the "stimulus" has also been passed through. Here is a chart that shows it
Other reader comments on this item
|This is silly [164 words]||Alex||Nov 7, 2010 01:13|
|whats krugman smoking [17 words]||lenzner||Oct 11, 2010 19:16|
|⇒ What about states and municipalities|
[w/response] [46 words]
|ben||Oct 11, 2010 14:04|
Comment on this item